Tag: University of Nottingham

  • Terry Moore wins international navigation award from IAIN

    Terry Moore wins international navigation award from IAIN

    Terry Moore is the first British academic to take home the John Harrison Award for outstanding contributions to navigation.

    Terry Moore
    Terry Moore

    Terry Moore, a positioning and navigation expert at the University of Nottingham and longtime GPS World Editorial Advisory Board member and author, has become the first British academic to win a prestigious international award in the field.

    Terry Moore is an Emeritus Professor and former director of the Nottingham Geospatial Institute at the University’s Faculty of Engineering.

    The International Association of Institutes of Navigation (IAIN) awarded Moore with its John Harrison Award for outstanding contributions to navigation. The award ceremony took place during a special session of the Navigation 2021 Conference in Edinburgh, which took place Nov. 16-18.

    HRH The Princess Royal (Princess Anne) attended via Zoom to present the award, and had a one-to-one conversation with Professor Moore.

    The John Harrison award is a premier global award in the navigation field and Professor Moore is its first British winner.

    “It’s a great honor to be recognized by the global navigation community, and I feel quite humbled,” Moore said. “John Harrison was a simple country carpenter in the 18th century who solved the major problem of measuring longitude at sea, through his remarkable marine chronometers. Despite his genius, he struggled for acceptance by the scientific establishment, and it took many years until he received the recognition (and financial reward) he deserved. It is sad that over 200 years later we are still fighting for improved equality, diversity and inclusion throughout scientific disciplines. I am absolutely delighted to receive the award in his name.”

    A professor of satellite navigation for 20 years at the university, Moore’s association with Nottingham goes back to his undergraduate degree starting in 1979. During his distinguished career, all of it spent at Nottingham, he has taken a leading role in national and European initiatives aimed at integrating academic research and teaching activities in GNSS. He has also interacted closely with industry throughout that time.

    He was the founding director of GRACE — the GNSS Research and Applications Centre of Excellence — which was jointly funded by the University and the East Midlands Development Agency and has now been extended to cover all geospatial applications as the Geospatial Research and Applications Centre of Excellence.

    Moore has overseen numerous research projects funded by industry, research councils, the European Space Agency and the European Commission, and has supervised almost 40 successful PhD students.

    He is a Chartered Engineer, a Fellow and the Immediate Past President of the Royal Institute of Navigation (RIN) and also a Fellow and a Member of Council of the Institute of Navigation (ION) in the United States. He was recently elected as the Chair of the European Group of Institutes of Navigation (EUGIN), and is an Honorary Member of IAIN. In 2013 he was awarded the RIN Harold Spencer-Jones Gold Medal. He received RIN’s J E D Williams Medal and the ION Johannes Kepler Award, both in 2017.

    Professor Moore is a member of the U.S. National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) Advisory Board and is a Member of the European Space Agency (ESA) GNSS Science Advisory Committee. He was an expert contributing to the UK Government Blackett Review on GNSS Vulnerability and has worked extensively on the UK’s PNT Strategy.

    He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, and an Associate Fellow of the Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society, and is a Member of the Editorial Advisory Council of The Journal of Navigation.

    “Many congratulations to Terry on this outstanding achievement,” said Stuart Marsh, director of the NGI. “It is fantastic to see our former director, who has spent so many years of his career in our faculty, serving in many different capacities, receive such a high honor.”

  • Survey accuracy: The future of precision with 5 GNSS constellations

    Survey accuracy: The future of precision with 5 GNSS constellations

    Mountainous areas present special problems for surveyors, overcome by the expanded availability of multi-GNSS. (Photo: Trimble)
    Mountainous areas present special problems for surveyors, overcome by the expanded availability of multi-GNSS. (Photo: Trimble)

    Today’s GNSS satellites transmit on three or more carrier frequencies. The quality of the data in these signals from GPS, BeiDou, Galileo, GLONASS and QZSS reveals the expected measurement precisions. This article explores the noise of the range residual and ionospheric residual to indicate the oncoming capabilities.

    Today, four GNSSs transmit various codes on various carrier frequencies: the USA’s GPS, Russia’s GLONASS, Europe’s Galileo and China’s BeiDou. Most of the carrier phase and pseudorange data are available using civilian GNSS receivers. Improvements in signal quality as well as reliability of the satellites are foreseen through the generations, as well as the introduction of new signals, such as L1C, L2C, L5 carrier and codes, and M-codes, on top of the existing L1-C/A code and the P(Y) code on both L1 and L2. Improvements are also seen in boosting the transmitting power.

    This article investigates the use of two approaches to analyze the relative noise in the various carrier phase and pseudorange observable for GPS, BeiDou, Galileo, GLONASS and Japan’s Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) augmentation. Two approaches analyze the relative noise in the observables: the range residual and the ionospheric residual. Both techniques can also be used to detect cycle slips.

    Range Residual

    UAV survey operations benefit from multi-GNSS receivers. (Photo: Septentrio)
    UAV survey operations benefit from multi-GNSS receivers. (Photo: Septentrio)

    The range residual is simply the change from one epoch to the next in the difference in the range calculated using the pseudorange and the range calculated by the carrier phase on a specific frequency. The pseudorange values are scaled using the wavelength to an equivalent range in units of the carrier’s cycles rather than meters. Equation 1 illustrates the range residual between the pseudorange ρ on a specific carrier frequency and the carrier phase observable φ, using the wavelength λ of the carrier to scale the pseudorange. The values of these observables are compared between adjacent epochs.

    RR = (p/λ) – φ       (1)

    Two adjacent epochs are used, as then the integer ambiguity value, as well as the ionospheric and tropospheric errors, and satellite and receiver clock errors are the same, or negligibly different at such small (<1 s) epoch intervals. Therefore, these are all canceled out, and the resulting value is the measurement receiver and observable noise. The pseudorange observable will be significantly noisier than the carrier phase observable, therefore this method is a good way to calculate the measurement noise for the pseudoranges.

    Ionospheric Residual

    Surveyors work the Berezitovy mine in the North Amur region of Russia. (Photo: Javad GNSS)
    Surveyors work the Berezitovy mine in the North Amur region of Russia. (Photo: Javad GNSS)

    If the carrier waves traveled only through a vacuum, then a phase observation from a specific satellite to a specific GNSS receiver could be scaled and converted to an equivalent phase measurement on another frequency using the frequencies of the carrier waves. However, as the signal passes through the ionosphere, systematic errors that are frequency dependent are introduced, so it is not possible to directly convert from one carrier phase value to another for a specific range measurement. The error is known as the ionospheric residual, and this will change slowly over time as the satellite passes overhead and the ionosphere being passed through changes, and also as the ionosphere slowly changes its characteristics over time, mainly due to the sun’s activities.

