TDK, a manufacturer of electronic components, and OriginGPS, a manufacturer of miniature GNSS modules, are collaborating to maximize GNSS performance in small devices such as wearables.
As part of the collaboration, customers using OriginGPS Spider modules will receive increased support to integrate TDK antennas into their designs, including existing reference designs coupled with TDK’s extensive electromagnetic simulation capabilities on GNSS performance.
“TDK is one of the most well-respected names in the RF industry, so it goes without saying that we’re very excited to be working with them to provide best-in-class location modules to their customers,” said Gal Jacobi, CEO of OriginGPS. “By joining designs of our products with TDK’s small form-factor chip antennas, customers will be able to get a firsthand understanding of how our GNSS solutions pack the world’s smallest footprint and add functionality to a wide range of wearables and other Internet of Things devices that require low-profile miniaturized chip antennas.”
The collaboration pairs OriginGPS’ smallest GNSS receiver modules, including the recently unveiled Multi Micro Spider, with the tiny chip antennas by TDK to deliver a “mini + mighty” solution for wearables that combines TDK’s specialized RF simulation capabilities with OriginGPS’ GNSS expertise and support.
The collaboration also benefits OriginGPS customers, the companies said. Those who purchase Spider product line modules for their wearables can now use them in conjunction with TDK antennas to meet specific requirements while minimizing design time, and receive TDK’s support for antenna matching and simulations.
“The combination of TDK’s small chip antennas along with OriginGPS’ GNSS receiver modules provides customers the best solution to miniaturize their products,” said Tuomo Katajamaki, Product Manager, RF Components of TDK. “Now customers can effectively see for themselves the advanced location capabilities that are possible by pairing OriginGPS’ GNSS modules with our omni-directional antennas, creating a unique solution for wearable applications that balances efficiency with our small form factor.”
The development and performance of the VeraPhase GNSS antenna
By Julien Hautcoeur, Ronald H. Johnston and Gyles Panther
INNOVATION INSIGHTS with Richard Langley
ANTENNAS MATTER. Often overlooked by the casual user of a GNSS receiver, its antenna is a critical component of the system. In the case of consumer equipment such as handheld receivers, satellite navigation units and embedded devices inside smartphones, cameras and fitness monitors, the antenna might not even be visible. Nevertheless, a GNSS antenna must be carefully designed and constructed to maximize the transfer of the electromagnetic energy of the weak GNSS signals into an electrical current that can be fed to the receiver. Typically, this means that the antenna has to be designed for reception of the right-hand circularly polarized signals transmitted by the satellites on their particular frequency or frequencies. Some mass-produced embedded devices might use less efficient linearly polarized antennas coupled with a high-sensitivity receiver simply to shave a few cents off the cost of the units or to fit them into a limited volume. But the pros and cons of such antennas is a discussion for another time.
A GNSS antenna must also be omnidirectional, being able to receive signals arriving from any azimuth and elevation angle with acceptable gain in the hemisphere above the antenna while rejecting those signals arriving from below the antenna that, in most cases, are undesirable reflections off the ground and which have a large left-hand circularly polarized component. Reflected signals from the ground or other surfaces combine with the line-of-sight signals from the satellites resulting in multipath interference, which contaminates pseudorange and carrier-phase measurements. The first line of defense against multipath is a multipath-resistant antenna. Signals from non-GNSS transmitters on nearby frequencies should also be rejected so as not to cause interference to the receiver or overload its front end.
An important characteristic for precision GNSS applications is stable electrical phase centers—the locations in three-dimensional space to which GNSS measurements are referenced. Ideally, they would be perfectly fixed with respect to the antenna housing but, in reality, they will vary with the direction of the arriving GNSS signals. The variation, however, should be small, repeatable and calibrated with the calibration values available for data-processing software.
It was about 40 years ago when the first GPS receiving antennas were developed and there have been many significant advances in antenna design and fabrication since then. You might be tempted to think that there is nothing new in the research and development of GNSS antennas. You would be wrong.
In this month’s column, we take a look at a revolutionary design of a multi-frequency multi-GNSS antenna. Our authors discuss how the antenna evolved from a research project in academia to a commercial product about to enter the market. And, like a number of GNSS advances, it’s Canadian, eh?
The use of GNSS technology has permeated many aspects of life today. With each advancement in the technology, new applications become possible as a result of lowered costs, smaller size, greater capabilities, and higher precision and accuracy. In particular, advances in antenna technology can provide greater capabilities to GNSS receiving equipment.
In this article, we report on the research and commercial development of a high-performance GNSS antenna that can cover all of the GNSS frequency bands, that has high purity circularly polarized radiation, high phase-center stability and high radiation efficiency. Early numerical simulations showed that the turnstile/cup antenna was a good starting point for this research. For GNSS applications, this antenna type required much further research to extend the impedance bandwidth, to reduce cross-polarization and to reduce backward radiation. Many thousands of electromagnetic (EM) computer simulations and optimizations of various circular waveguide (or cup) structures led to a high-performance circularly polarized antenna.