    Equation 2 shows the calculation, using L1 and L2 carrier phase readings and corresponding frequencies, used to calculate the ionospheric residual. Again, the difference in the ionospheric residual values between adjacent epochs is used, as in the same way as the range residual values, external noise sources are eliminated.

    Image: Authors        (2)

    Results

    The results presented here are a subset of a much larger set. Figure 1 illustrates the range residuals for L1 and L2 as well as the L1L2 ionospheric residual for PRN32 (Block IIA satellite).

    Figure 1. L1 range residual (left) L2 range residual (center) and L1L2 ionospheric residual (right) for GPS PRN32 (Block IIA) satellite. (Charts: Authors)
    Figure 1. L1 range residual (left) L2 range residual (center) and L1L2 ionospheric residual (right) for GPS PRN32 (Block IIA) satellite. (Charts: Authors)

    Figure 2 illustrates the L1 and L5 range residuals and the L2 (C-code) L5 ionospheric residual for PRN01 (Block IIF satellite).Both figures’ data are for the complete passing of the satellites from horizon over and back down again.The data for PRN32 is all that exists in the datafile, as this satellite only transmits L1 CA code and P(Y) code, as well as L2 P(Y) code, and corresponding carrier values.

    Figure 2. L1 range residual (left) L5 range residual (center) and L2 (C code) L5 ionospheric residual (right) for GPS PRN01 (Block IIF) satellite. (Charts: Authors)
    Figure 2. L1 range residual (left) L5 range residual (center) and L2 (C code) L5 ionospheric residual (right) for GPS PRN01 (Block IIF) satellite. (Charts: Authors)

    PRN01 is a block IIF satellite, and data for L1 CA code, L2 P(Y) code as well as L2 C-code, L5 code, and corresponding carrier phase values are recorded in the datafile.The block IIF satellites can result in four range residual values and five ionospheric residual combinations.Figure 2 only illustrates three of these combinations.The data were obtained from the Curtin University GNSS repository on Sept. 1, 2015, gathered at a 1-Hz epoch interval; 29,908 epoch of data were gathered for PRN32, and 26,073 epochs for PRN01.

    It can be seen from these figures that the L1 range residuals are similar in characteristics for both PRN01 and PRN32.The values are noisy at the start and the end of the time series, indicating that the CA code is more prone to noise at low elevations.Comparing these to the L2 (PRN32) and L5 (PRN01) range residuals, we can see that both the L2 and L5 range residuals are not as prone to low elevation noise. Also, the two L2 and L5 range residuals are visually similar in characteristcs.By comparing the L1L2 and L2L5 ionospheric residuals (Figure 1, right, and Figure 2, right), we can see that the L1L2 combination is slightly noisier than the L2L5, in particular at low elevation angles.

    If we compare BeiDou ionospheric residual results, we can see the comparison of noise on the three ionospheric residual combinations, B1B2, B1B3 and B2B3, as well as the results from the three types of satellite orbits, ie MEO, IGSO and GEO. Figure 3 illustrates the ionospheric residual results for PRN07 (IGSO) for the three frequency combinations, from data gathered on a static pillar located on top of the University of Nottingham Ningbo China’s Science and Engineering Building.

    Figure 3. Ionospheric residual results for BeiDou PRN07 (IGSO) for combinations B1B2 (left), B1B3 (center), B2B3 (right). (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 3. Ionospheric residual results for BeiDou PRN07 (IGSO) for combinations B1B2 (left), B1B3 (center), B2B3 (right). (Chart: Authors)

    Figure 4 illustrates the ionospheric residual results for PRN01 (GEO) for the three frequency combinations.

    Figure 4. Ionospheric residual results for BeiDou PRN01 (GEO) for combinations B1B2 (left), B1B3 (center), B2B3 (right). (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 4. Ionospheric residual results for BeiDou PRN01 (GEO) for combinations B1B2 (left), B1B3 (center), B2B3 (right). (Chart: Authors)

    Figure 5 illustrates the ionospheric residual results for PRN12 (MEO) for the three frequency combinations. Here it can be seen that the B2B3 combination is generally less noisy than the B1B2 and B1B3. In addition to this, it can be seen that when the MEO and IGSO satellites are at lower elevation angles, the observables also become noisier. The GEO satellites have a constant elevation angle, and do not experience this phenomenon.

    Figure 5. Ionospheric residual results for BeiDou PRN12 (MEO) for combinations B1B2 (left), B1B3 (center), B2B3 (right). (Charts: Authors)
    Figure 5. Ionospheric residual results for BeiDou PRN12 (MEO) for combinations B1B2 (left), B1B3 (center), B2B3 (right). (Charts: Authors)

    Detailed Results

    The data, gathered on a single GNSS receiver located at the University of Curtin’s GNSS research center, was downloaded in BINEX format and converted into RINEX 3.02 format using RTKLIB software. Software was developed by the authors in Matlab in order to interrogate the data files and implement the range residual and ionospheric residual algorithms. RINEX 3.02 format was chosen due to its compatibility with multi-GNSS and multi-frequencies.

    Industrial UAV applications such as construction draw benefits from multi-GNSS receivers’ capabilities. (Photo: Skycatch, Swift Navigation)
    Industrial UAV applications such as construction draw benefits from multi-GNSS receivers’ capabilities. (Photo: Skycatch, Swift Navigation)

    Results are presented for both ionospheric residual and range residual results for various GNSS. These results have been calculated with varying elevation mask angles, ranging from 0° to 55° at 5° intervals. The RMS values of the resulting ionospheric residuals and range residuals were calculated and plotted against the respective elevation mask angle for each satellite and frequency combinations. This illustrates the influence of the elevation mask angle used on the results.