This antenna has excellent axial ratios in all theta and phi directions, low backward radiation, excellent phase-center stability and a compact design. Intermediate and final antenna designs were extensively tested in the anechoic chamber of the Schulich School of Engineering at the University of Calgary. Our company subsequently signed a license agreement with the University of Calgary’s University Technologies International Inc. and undertook further development of the antenna for commercial production. In this article, we present measured results for the resulting commercial antenna known as the Tallysman VeraPhase VP6000 antenna.
Early Circularly Polarized Antennas. One of the first circularly polarized antenna designs (1948) can be attributed to Sichak and Milazzo (see Further Reading), who introduced the turnstile or crossed-dipole circular polarization (CP) antenna. The crossed dipoles must have current flows that are 90 degrees out of phase with each other. This phase difference can be achieved feeding the two dipoles 90 degrees out of phase by a phase-shifting signal splitter or by changing the impedance of each of the dipoles. The turnstile antenna produces highly pure CP only in the two directions normal to the two dipoles. If the dipoles are normal to each other and lie in the horizontal plane, they can radiate right-hand circular polarization (RHCP) upwards while left-hand circular polarization (LHCP) is radiated downwards. At the horizon, they will radiate only a linear horizontally polarized wave. For GNSS applications, this is a serious limitation. By 1973, it was known that a horizontal dipole placed near the open face of a “cup” or shorted waveguide would radiate a linear horizontally polarized wave sideways and a vertically polarized wave in its direction of alignment. These properties were utilized by Epis (see Further Reading) to build a broadband CP antenna.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
The university research project began with the objective of developing a high-precision GNSS antenna that would cover all of the frequency bands being considered by the various national GNSS satellite systems, whether launched or under development. It was decided at the onset of the research that computer simulation and optimization methods would be an important part of the research endeavor. Many antenna structures were evaluated using EM simulation tools. Various structures were constructed in software and then simulated. Early simulations indicated that the crossed dipole placed in a cup offered the best possibility for producing a high-performance GNSS antenna. To obtain the best RHCP with minimal LHCP, it became necessary to place the dipoles somewhat within the cup. Nevertheless, the impedance bandwidth of this configuration is insufficient to handle the upper and lower GNSS frequency bands at the same time.
Extending the Antenna Bandwidth. The first structure that was used to handle both the L1 and L2 GNSS bands was a second set of dipoles connected in parallel to the first set. This arrangement provided an adequate match to frequencies close to the L1 band (1575 MHz) and the L2 band (1227 MHz) but it gave a rapidly changing reflection coefficient close to and below the L1 band. The two dipole sets were fed by an appropriate surface-mount 90-degree hybrid coupler designed for the required broad frequency band. The dipoles are fed by microstrip via “grounded legs” that are built on printed circuit board (PCB) technology. Good performance was achieved with this structure, but further improvements in the performance were actively sought. The two dipoles connected directly together cause a deep notch in the radiated signal at a frequency close to and below the L1 band. This was considered to be undesirable. It was decided to use a coupled resonant radiating structure tuned to L1 while the main dipoles would be tuned to L2 (see FIGURE 1).
FIGURE 1. An extended bandwidth GNSS antenna. The lower and connected dipoles are tuned to L2 and the upper coupled shorted dipoles are tuned to L1. Current flow in the circular waveguide of the GNSS antenna is shown. Strong circumferential currents flow at the top of the waveguide. Red indicates large currents and the arrows show the directions of the current flow. (Image: Julien Hautcoeur, Ronald H. Johnston and Gyles Panther)
It is well known that resonant circuits can be broadbanded by choosing the correct coupling between them. This was tried in software and found to give an excellent wideband response.
Circumferential Current Reduction. Through many EM simulations of the antenna structure, it was found that the LHCP could be suppressed substantially by making the aperture of the cup serrated. The EM wave simulation package allows the user to look at the currents in the structure. The results are shown in FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2. An antenna with a tapered base and a sawtooth aperture, which reduces circumferential current flow. (Image: Julien Hautcoeur, Ronald H. Johnston and Gyles Panther)
The strong circumferential currents (horizontal linear currents) produce radiation with linear horizontal polarization. It is important to reduce the size of these currents to minimize the linearly polarized radiation. The horizontal currents flowing in the top of the waveguide wall are effective in setting up horizontal polarization (HP) radiation in the direction of the horizon. For high-quality CP radiation, the horizontal radiation must be matched by vertical radiation (with a 90-degree phase shift), but the waveguide wall does not permit the required vertical current to flow to produce the vertical polarization (VP) radiation component. Clearly, a serrated waveguide aperture reduces the circumferential current flow. It was also found, through many simulations, that the unwanted polarization components can be reduced by tapering the cup towards the bottom end (see Figure 2).
The sawtooth aperture antenna was chosen for further development. The fed dipoles are constructed using PCB technology and are given shapes that vary from the wire dipole case. The radiating resonator is also constructed using PCB material and is given a different shape from the pure straight-wire case. The software antenna was constructed and tested and found to have good performance with regard to low cross polarization in all directions, low backward radiation and high radiation efficiency.
Further Waveguide Development. It was decided that another way of achieving vertical currents and horizontal currents that would be balanced in magnitude and have a 90-degree phase difference might be obtained by constructing the waveguide walls from a combination of thin conductors connected in a grid. The grid consists of a combination of vertical and horizontal conductors. Simulations with EM software showed the antenna is exceptionally efficient when it uses wires. The wire grid waveguide model of the GNSS antenna was simulated with many, many topological variations. Each variation was optimized for low back (nadir) radiation and high-purity RHCP in all directions. The results were unexpected. The best results were obtained when only one circumferential wire conductor is used and, furthermore, the vertical wire conductors are not connected to the circumferential conductor nor to the base of the antenna. This structure was simulated and optimized many times to derive the best possible topological configuration and component dimensions for a GNSS antenna. A PCB model of the GNSS antenna was then numerically constructed, simulated and optimized as a more practical construction technology for the antenna (see FIGURE 3).
FIGURE 3. The conducting plate waveguide model of the GNSS antenna. The blue plates are conducting sheets and the yellow plates are the dielectric of the PCB. (Image: Julien Hautcoeur, Ronald H. Johnston and Gyles Panther)
Note that the vertical strip conductors do not contact the conducting antenna base. Also note the serrated antenna base, as seen on the inside of the antenna. This design feature reduces excessive circumferential current flow in the base of the antenna. The antenna was tested in the University of Calgary anechoic chamber and in the high-quality Simon Fraser University anechoic chamber (a Satimo SG64), and it was found to have well-suppressed LHCP radiation, very low back radiation and very stable phase centers.
The unique topology of this last antenna provides suppression of the expected downward LHCP radiation that most CP antennas exhibit. Radiation tends to “spill over” from the aperture and travel downwards. Downward radiation also emerges from the gap between the antenna base and the vertical conductors. These two sources of downward radiation are largely out of phase and tend to cancel each other out. This reduced downward LHCP radiation largely removes the need for a choke ring to block the reflections from the ground. This in turn means that the antenna can be compact and light.
We undertook the project of converting the research prototype antenna described above into a commercially viable product. The research prototype antenna was modified to achieve optimized gain at lower GNSS frequencies, high mechanical robustness, adaptation for efficient manufacturability and for use of different materials. This antenna is known as the VeraPhase VP6000 antenna and is shown in FIGURE 4.
The topology of the antenna follows that of the research prototype with dimensional adjustments so as to function correctly with the new materials and circuitry being used. It is light and compact with a diameter of 157 millimeters, a height of 137 millimeters and a weight of less than 670 grams.
VeraPhase Measurements. Anechoic chamber tests were conducted at the Satimo facility in Kennesaw, Georgia, to determine the gain pattern, axial ratio, phase-center offset and variation in multipath-free conditions. Data were collected from 1160 MHz to 1610 MHz to cover all the GNSS frequencies.
Antenna Gain, Efficiency and Roll-off. The chamber measurements show that the VP6000 exhibits a gain at zenith from 4.9 dBic at 1164 MHz to 7.05 dBic at 1610 MHz (see FIGURE 5). This high gain in combination with a wideband pre-filtered low-noise amplifier (LNA) with a noise figure of 2 dB provides for high carrier-to-noise density (C/N0) ratios for all GNSS frequencies. Furthermore, the VP6000 exhibits gain at the horizon from –4.4 dBic at 1164 MHz to –6.8 dBic at 1610 MHz (see Figure 5).
FIGURE 5. RHCP gain of the VP6000 at zenith and the horizon at all GNSS frequencies. (Image: Julien Hautcoeur, Ronald H. Johnston and Gyles Panther)
Thus, the gain roll-off from zenith to horizon is between 10.1 dB and 13.6 dB, providing for good tracking at low elevation angles. The radiation efficiency of the VP6000 is 70 percent to 80 percent, corresponding to an inherent (“hidden”) loss of just 1 dB to 1.5 dB, which includes all feedline, matching circuit and 90-degree hybrid coupler losses. In contrast, spiral antennas usually exhibit an inherent efficiency loss of close to 4 dB in the lower GNSS frequencies. Thus, with a high performance LNA, high values of gain translate into higher C/N0 ratios.
FIGURE 6. Normalized radiation patterns of the VP6000 on 60 phi cuts of the GPS frequency bands. (Image: Julien Hautcoeur, Ronald H. Johnston and Gyles Panther)
Radiation Patterns. The radiation pattern of an idealized antenna would have pure CP and constant high gain from zenith down to the horizon and then roll off rapidly for elevation angles below the horizon. In a realizable antenna, the gain should be close to constant over all azimuths for each elevation angle, with strong cross-polarization rejection over that frequency range. The phase-center offset should be stable with minimal phase-center variation. In the upper hemisphere, the greater the difference between the RHCP and LHCP antenna gain, the greater the resistance of the antenna to cross-polarized signals, usually associated with odd order reflections, and hence improved multipath signal rejection. The measured radiation patterns at GPS frequencies are shown in FIGURE 6.