    Typically, tens of thousands of epochs of data were used for every plotted point in the following figures. Further to this, not only are the results for the various frequencies and frequency combinations for the various GNSS illustrated, but also the various satellite types, MEO, GEO and IGSO, and various satellite Blocks for GNSS. GPS Block IIA (PRN04 and PRN32), Block IIR (PRN14), Block IIR-M (PRN31) and Block IIF (PRN01, PRN26, PRN25) data were all analyzed. Thus, the comparison of the various frequencies within each satellite system are illustrated, as well as the variations by comparing the various satellite constellation types and the various generations of GPS satellites.

    Surveying accuracy is critical to roadway construction. (Photo: Leica Geosystems)
    Surveying accuracy is critical to roadway construction. (Photo: Leica Geosystems)

    The BeiDou data illustrated are MEO (C12, C14, C11), IGSO (C09, C10, C07) and GEO (C01, C02). The data used were gathered on Sept. 1, 2015, in order to include GPS Block IIA satellites (PRN04 and PRN32). PRN32 was retired in June 2016, and PRN04 was taken out of active service in November 2015, but the satellite was reactivated in March 2018, this time broadcasting PRN18.

    Figure 6 illustrates RMS of the range residual results for GPS (a), BeiDou (b), Galileo (c), GLONASS (d) and QZSS (e) respectively. These figures have been drawn so that the y-axis ranges are the same for each, hence illustrating the relative values.

    Figure 6A illustrates the range residual results for GPS. It can be seen that the L1 CA code results are the noisiest, with PRN14 being the noisiest, followed by PRN31, PRN26, PRN01, PRN04, PRN25 and PRN32. It can also be seen with these results that lower elevation angle mask increases the noise level. Both the L2 and L5 code results are less noisy.

    Figure 6A. RMS range residual results for GPS. (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 6A. RMS range residual results for GPS. (Chart: Authors)

    Looking at the detail, the L5 code results is less noisy than the L2 and affected less than the L1 results by the changes in elevation mask angles used. Interestingly enough, the data file includes both the L2 P(Y) code and L2C code results. L2C only exists on the Block IIR-M and Block IIF satellites. The L2C code results are generally noisier than the L2 P(Y) code.

    Figure 6B illustrates the results for the range residuals for the BeiDou satellites. Here it can be seen that the B1 code is affected more by low elevation mask angles than B2 and B3. It can also be seen that both the geostationary satellites’ B1 results stand out, with satellite C02 being noisier than C01. The B2 and B3 values for both these GEO satellites are bunched up with the majority of the other results towards the middle of the figure. The pairs of B2 and B3 results for the GEO satellites are close to each other in values, and the pairs of B2 and B3 results for the other satellites are also close to each other.

    Figure 6B. RMS range residual results for BeiDou. (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 6B. RMS range residual results for BeiDou. (Chart: Authors)

    It can also be seen that the range residual results for BeiDou are generally less noisy than than GPS, in units of cycles.

    Similarly, for Galileo, Figure 6C, the E1 results are worst, and affected more by low elevation masks. Again, generally the Galileo results are seen to be improved over GPS. The GLONASS results, Figure  6D, illustrate that the L1C results are generally noisier, and then the L1P, followed by L2C and L2P. PRN09 is also consistently generally noisier than PRN10. Finally, Figure 6E illustrates the results for QZSS. Again, L1C is the noisiest and affected most by low elevation mask angles.

    Figure 6C. RMS range residual results for Galileo. (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 6C. RMS range residual results for Galileo.
    (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 6D. RMS range residual results for GLONASS. (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 6D. RMS range residual results for GLONASS. (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 6E. RMS range residual results for QZSS. (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 6E. RMS range residual results for QZSS. (Chart: Authors)

    Figure 7 illustrates the ionspheric residual results for the same satellites as Figure 6. This time, however, the resulting ionospheric residual values are calculated using pairs of data from the same satellite on different carrier frequencies. The range residual results compare the code and carrier from specific satellites and frequencies.

    Figure 7(a) shows that the ionospheric residual results are affected by low elevation masks, and that the L1L2CW (L1 CA code and L2 P(Y) code available on all the satellites) combinations are the noisiest, followed by L2L5WX (L2 P(Y) code and L5 code available on Block IIF satellites, PRN 26, PRN01, PRN25), followed by L1L2CX (L1 CA code and L2 C code available on Block IIF and Block IIR-M satellites, PRN31, PRN26, PRN01 and PRN25), followed by L1L5CX (L1 CA code and L5 code, Block IIF satellites, PRN01, PRN25, PRN26) and finally the least noisy were the L2L5XX results (L2 C code and L5 code available on Block IIF satellites, PRN26, PRN25 and PRN01).

    Figure 7A. Ionospheric residual results for GPS.(Chart: Authors)
    Figure 7A. Ionospheric residual results for GPS. (Chart: Authors)

    Figure 7(b) illustrates the BeiDou ionospheric residual plots, illustrating that satellite C14 is much noisier for all three combinations of B1B3, BB1B2 and B2B3 in that order. The B1B2 combinations for the satellites are generally the noisiest, and then the B1B3 and B2B3 combinations are intertwined. The Galileo results again illustrate that the E1 combinations are generally noisier, and again we see the effect of low elevation angle masks, Figure 7(c). Generally, however, the Galileo results are less noisy than GPS, as are the BeiDou results.

    Figure 7B. Ionospheric residual results for BeiDou. (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 7B. Ionospheric residual results for BeiDou. (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 7C. Ionospheric residual results for Galileo. (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 7C. Ionospheric residual results for Galileo. (Chart: Authors)

    The GLONASS results are again generally the noisiest, and again PRN09 is noisier than PRN10, with the L1P combinations being noisier, Figure 7(d). Figure 7(e) for QZSS shows that there are generally two groups of results. The upper set consists of L1L2ZX, L1L5ZX, L1L2XX, L1L5XX, L1L6ZX and L1L6XX from highest to lowest noise respectively. The lower, less noisy, group consists of L1L2CX, L1L5CX, L2L5XX, L2L6XX, L1L6CX and L5L6XX from highest to lowest noise respectively. Further details about the various codes and carrier values can be found in the RINEX 3.02 manual produced by the IGS.

    Figure 7D. Ionospheric residual results for GLONASS. (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 7D. Ionospheric residual results for GLONASS. (Chart: Authors)
    Figure 7E. Ionospheric residual results for QZSS.(Chart: Authors)
    Figure 7E. Ionospheric residual results for QZSS.(Chart: Authors)

    Conclusions

    A surveyor checks an urban construction project. (Photo: Topcon)
    A surveyor checks an urban construction project. (Photo: Topcon)

    These preliminary results illustrate that there are differences in the noise values for various GNSS, frequencies as well as satellite generations and orbit types. It can be seen that generally L1, B1 and E1 have noisier results, and are affected moreso by low elevation mask data, and hence multipath. It can also be seen that newer generations of satellites do indeed produce better quality data.

    Some specific satellites produce lower quality data such as GLONASS PRN09 and BeiDou C14. This could be due to multipath produced at the satellite.

    Today roughly 100 GNSS transmit data, and typically users can gather data from 30 to 50 at any time. Positioning requires nowhere near this number of satellites, therefore decisions are needed as to which satellites and which data to use in a positioning solution. Our findings imply that our approach could be used in such decision-making in GNSS processing software, helping the software to choose the optimum satellites to draw from in a positioning solution.

    Acknowledgments

    This work described in this article was first presented at the FIG 2018 conference held in Istanbul, Turkey. The authors acknowledge the use of data supplied from the Curtin University GNSS Centre.

    Manufacturers

    The GNSS receiver used is a Trimble NET R9, and the antenna is a Trimble TRM 59800.00 SCIS choke ring antenna. A ComNav K508 GNSS receiver supplied some of the BeiDou results.


    GETHIN WYN ROBERTS is an associate professor at Fróðskaparsetur, the University of the Faroe Islands. He is past Chairman of the FIG’s Commission 6, Engineering Surveys, and previously held posts at the University of Nottingham both in the UK and in China. He holds a Ph.D. in engineering surveying and geodesy from the University of Nottingham.

    CRAIG M. HANCOCK is an associate professor in Geodesy and Surveying Engineering and the head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China as well as the head of the Geospatial and Geohazards Research Group. He holds a PhD from the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.

    XU TANG is a research fellow at the University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China. He holds a PhD from Nanjing University.

  • University of Nottingham GNSS project to boost precision agriculture in Brazil

    Photo: University of Nottingham
    Photo: University of Nottingham

    The University of Nottingham is working with Brazilian and European Union (EU) partners to solve atmospheric interference problems that hamper satellite-based positioning in equatorial countries like Brazil.

    The research network will support the advancement of precision agriculture, which aims to make crop farming practices cheaper, greener and more efficient using satellite positioning and remote sensing.

    These technologies rely on GNSS (such as GPS and Galileo) to obtain centimeter-accurate coordinates on Earth. Farmers then use this real-time precise data to optimize fertilizer use, to steer driverless machinery and for soil mapping to maximize crop production in a bid to feed a rising world population.

    Despite its revolutionary potential, precision agriculture adoption rates in countries on equatorial regions such as Brazil are hindered by ionospheric scintillation in the Earth’s upper atmosphere.

    Ionospheric scintillation affects the integrity, availability and accuracy of satellite positioning. Specifically, it causes interference with the propagation of satellite signals as they pass through the ionosphere, making it difficult for GNSS receivers to lock onto satellites and track their signals. This results in not only large errors but sometimes to service outages.

    “The strong signal fluctuations that characterize ionospheric scintillation are caused by the irregular behavior of the ionosphere that is typical of the equatorial latitudes, affecting most of the Brazilian territory, hence the importance of the bilateral collaboration in the PEARL network,” said project leader Marcio Aquino from the Nottingham Geospatial Institute at the University.

    The PEARL network, which is funded by the European Commission’s INCOBRA project, aims to tackle this problem head on to ensure high-accuracy positioning by satellite is robust and achievable in real time in Brazil.

    “Solutions arising from the research will have a positive impact not only in Brazil but in the whole of Latin America, due to its geographical location near the equator and corresponding disruptive ionospheric effects,” Aquino said. “It could play a pivotal role in promoting the uptake of satellite-based positioning and the broad acceptance of the new EU system Galileo, paving the way for service implementation in other similarly affected parts of the world, such as southern China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia.”

    Research and industrial partners from both Europe and Brazil will come together on the seven-month initiative to develop strategies to map the causes of ionospheric scintillation and specialized algorithms to model and mitigate their effects on satellite-based positioning.

    These strategies will be part of a large Brazil-EU collaborative proposal to be submitted to the forthcoming H2020 SPACE-EGNSS call due out in October 2018.

    Network members include small to medium enterprises in Europe and Brazil that are keen to incorporate new solutions that will improve their satellite-based services.

    The PEARL network encompasses:

    1. University of Nottingham, UK; Sao Paulo State University and Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brazil.
    2. National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology and SpacEarth Technology (an SME), Italy.
    3. Space Research Centre of Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland.
    4. Three small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): Geo++, Germany, and Alezi Teodolini and MC Engenharia Ltd, Brazil.

    The European Commission funds the INCOBRA project to increase and enhance Research and Innovation cooperation activities between Brazil and the European Union. PEARL is one of INCOBRA’s bilateral R&I cooperation networks, led by the University of Nottingham, addressing one of INCOBRA’s priority areas, namely bio-economy, food security and sustainable agriculture.

    According to the latest issue of the GSA GNSS market report (issue 5, 2017), revenue for GNSS device sales in precision agriculture will grow to nearly €3 billion by 2025, quadrupling from €750 million in 2013 (based on GNSS receiver sales to just this market segment).

  • EU project to seek TREASURE in multi-GNSS positioning

    A European Union (EU) project exploiting GNSS to establish the blueprint for the world’s most accurate real-time positioning service will be run at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom.

    The service, to be developed at prototype level, will benefit safety-critical industries such as aviation and maritime navigation, as well as high-accuracy dependent applications such as offshore drilling and production operations, dredging, construction, agriculture, driverless cars and drones.

    The four-year TREASURE project will take multi-GNSS to the next level. It will focus on a service that will improve on the current use of GNSS — usually based on just one or two systems — and integrate signals from GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou and Galileo to provide accuracy of a few centimeters in real time, opening up a multitude of new possibilities.

    The TREASURE project is funded through the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 framework program.

    Atmospheric disruption

    One of the key aspects of the research is to mitigate the effects of the atmosphere, in particular related to space weather, which can often create impairing conditions that vastly reduce satellite communication and positioning accuracy.

    Controlled by the interaction of the sun with the Earth’s magnetic field, the ionosphere (the upper layer of Earth’s atmosphere) is characterized by the presence of free electrons, which interfere with a satellite’s signal passing through it.