The radiation patterns are normalized to enable direct comparison of the patterns and show the RHCP and LHCP gains on 60 azimuth cuts three degrees apart. The radiation patterns show excellent suppression of the LHCP signals in the upper hemisphere. Similar results were found for all the other GNSS frequencies. The difference between the RHCP gain and the LHCP gain at zenith ensures an excellent discrimination ranging from 31 dB to 53 dB. Also, for the other elevation angles the LHCP signals usually stay 25 dB below the maximum RHCP gain and even 30 dB from 1200 MHz to 1580 MHz. The antenna shows a constant amplitude response to signals coming at a constant elevation angle regardless of the azimuth or bearing angle. This illustrates the excellent multipath mitigation characteristics of the VP6000 at every elevation angle and every GNSS frequency.
Down-Up Ratio. When a direct satellite signal is reflected from the ground, the reflected signal polarization tends to convert, at least partially, from RHCP to LHCP for most soil types. If the terrain underneath the antenna is homogeneous, then the ground surface acts as a mirror, thus providing a reflected signal coming from below the horizon at the negative of the angle of the direct signal above the horizon. Depending on the angle, in part, the field of the inverted and reflected wave adds to the direct wave, which is undesirable. This is the reason, when characterizing the multipath reflection capabilities of an antenna, it is common to use a down-up ratio between antenna gain for LHCP signals for a given angle below the horizon as that for the RHCP signals at the same angle above the horizon. The down-up ratios at L2 and L1 are –25 dB at zenith and they stay under –20 dB for the upper hemisphere, which is usually not the case for standard GNSS antennas. Similar results have been measured over the whole range of GNSS frequencies and confirm the excellent multipath rejection capabilities of the VP6000.
Axial Ratio. The axial ratio (AR) is a measure of an antenna’s ability to reject the cross-polarized portion of a composite signal with both RHCP and LHCP components. Physically, this is an elliptical wave, typically being the combination of the direct and reflected signals from the satellite. The lower the ratio of the major axis to the minor axis of the polarization ellipse, the better the multipath rejection capability of the antenna. To meet operational standards for a multi-band antenna, the axial ratio should meet these requirements at the following elevation angles:
45–90 degrees: not to exceed 3 dB
15–45 degrees: not to exceed 6 dB
5–15 degrees: not to exceed 8 dB.
The worst AR ratio values of the VP6000 at different elevation angles have been plotted in FIGURE 7. The graph shows an AR of less than 0.5 dB at zenith for all GNSS frequencies, and the ARs stay low at all elevation angles down to the horizon. A maximum value of 1.5 dB has been measured for elevation angles above 30 degrees, increasing to just 2 dB at the horizon (0 degree elevation angle) for the worst case azimuth. This performance contributes to the excellent multipath rejection capability of the VP6000.
FIGURE 7. Worst case of axial ratios of the VP6000 at different elevation angles: 90 degrees (zenith), 30 degrees, 10 degrees and 0 degrees (horizon). (Image: Julien Hautcoeur, Ronald H. Johnston and Gyles Panther)
Phase-Center Offset / Phase-Center Variation and Absolute Calibration. For use as a measurement instrument, the antenna must have a precise origin, equivalent to a tape measure zero mark. Thus, it is important that the phase of the waves received by the antenna “appear” to arrive at a single point that is independent of the elevation angle and azimuth of the incoming wave. This point is known as the phase center of the antenna, which should remain fixed for all operational frequencies and for all azimuth and elevation angles of incoming waves, otherwise dimensional measurement is compromised.
In an ideal GNSS antenna, the phase center would correspond exactly with the physical center of the antenna housing. In practice, it varies with the changing azimuth and elevation angle of the satellite signal. The difference between the electrical phase center and an accessible location amenable to measurement on the antenna is described by the phase-center offset (PCO) and phase-center variation (PCV) parameters and their values are determined through antenna calibration.
These corrections are only effective if the predicted phase-center movement is repeatable for all antennas of the same model. The PCO is calculated for each measured elevation angle by considering the signal phase output for all phi (azimuth) values at a specific theta (elevation) angle, and mathematical removal of the normal phase-windup effect in this type of antenna.
A Fourier analysis is then conducted on this resulting data. The fundamental output gives the variation of the horizontal position of the antenna as it is rotated about the z axis. The apparent position normally varies somewhat as the antenna is viewed from various theta angles. The PCV measurement of the VP6000 showed the variation of the phase center in the horizontal plane for elevation angles of 18 to 90 degrees in 3-degree steps at different frequencies. The variations for the different GNSS signals are typically less than 1 millimeter from the x and y axes. Repeatability of the PCO and PCV over several VP6000 antennas has been measured and is also less than 0.5 millimeters.
Five copies of the antenna were sent for absolute calibration by Geo++ in Germany where the VP6000 has been calibrated at GPS L1/L2 and GLONASS G1/G2 signal frequencies. The PCV for the upper hemisphere of the VP6000 at L1 and L2 are plotted in FIGURES 8 and 9. These results confirm a ±1-millimeter PCV at L1 and a ±1-millimeter PCV at L2. Also the standard deviation of the PCV over the five measured antennas stayed under 0.2 millimeters, which represents excellent repeatability. The same results have been observed at G1 and G2.
FIGURE 8. Phase-center variation at L1. The same results have been observed at G1. (Image: Julien Hautcoeur, Ronald H. Johnston and Gyles Panther)FIGURE 9. Phase-center variation at L2. The same results have been observed at G2. (Image: Julien Hautcoeur, Ronald H. Johnston and Gyles Panther)
LNA and Optional Circuitry. The best achievable C/N0 for signals with marginal power flux density is limited by the efficiency of each antenna element, the gain and the overall receiver noise figure. This can be quantified by a ratio parameter, usually referred to as G/T, where G is the antenna gain (in a specific direction) and T is the effective noise temperature of the receiver — usually dominated by the noise figure of the input LNA.
In the VP6000 LNA, the received signal is split into the lower GNSS frequencies (from 1160 MHz to 1300 MHz) and the higher GNSS frequencies (from 1525 MHz to 1610 MHz) in a diplexer connected directly to the antenna terminals and then pre-filtered in each band. This is where the high gain and high efficiency of the basic VP6000 antenna element provides a starting advantage, since the losses introduced by the diplexer and filters are offset by the higher antenna gain, thereby preserving the all-important G/T ratio.
That being said, GNSS receivers must accommodate a crowded RF spectrum, and there are a number of high-level, potentially interfering signals that can saturate and desensitize GNSS receivers. These include, for example, the Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) band signals and mobile phone signals, particularly Long-Term Evolution (LTE) signals in the newer 700-MHz band, which are a hazard because of the potential for harmonic generation in the GNSS LNA. Other potentially interfering signals include Globalstar (1610 MHz to 1618.25 MHz) and Iridium (1616 MHz to 1626 MHz) because they are high-power uplink signals and particularly close in frequency to GLONASS signals. The VP6000 LNA is a compromise between ultimate sensitivity and ultimate interference rejection.
A first defensive measure in the VP6000 LNA is the addition of multi-element bandpass filters at the antenna element terminals (ahead of the LNA). These have a typical insertion loss of 1 dB because of their tight passband and steep rejection characteristics. Sadly, there is no free lunch, and the LNA noise figure is increased approximately by the additional filter-insertion loss.
The second defensive measure in the VP6000 LNA is the use of an LNA with high linearity, which is achieved without any significant increase in LNA power consumption, by use of LNA chips that employ negative feedback to provide well-controlled impedance and gain over a very wide bandwidth with considerably improved linearity.
Bear in mind that while an installation might initially be determined to have an uncluttered environment, subsequent introduction of new services may change this, so interference defenses are prudent even in a clean environment. A potentially undesirable side effect of tight pre-filters is the possible dispersion that can result from variable group delay across the filter passband. Thus it is important to include these criteria in selection of suitable pre-filters. The filters in the VP6000 LNA give rise to a maximum variation of 2 nanoseconds in group delay over the lower GNSS frequencies (from 1160 MHz to 1300 MHz) and 2.5 nanoseconds over the higher GNSS frequencies (from 1525 MHz to 1610 MHz). Also, the difference in group delay between the lower GNSS frequencies and the higher GNSS frequencies stays less than 5 nanoseconds.
The VP6000 series antennas are available with either a 35-dB gain LNA or with a 50-dB gain LNA for installations with long coaxial cable runs. The VP6000 is internally regulated to allow a supply voltage from 2.7 volts to 26 volts.
An interesting feature of the VP6000 is that the physical housing includes a secondary shielded PCB that is available for integration of custom circuits or systems within the antenna. This allows the addition of L1/L2 receivers for real-time kinematic operation, for example. A pre-filtered, 15-dB pre-amp version of the LNA is also available to provide RF input for OEM systems embedded within the antenna housing.
The VP6000 is available with a variety of connectors and with a conical radome to shed ice and snow and to deter birds for reference antenna installations. A precise and robust monument mount is also available.
CONCLUSION
In this article, we have described a research program that developed a series of CP antennas, which have increasingly improved performances directed towards GNSS applications. The resulting research CP prototype antenna has a very low cross-polarization, very low back radiation, very high phase-center stability and a compact structure. We have converted the research prototype into a commercially viable GNSS antenna with the superior electrical properties of the research prototype while building into the antenna the required physical ruggedness and manufacturability required of the commercial antenna.
With emerging satellite systems on the horizon, a new high-performance antenna is needed to encompass all GNSS signals. Our new antenna has sufficient bandwidth to receive all existing and currently planned GNSS signals, while providing high performance standards. Testing of the antenna has shown that the new innovative design (crossed driven dipoles associated with a coupled radiating element combined with a high performance LNA) has good performance, especially with respect to axial ratios, cross-polarization discrimination and phase-center variation.