    Mainly, but not only when solar activity is high, electron density irregularities may form in the ionosphere, which can cause signal diffraction and lead to scintillation — a scattering of the satellite signal that makes it difficult for a GNSS receiver to lock onto the satellite and calculate its position.

    This has a particularly disruptive effect on positioning technology especially at high latitude or equatorial regions, such as in Northern Europe or in Brazil, respectively.

    Similarly, the troposphere, a lower layer of the atmosphere, also interferes with the signals. The presence of water vapor in this neutral part of the atmosphere can create an additional disruptive effect on the satellite signals, also affecting GNSS accuracy.

    Correcting all intervening errors

    The project aims to develop new error models, positioning algorithms and data assimilation techniques to monitor, predict and correct not only the effects of the atmosphere but also signal degradation due to manmade sources of interference, which can also limit positioning accuracy.

    Signal processing techniques — tailored to the features of the interfering signals — will be used to improve the quality of the measurements and ultimately to generate reliable position solutions.

    Moreover, TREASURE researchers will also develop new multi-GNSS real-time precise orbit and clock products, specifically for use with the new Galileo system.

    Industry potential for multi-GNSS service

    All these problems pose significant risks to the many public and industrial sectors that now rely on GNSS or aim to use it to overcome growing humanitarian challenges such as food or energy production.

    “A highly-accurate multi-GNSS service could, for instance, assist demanding terrestrial applications like precision agriculture, giving farmers access to real-time precisely located data gathering and analysis to maximize food production, reduce costs and minimize pesticide use,” said project lead Marcio Aquino, Nottingham Geospatial Institute.

    “On the other side of the spectrum, a deep-sea drilling platform that experiences any temporary degradation of positioning accuracy could lead to phenomenal losses right at a time when, due to the current oil production climate, companies are striving to increase operational efficiency,” Aquino said. “This industry would also benefit from such an accurate multi-GNSS service.”

    The study will focus on two existing GNSS techniques known as PPP (precise point positioning) and NRTK (network real-time kinematic). Both use GPS and GLONASS, but could potentially meet future real-time high-accuracy positioning demands when Galileo is fully integrated, and if TREASURE is successful.

    Benefits and limitations of PPP and NRTK

    The NRTK technique uses fixed reference stations operating high-grade GNSS receivers at carefully surveyed reference locations to secure accurate GNSS positioning data.

    The transmission of corrections from reference locations to users is at the core of NRTK. The technique’s effectiveness relies on the spatial correlation of errors between user and reference, which must be situated less than 20-30km apart – a short enough distance to allow potential signal errors to “cancel out.”

    If atmospheric variations between reference and user are strong, a greater number of reference stations may be necessary, rendering the technique less cost-effective.

    Contrary to NRTK, PPP does not rely on errors cancelling out between the user and a known reference station. The user operates their receiver independently of the existence of nearby stations with known coordinates.

    This is achieved by incorporating external information in the solution, in the form of highly-precise satellite clocks and orbit products derived from global networks and available either for free or commercially.

    However, the accurate prediction of the state of the atmosphere, also crucial for PPP, is not normally available from these global networks — overcoming this situation is one of the main objectives of TREASURE.

    Creating a critical mass and testing market potential

    TREASURE brings together four top universities, one research institute and four leading European companies to provide the research that will result in the ultimate high-accuracy EGNSS solution.

    The project team will train and work alongside 13 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellows who will be earmarked as high-flying candidates for future employment in the burgeoning GNSS industry or as specialist researchers.

    The Fellows will build a prototype tool to support the different PPP and NRTK needs and test what commercial interest there is to bring the future service to market.

    TREASURE project partners are:

    • University of Nottingham
    • University of Bath
    • Politecnico di Torino
    • Technische Universiteit Delft
    • Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia
    • Fugro Intersite BV
    • Geo++GmbH
    • Noveltis SAS
    • Deimos Engenharia SA
  • Network RTK for Intelligent Vehicles

    opener

    Accurate, Reliable, Available, Continuous Positioning for Cooperative Driving

    By Scott Stephenson, Xiaolin Meng, Terry Moore, Anthony Baxendale, and Tim Edwards

    Adoption of network real-time kinematic GNSS positioning can lead to major improvements in vehicle localization, although implementation must overcome some real-world challenges. This article assesses the extent of GNSS signal outage in a motorway environment. The average total GNSS outage period and the average time to resolve ambiguity for the network RTK solution can help assess complimentary sensors for a ubiquitous positioning system.

    Real-time vehicle localization is one of three key enabling technologies for the concepts of vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2V and V2I, collectively termed V2X, see opening graphic), a classification of intelligent transport systems (ITS). The further enabling technologies are ad-hoc dynamic networking of agents, and accurate dynamic local traffic maps. Jointly, these require that positioning be accurate, reliable, available, and continuous.

    A natural evolution in road transport, V2X promises to deliver the next major safety breakthrough. The concept moves away from vehicles making individual decisions about road safety, as in advanced driver assistance systems, and towards a cooperative driving approach that shifts the emphasis from collision protection to collision prevention. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  estimates that V2X technology can avoid or minimize up to 80 percent of collisions of unimpaired drivers, and that even a small number of deployed vehicles will provide tangible safety benefits.

    Network RTK GNSS positioning, like V2X applications, requires a communication system; and by its nature V2X has a positioning solution requirement. Thus it is envisioned that network RTK will play an essential role in the implementation of V2X systems. The consensus between car manufacturers and research organizations is that the future of V2X communication lies with Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) devices, and a large pilot study is currently under way. However, in the short term many V2X applications could be achieved using existing technology, such as cellular communication, offering a legacy solution, and initiating early uptake of V2X applications.

    Previous research by the Nottingham Geospatial Institute (NGI) at the University of Nottingham showed that network RTK positioning can provide a high-accuracy positioning solution during real-world trials, but also revealed two areas of concern: the loss of the fixed-integer ambiguity during satellite line-of-sight outages; and the fragility of the data communications service that delivers the real-time correction information. During road tests, a fixed-ambiguity network RTK solution was available for less than 50 percent of the time on United Kingdom (UK) roads.

    Network RTK Vehicle Positioning
    Figure 1  OS Net reference station network in Britain, owned by Ordnance Survey.
    Figure 1. OS Net reference station network in Britain, owned by Ordnance Survey.