These improvements make the antenna an ideal candidate for low-elevation-angle tracking. The reception of the proposed new signals along with additional low-elevation-angle satellites will bring new levels of positional accuracy to reference networks, and benefits to the end users of the data. With its compact size and light weight, the antenna has been designed and built for durability and will stand the test of time, even in the harshest of environments.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This article is based, in part, on the paper “The Evolutionary Development and Performance of the VeraPhase GNSS Antenna” presented at the 2016 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation held in Monterey, California, Jan. 25–28, 2016.
JULIEN HAUTCOEUR graduated in electronics systems engineering and industrial informatics from the Ecole Polytechnique de l’Université de Nantes, Nantes, France, and received a master’s degree in radio communications systems and electronics in 2007 and a Ph.D. degree in signal processing and telecommunications from the Institute of Electronics and Telecommunications of Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France, in 2011. From 2011 to 2013, he obtained postdoctoral training with the Université du Québec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Canada. In 2014, he joined Tallysman Wireless Inc. in Ottawa, Canada, as an antenna and RF engineer.
RONALD H. JOHNSTON received a B.Sc. from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, in 1961 and the Ph.D. and D.I.C. from the University of London and Imperial College (both in London, U.K.) respectively, in 1967. In 1970, he joined the University of Calgary, Canada, and has held assistant to full professor positions and was the head of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering from 1997 to 2002. He became professor emeritus in the Schulich School of Engineering in 2006.
GYLES PANTHER is a technology industry veteran with more than 40 years of engineering, corporate management and entrepreneurial experience. He spent the first 20 years of his career in the semiconductor industry, first with Plessey in the U.K., then in Canada with Microsystems International. Panther co-founded and acted as engineering vice president and chief technology officer (CTO) for Siltronics, followed by SilCom and SiGem. In 2002, he founded startup Wi-Sys Communications, acting as president and CTO. He is now president and CTO of Tallysman Wireless, his fourth successful start-up, which was founded in 2009. Panther holds an honours degree in applied physics from City University, London, U.K.
FURTHER READING
Authors’ Conference Paper
“The Evolutionary Development and Performance of the VeraPhase GNSS Antenna” by J. Hautcoeur, R.H. Johnston and G. Panther in Proceedings of ITM 2016, the 2016 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, Monterey, California, Jan. 25–28, 2016, pp. 771–783.
“Antennas for Circular Polarizations” by W. Sichak and S. Milazzo in Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers, Vol. 36, No. 8, Aug. 1948, pp. 997–1001, doi: 10.1109/JRPROC.1948.231947.
Antenna Modeling
Electromagnetic Modeling of Composite Metallic and Dielectric Structures by B.M. Kolundzija and A.R. Djordjevi, published by Artech House, Norwood, Massachusetts, 2002.
WIPL-D: Electromagnetic Modeling of Composite Metallic and Dielectric Structures – Software and User’s Manual by B.M. Kolundzija, J.S. Ognjanovic and T.K. Sarkar, published by Artech House, Norwood, Massachusetts, 2000.
Measurement of Phase Center and Other Antenna Characteristics
“Determining the Three-Dimensional Phase Center of an Antenna” by Y. Chen and R.G.Vaughan in Proceedings of the XXXIth General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI), Beijing, Aug. 16–23, 2014, doi: 10.1109/URSIGASS.2014.6929023.
Harxon, a high-precision GNSS antenna manufacturer in China, has released a new GNSS + L-band antenna.
The GPS1000 receives GPS L1/L2/L5, BDS B1/B2/B3, GLONASS L1/L2, Galileo E1/E2/E5a/E5b and L-band frequencies, which can be used in land survey, marine survey, channel survey, seismic monitoring, bridge survey, container operation and agriculture applications. Customers can use the same antenna for GPS only or dual-constellation applications.
It has high gain and wide beam width to ensure the signal receiving performance of satellite at low elevation angle. The phase center of this antenna remains constant as the azimuth and elevation angle of the satellites change. Signal reception is unaffected by the rotation of the antenna or satellite elevation, so placement and installation of the antenna can be completed with ease.
The GPS1000 is housed in a IP67 waterproof enclosure for permanent installation, and maintains good performance in a variety of harsh environments. Plus, it can be customized by Harxon for the best solution for customers. Orders can be placed at www.harxon.com.
Tallysman, a manufacturer of high-performance GNSS antennas, has added two triple-band GNSS antennas to its multi-band antenna line.
The antennas are designed for precision agriculture, autonomous vehicles and other applications where precision matters. The ability of the antennas to access L-band correction services extends its utility to a wider range of applications.
The TW3970 is a pole mount, or through-hole mount antenna, which is also available in an embeddable form as the TW3965. Both employ Tallysman’s Accutenna technology and are capable of receiving GPS L1/L2/L5, GLONASS G1/G2/G5, BeiDou B1/B2, Galileo E1/E5a+b plus L-band correction services (1164MHz to 1254MHz + 1525MHz to 1606MHz).
The TW3970 is housed in a through-hole mount, weather-proof enclosure for permanent installation, with (L braacket, pipe mount or pole mount. The antenna is available with either a flat radome (pictured) or a conical radome. The conical radome is used in permanent mount locations to ward off birds and shed ice and snow.
The TW3965 is an embeddable antenna available with a wide selection of connectors and custom cable lengths. It can be custom-tuned by Tallysman to ensure optimum performance within the customer’s enclosure.
Both versions have superior cross polarization rejection to enhance multi-path signal rejection, tight phase center variation (PCV), and an excellent axial ratio.
When siting the antenna of a GNSS receiver or designing a GNSS-based navigation system, electromagnetic compatibility is an important concern. This is particularly true for airborne platforms. In this month’s cover story, we take a look at how radio-frequency interference can impact GNSS equipment on unmanned aircraft systems and how robustly the equipment can navigate those systems.
INNOVATION INSIGHTS with Richard Langley
WHAT’S THE WEAKEST THING ABOUT GNSS?Literally, it’s the signals. The strength of GNSS signals is notoriously low as anyone who has tried to operate a consumer-level device inside a steel and concrete building can readily attest. Unlike mobile phone signals, GNSS signals are too weak to survive the attenuation of walls, floors, and ceilings and so typically cannot provide a dependable signal indoors for most receivers.
Even outdoors, the signals can be significantly attenuated by dense wet foliage and completely blocked by buildings and other objects. The GPS C/A-code signal generated by the transmitter in a satellite is approximately 27 watts. If such a transmitter were operated on Earth it would provide a decent signal even inside a nearby building. First responders, for example, can communicate with each other using portable transceivers with even lower-powered transmitters.
However, GPS satellites are about 20,000 kilometers away at their closest and the signals they transmit spread out as they travel to the Earth and even with the directivity of the satellite transmitting antenna, by the time the signals reach the surface of the Earth, their power density is only on the order of 10-13 watts per square meter. And that’s outdoors.
This signal is so weak that it is buried in the receiver’s background noise, which is similar to what you hear when you tune an AM radio between stations. So how can GPS possibly work with such a weak signal? The received signal is actually spread out over several megahertz of radio-frequency spectrum by the pseudorandom noise ranging code. It is this known noise-like code that allows receivers to determine the biased-ranges to satellites and from those ranges determine their positions. Knowing the code, the receiver de-spreads the weak received signal, concentrating it and lifting it above an acceptably low background noise.
All is fine and well as long as the received signal density doesn’t drop much below the 10-13 watts per square meter level but also the background noise level mustn’t rise much above the acceptable level for which the receiver is designed. Both of these criteria are reflected in the carrier-to-noise-density ratio, or C/N0, of the signal. Why might the noise level change? The noise comes from the receiver itself as well as from naturally produced electromagnetic radiation from the sky, the ground, and objects in the receiving antenna’s vicinity. The sky noise includes so-called cosmic noise from the sun, Milky Way galaxy, other discrete cosmic objects and radiation left over from the Big Bang as well as radiation from our atmosphere. For the most part, the noise from these sources is small but occasionally the sun can have a radio outburst that can significantly increase the noise level at GNSS frequencies and actually overpower the GNSS signals as happened with GPS in December 2006.
But the noise level can also be impacted by human-made electrical devices in the vicinity of a GNSS receiver’s antenna. This radio-frequency interference, or RFI, can come from devices such as radio transmitters, microwave ovens, motors, relays, ignition systems, switching power supplies and light dimmers. So, when siting the antenna of a GNSS receiver or designing a GNSS-based navigation system, electromagnetic compatibility is an important concern. This is particularly true for airborne platforms. In this month’s column we take a look at how RFI can impact GNSS equipment on unmanned aircraft systems and how robustly can the equipment navigate those systems.
As the number of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS; also called unmanned aerial vehicles and drones) in use is increasing across many sectors, there is an interest in understanding the robustness of the GNSS engine used on UAS. With UAS being integrated into the National Airspace System (NAS), questions arise about what kind of navigation system should be used on UAS, and to what degree it should be standardized. Conventional aircraft typically use a certified GNSS receiver for navigational purposes, and as UAS will share the sky with conventional aircraft in the future, it is not unreasonable that UAS will use similar receivers.
The first part of this article provides background on the status of GNSS standards for UAS. In the second part, we discuss why radio-frequency interference (RFI) can be expected on some UAS, together with what issues the RFI could cause for the GNSS engine. A simple experiment to determine the presence of RFI in the GPS L1 band due to proximity of a GPS antenna to electronics is presented in this section as well. The third part of the article discusses real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning for UAS purposes. In terms of accuracy, RTK positioning often provides the best results. The robustness of RTK measurements is questionable, though, because the technique relies on carrier-phase measurements. We present a case study, which shows some of the issues of using RTK positioning for UAS, in this part of the article, too.