    Networks of continuously operating reference stations (CORS) extend across Europe, North America, Australia, and East Asia. Networks vary in size from five or six reference stations for agriculture to systems of hundreds of CORSs providing national or regional service. Figure 1 shows the location of the OS Net CORS run by Ordnance Survey in Great Britain.

    Figure 2 shows the main advantage of network RTK as compared to traditional RTK. The individual reference stations on the left suffer from the spatial decorrelation of errors as distance between reference and rover receivers increases. Adequate vehicle positioning would require individually operating reference stations to be placed approximately 20–30 kilometers apart. However, a CORS network can be used to develop a model of differential corrections, as shown at right, from which a rover receiver can interpret RTK correction information and use this during the computation of its position. The geometry of a CORS network allows two adjacent reference stations to be located up to 80–100 kilometers apart without degrading the accuracy, although in practice most systems tend to locate them closer together than this. This is essentially a reduction from 30 reference stations per 10,000km² for conventional RTK, to 5–10 reference stations for network RTK, delivering high-precision services to virtually unlimited users.

    Figure 2  The improved navigation performance from RTK (left) to network RTK (right).
    Figure 2. The improved navigation performance from RTK (left) to network RTK (right).

    It is expected that the CORS networks will become a critical part of a country’s spatial infrastructure, and countries like the UK are leading the way. This makes network RTK one of the most promising positioning technologies for road vehicles and ITS applications.

    As shown in previous research, network RTK can deliver a vehicle positioning accuracy of better than 5 centimeters, and in real-world tests this level of accuracy had an availability of 41–45 percent, depending on the environment. It was also found that the correction information was available via the GSM network for more than 80 percent of the time. In these same tests, the total time without any GNSS position solution (network RTK, DGNSS, or stand-alone) was up to 16 percent in a motorway environment. Network RTK was able to provide lane-level positioning accuracy, but the sensitivity of the technique to GNSS signal loss and coverage of the communication network had a significant effect on availability. GNSS outages could be caused simply by passing under a road bridge, and the network RTK solution would be lost, although there would continue to be a DGNSS solution for a short period. Finding effective solutions to these current barriers, which prevent wide adoption of network RTK, is a key enabling step for ITS.

    Accuracy Assessment

    In much more controlled tests to assess the accuracy of network RTK on a dynamic vehicle, the network RTK GNSS receiver was compared to an inertial navigation system (INS). This test was carried out using the NGI roof laboratory, which houses a 120-meter rail track running an electric locomotive.

    Both the network RTK receiver and the INS used the same antenna, fed separately through a signal splitter. The network RTK solution was recorded in real time onto an SD card in NMEA GGA format. The INS data was recorded and post-processed in a tightly coupled solution using a continuously operating dual-frequency GNSS receiver base station located inside the rail track circuit. There were no recorded GNSS outages as there is a clear-sky view from the roof laboratory.

    The antenna point was also tracked using a total station, recording observations at 10 Hz stamped with GPS time. Although the accuracy of the tracking mode of the total station is not high enough to assess the accuracy of the network RTK solution (because of time synchronization issues), it ensures that any gross errors in GNSS observations that could affect both the network RTK and INS solutions did not occur.

    The results in Table 1 show that the network RTK solution consistently performs to a high accuracy, giving a low standard deviation from the mean in all directions. Listed are three laps of the rail circuit recorded at different times. There are a small number of epochs that encounter large differences of more than 200 millimeters, such as during laps 2 and 3, although these appear to be very short-term anomalies, possibly caused by dynamic GNSS signal multipath or delays and message loss in the communication system.

    TABLE 1.  Comparison of the tightly coupled (GPS+IMU) solution with the N-RTK solution.
    Table 1. Comparison of the tightly coupled (GPS+IMU) solution with the N-RTK solution.

    The worst absolute accuracy is shown during lap 3, although even in this case, with a mean of 21 millimeters and 99 percent of the observations lying within 15 millimeters, this solution still delivers a solution within 36 millimeters of the ground truth. 50 percent of the network RTK observations are within 1 millimeter of the mean difference between the two solutions, showing remarkable consistency and precision.

    Challenge: Comm Signal Strength

    A fundamental aspect of network RTK is the delivery of reference station data used in the processing of the receiver’s position. Although there are various methods used to deliver this data, the most secure and reliable method involves transmitting raw reference station observations, so that the receiver may perform the calculation of the position with all possible data. This provides the highest integrity. The vulnerability here is not the algorithmic method used to transmit the data, but the communication system, in three ways:

    • There is no connection between reference and rover receivers.
    • There is data loss from the connection.
    • There is an unacceptable delay in the transmission of the data.

    Lack of Coverage. The preferable communication system is to use mobile Internet over the GSM/GPRS cell network, which is already well established. The major network operators claim over 99 percent coverage of the population in the UK, but this does not take into account physical and local conditions such as land and building obstructions, atmospheric conditions, and inter-ference from vegetation and other
    radio signals.

    A 2011 BBC survey in the UK found that when users had a cell-phone data connection it was 3G for 75 percent of the time (2G otherwise), but significant “notspots” include major rail and road networks. An ongoing study by OpenSignalMaps has found that a 3G service is only available 58 percent of the time. A 2011 government report detailed the extent of 2G and 3G services, shown in Figure 3. Areas with poor data communication coverage (below 50 percent) pose a significant problem for network RTK in vehicles.

    Figure 3 2G (left) and 3G (right) coverage by geographic area in the UK: green, >90 percent; yellow, 70–90 percent; blue, 50–70 percent; purple, 25–50 percent; red, <25 percent.
    Figure 3. 2G (left) and 3G (right) coverage by geographic area in the UK: green, >90 percent; yellow, 70–90 percent; blue, 50–70 percent; purple, 25–50 percent; red,

    Data Loss. Continuity tests show that when using GSM/GPRS mobile communications to transfer the network  RTK corrections, the availability was approximately 88 percent, and the connection could be lost after a few hours of continuous use. This can be caused either by SIM cards that use dynamic IP addresses, creating interruptions when renewing the addresses, or where voice data was prioritized on the network. Other research has shown that a typical mobile Internet connection (a combination of wired public Internet and GPRS) suffers from approximately 20 percent data loss.

    Message Delay. A network RTK receiver  imposes a transmission time limit on the correction messages that are used to fix the common integer ambiguity (in this case, the Leica GS10 limit is 10 seconds), although messages younger than 60 seconds can be used to give an accurate DGNSS solution. Messages older than 60 seconds result in the receiver only being able to output a standalone position, by which time the accuracy will decay beyond vehicle positioning requirements. Earlier research found the typical mobile Internet connection suffers from an average delay of 0.85 seconds.

    Challenge: GNSS Outages

    The majority of the transport infrastructure is outside and has a clear view of the sky, particularly away from heavily urbanised areas. However, the receiver gets no warning of impending signal obstruction, so that even momentary obstructions such as an overhead gantry on the motorway can cause significant loss of positioning accuracy, and often causes a receiver to output no solution at all, as shown in Figure 4. Here the vehicle is traveling in a northern direction in lane 1 of the left-hand carriageway and passes underneath a series of bridges at a motorway junction. This causes both GNSS outages and deteriorated positional accuracy, so much so that the vehicle is positioned in the southern carriageway (note that the underlying map image is of unknown accuracy).

    Figure 4  The typical effect of overhead obstructions on vehicle GNSS positioning.
    Figure 4. The typical effect of overhead obstructions on vehicle GNSS positioning.

    GNSS outages can occur in several ways: the obstruction of the GNSS signals can lead to a loss of signal lock; a momentary obstruction or partial obstruction can cause cycle slips to occur (during carrier-phase positioning); if the visible satellites at the rover receiver are not the same as at the reference receiver, then the ambiguity cannot be resolved; there may be intentional or unintentional signal jamming or interference; and if the receiver assessed the integrity or accuracy to be poor then it may not provide a solution.

    NGI test vehicle.
    NGI test vehicle.
    Experiment Set-Up

    The test vehicle was equipped with a GNSS receiver and antenna, receiving real-time corrections using a GSM/GPRS connection. The signal strength was measured simultaneously using the Android application RF Signal Tracker on an Android-based mobile phone.

    The data recorded includes: GNSS raw data, RINEX format; network RTK real time output, NMEA format; GSM signal strength, CSV format. As the experiments were not intended for the analysis of the accuracy of the GNSS receiver, there was no need to utilize the ground truth system onboard the NGI test vehicle.

    RF SIGNAL TRACKER Android application and mobile phone used to record the GSM signal strength (left), and GNSS receiver (right).
    RF SIGNAL TRACKER. Android application and mobile phone used to record the GSM signal strength (left), and GNSS receiver (right).

    Test Environment. Two test scenarios were chosen for the experiments. To assess the GNSS signal outages, the test vehicle was driven along the M1 motorway, a length of approximately 100 kilometers. The M1 is a major road transport artery linking London in the South to Leeds in the North of England, typically with three or four lanes in each direction. This route passes under 214 overhead obstructions (northbound and southbound directions), of known classification (gantry, footbridge, road bridge). This scenario was chosen as the environment is quite rigid, allowing repeatable tests, and it is the area in which future ITS technology is most likely to be adopted first.

    To test the variation of GSM signal strength in real-world conditions, a small circuit was chosen close to the Nottingham Geospatial Institute (shown in Figure 5), which incorporates a variety of environments from open sky to bridge underpasses, and dense tree coverage. Using a repeatable path allows the identification of issues that are attributable to problems with the communications link as opposed to other issues (such as hardware problems and GNSS signal outages), and despite the short distance, the loop also provides a wide range of GSM signal strengths. During the experiments to follow, the data was measured during three consecutive laps of the circuit.

    Experiment Results

    GSM Signal Strength. The variation in color along the NGI test route is an indication of the RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indicator). In this area, the RSSI varies between –50 dBm and –105 dBm, which are the typical maximum and minimum strengths of a cellular network. This is despite the assessment from the network provider that this entire area delivers high-speed Internet and email. Figure 5 also shows the subjective rating and expected performance of the RSSI.

    Figure 5  The GSM signal strength around the NGI circuit in Nottingham, with the subjective RSSI ratings.
    Figure 5. The GSM signal strength around the NGI circuit in Nottingham, with the subjective RSSI ratings.
    Table2
    Table 2. The spread of RSSI observations recorded during the trials around the NGI circuit.

    Table 2 details the RSSI observations measured during the signal strength trials around the NGI circuit. The range of values shows the typical maximum and minimum RSSI values experienced by a cell-phone user (other than no signal being received). The signal strength is recorded every 5 meters, in order to achieve a good geographic spread across the area (as opposed to biasing the results with observations recorded whilst the vehicle is stationary). The RSSI observations do not correspond to a typical Gaussian distribution, suggesting that there are external influences on the strength of the signal and the handover between one cell tower and the next.

    Figure 6 shows an increase in the age of correction (AoC) of the messages following a drop in signal strength (RSSI) to approximately –100 dBm. This is visible from the peaks in the age of correction message to over 8 seconds. The graph shows three laps of the NGI circuit, noticeable by the repeated pattern of signal strength. The increase in the AoC occurs at approximately the same geographic location on each lap ­— an area in the northwest of the circuit that suffers from weak signal strength, as seen in Figure 5. The received signal strength is the sum of the direct and indirect (or reflected) waves, varying with distance between a series of maximum and minimum values. On a moving vehicle, the RSSI will vary with time as it moves between these maximum and minimum values, and is especially complicated in urban areas where there may be no direct waves at all, and waves are propagated by a series of reflections. A moving receiver also suffers from a Doppler shift in the received signal’s frequency.

    figure 6  The effect of GSM RSSI on the age of correction messages.
    Figure 6. The effect of GSM RSSI on the age of correction messages.

    During network RTK positioning, the receiver considers messages older than 10 seconds unusable for a fixed network  RTK solution, although messages younger than 60 seconds can be used to give an accurate DGNSS solution. This scenario has a brief occasion during the loop in which loss of the network RTK solution is attributable to weak GSM signal strength.

    A close inspection of Figure 6 highlights a slight delay between the drop in RSSI to –100 dBm and the increase in the AoC. This delay needs further analysis, but is assumed to relate to the slower update rate of the ionospheric and tropospheric corrections (10 seconds and 60 seconds respectively). There are also periods of increased AoC that are uncorrelated with a drop in RSSI, for which there is no clear explanation, although none of these occasions results in a loss of the fixed ambiguity network RTK solution.

    Eighty cell handovers were recorded during the trials, which is higher than average as this area is liable to carry a large volume of cellular traffic (there is a university, a large hospital, and major roads, as well as general housing and business properties). The cell handovers showed an average improvement of +1.2 dBm from just before the handover until just after. The maximum improvement is +22 dBM, although there are occasions when the RSSI gets worse, the biggest fall in received signal strength being –12 dBM. Figure 7 displays the frequency distribution of the change in RSSI during a cell handover. The resolution of the RSSI measurements is 2 dBm.

    figure 7  Frequency histogram of the RSSI change during a cell handover (2 dBm bins).
    Figure 7. Frequency histogram of the RSSI change during a cell handover (2 dBm bins).

    Cell handovers occur at a range of RSSI, not just low signal strength. This suggests that cell handovers are managed by the network operator in a way that does not disrupt the data connection. There appears to be no correlation between a cell handover and a problem with the correction message delivery.
    Although this part of the experiment was not a test of receiver performance, during the NGI circuit trial 63.1 percent of the receiver observations were network RTK fixed, and 33.0 percent of the observations were DGNSS observations. Therefore, 3.9 percent of the possible epochs had no observations, partly due to passing under bridges. The largest GNSS outage during circuit trials was 4.85 seconds. These values show an improvement over previous research, particularly as this is considered a difficult GNSS positioning environment.

    GNSS Outages. During the GNSS outages tests, the vehicle traveled at a constant speed of 60 mph, mostly in lane 1 of the motorway. Table 3 shows statistical breakdown of the GNSS outages and the resulting reacquisition of the fixed ambiguity in network RTK positioning.

    Table3
    Table 3. Statistical breakdown of GNSS outages caused by overhead objects.

    The longest total GNSS outage caused by an overhead obstruction was 4.65 seconds, when passing under a road bridge. At 60 mph this translates into a distance of almost 130 meters without any GNSS solution, which is much further than the width of the overhead object. Once the GNSS signal is reacquired, there is a short period during which the fixed integer ambiguity is resolved, in order to achieve the centimeter-level accuracy. The longest duration between start of a GNSS outage and reacquisition of the fixed ambiguity for the network  RTK solution is 52.10 seconds, or 1,450 meters. Although during this period, a DGNSS solution is available as soon as the satellites are reacquired.

    Discussion

    Nationwide adoption of cellular Internet services by cell phone users has provided a useful communication system for positioning systems. But network providers do not guarantee the type of communication service demanded by advanced ITS and V2X applications. The quality of service is too easily disrupted by passing into an area with weak signal strength, or when many users congest the bandwidth.

    Future generations of cell networks, such as 4G, will significantly increase the available bandwidth and increase download speeds, but there is an unknown increase in the demand on the system from non-critical cell-phone users. The issues in the existing system can be minimized slightly through improvements at the user end, such as using stronger gain antennae or accessing multiple networks with different SIM registrations. The nature of cell networks also leads to a decrease in signal strength occurring prior to the cell handover, which can cause delays in the message delivery, so the management of this process could be improved. Future testing of the GSM network can be carried out at the new innovITS ADVANCE test facility at MIRA in the UK, where the private network can be controlled and manipulated as desired.

    An alternative communication method, that has the same wide area coverage of a cell network, is satellite communication. In tests, observation of static positions showed 98 percent of messages were received correctly at a latency of less than 10s. This compares with the High-Speed Download Packet Access (HSDPA) cell network figures of 99.8 percent and 1.2s. When in a kinematic mode, the satellite communications fared less well. Testing three separate satellite communication systems, problems were encountered with reacquisition, long latency, and static initialization. At best, 70 percent of correct messages were received, with a latency of 4.2s, although often over 20s.

    Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) is capable of being used as a future communication method for network  RTK positioning. Compared to traditional VHF and UHF radio communication, it uses the frequency more efficiently and is more robust to degradation.

    The design of the GNSS receiver used in testing is aimed at delivering a very reliable and highly accurate solution. It was not intended for use on vehicles and in dynamic environments. The receiver deals well with multipath, rejecting low-strength GNSS signals, allowing the resolution of the integer ambiguity. However, this means that in city environments it may provide fewer solutions than a modern smartphone, albeit with a much higher accuracy when it does. Recent research shows it is possible to increase the speed of ambiguity resolution, and customize integrity controls, making the resolution process close to instantaneous in certain circumstances.

    Conclusions

    As cellular communications networks evolve in the UK and other countries, the performance of the network  RTK receiver also improves. We found that once the RSSI drops to approximately –100dBm, the correction messages suffer from either message loss or message delay that causes the receiver to underperform. The performance of the communication link during a cell tower handover has shown that there is no deterioration in the performance linked to the handover, although cell tower handovers generally occur at the limits of a cell tower’s coverage, and hence at low signal strengths.

    The resolution of the fixed integer ambiguity is crucial for the high-accuracy solution available with a network RTK receiver. The resolution is relatively fast, typically within two minutes from a cold start, or fewer than 20 seconds from a hot start. During tests on the M1 motorway, passing under an overhead obstruction caused a maximum total GNSS outage of 4.65 seconds, and a maximum time until the ambiguity was resolved of 52.10 seconds. On average, the GNSS outage was 1.14 seconds with an average re-fix time of 13.13 seconds. Until the ambiguity is resolved, the receiver can continue with a DGNSS solution delivering lane-level accuracy.

    Manufacturers

    NGI’s inertial nav system is an Applanix POS/RS, which consists of a NovAtel OEM4 dual-frequency GPS receiver combined with a navigation-grade Honeywell consumer IMU. The network RTK position was provided by a Leica GS10 receiver and Leica SmartNet correction service over the Vodafone network. Both receivers used a Leica AS10 antenna.


    Scott Stephenson is a Ph.D. student at the Nottingham Geospatial Institute within the University of Nottingham.

    Xiaolin Meng is associate professor, theme leader for positioning and navigation technologies, and MSc course director for GNSST and PNT at the Nottingham Geospatial Institute of the University of Nottingham. 

    Terry Moore is director of the Nottingham Geospatial Institute (NGI) at the University of Nottingham, where he is the professor of satellite navigation and also an associate dean within the Faculty of Engineering.

    Anthony Baxendale is head of Advanced Technologies & Research at MIRA Ltd.

    Tim Edwards is the lead engineer of the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) research group at MIRA Ltd