GNSS standards for UAS
GNSS, and especially GPS, have been used in aviation for quite some time. The GPS receivers used for aviation have to guarantee a certain level of performance to be used, and are certified by the manufacturer to deliver said performance.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is working on integrating UAS into the NAS. The development of UAS has been quick and has led to a lack of standardization for UAS, something that does exist for traditional manned aircraft. This has led to operators in most cases having to file for exemptions from the existing rules in order to use UAS. It is the ambition of the FAA to transition from issuing exemptions to issuing certifications of UAS once an agreement on regulations has been reached. There are still a number of challenges associated with a full integration of UAS into the NAS, including regulatory, procedural and technical challenges.
The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) was the first operational space-based augmentation system, intended to increase the robustness and reliability of GPS for aviation purposes. The WAAS Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) document (see Further Reading) specifies what kind of performance GPS plus WAAS provides to aviation users.
The MOPS requirements have been carefully examined and extended. The maximum in-band interference levels for aviation have been theoretically analyzed. As long as signal and interference levels are within the specified ranges, the required performance should be expected.
These levels, combined with the WAAS MOPS, provide the aviation community with the standardization required for manned aircraft operations where lives can be at stake if something were to go wrong with a navigation system. A Volpe National Transportation Systems Center report (see Further Reading) recommends the use of certified GPS receivers for applications where GPS is a critical system. This is not yet a requirement for UAS, and the question remains unanswered as to whether this will be a requirement for UAS in the future.
Traditional aviation uses required navigation performance (RNP), a performance-based navigation approach, to assess what type of navigation systems can be used for different phases of flight. For example, while an aircraft is en route, an RNP of 2 nautical miles is required, meaning the actual position of the aircraft cannot deviate more than 2 nautical miles from a reported position. It should be noted that RNP takes the entire system into consideration, from the space-segment to the receiver to the capabilities of the aircraft.
GNSS receivers used on manned aircraft have to be certified to deliver the RNP for each phase of flight for which they are used. Receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM) is used to ensure that faulty measurements do not affect the position and navigation solution. Due to the nature of RAIM, more satellites are required than the traditional minimum of four. If GNSS supplements other systems on board the aircraft, RAIM may be used to only monitor the quality of the system, and it will report when performance is below the required minimum. This form of RAIM requires a minimum of five satellites.
However, if the aircraft depends on GNSS for navigation, RAIM must be able to determine if a particular satellite is providing incorrect or subpar data. This requires one additional satellite, bringing the minimum number of satellites that have to be in view of the receiver’s antenna up to six (two more than non-RAIM GNSS operation).
However, using RAIM requires additional computational power, which one might not be able to provide on board a UAS due to size, weight and power limitations. It has been suggested that a GNSS system coupled with an inertial navigation system (INS) could be used for UAS navigation. A micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) INS would be very small, would not require a lot of power, and could improve the performance of a UAS navigation system. A GNSS plus MEMS INS approach may well be able to provide the robustness needed for UAS. However, the analysis of such a system is outside the scope of this article.
Some basic considerations should be taken into account for a UAS GNSS positioning system. Integrity should be prioritized over accuracy if the system is used for navigational purposes. Low-altitude operations could bring on problems of sky blockage. The proposed solution to this is to use a receiver capable of using multiple constellations to ensure that as many satellites as possible are in view.
Radio frequency interference
Radio frequency interference, or RFI, is the interference caused by electromagnetic waves interacting with a system they were not intended to interact with. A familiar case of RFI can be experienced when a cellular phone is placed in close proximity to an AM radio. A distinctive sound can sometimes be heard, which is the sound of RFI interacting with the radio.
Many forms of RFI exist. The interference can be in-band, that is, originating on frequencies transmitted within the band occupied by a desired signal, or out-of-band where the center-frequency of the interfering signal lies outside the band used by the desired signal but it can have a nonlinear impact on the components in the front end of the GNSS receiver. In some cases. the bandwidth of the interference is very small (narrowband), and in some cases the bandwidth is quite large (broadband). Depending on the type of interference, the affected systems will react differently.
RFI can, for obvious reasons, be expected from intentional radiators, such as equipment broadcasting signals near the GNSS signal frequencies, or other equipment that emits harmonics that lie close to the GNSS frequencies. These sources are documented, and the effects of them can be mitigated through proper planning and analysis.
However, electrical equipment can produce RFI that is not intended to be emitted — a so-called unintentional radiator. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Part 15 regulations define an unintentional radiator as “a device that intentionally generates radio frequency energy for use within the device, or that sends radio frequency signals by conduction to associated equipment via connecting wiring, but which is not intended to emit RF energy by radiation or induction.” Such devices are allowed to emit signal levels up to 300 or 500 microvolts per meter (depending on the class of the device) in the GNSS bands, as measured three meters away from the device.
Although most GNSS frequencies are protected, the risk for intentional or unintentional RFI exists. Some elements of the GPS system have been designed to mitigate interference effects, and GPS remains a relatively robust system. However, there are still sources that could interfere with the GPS signals, such as out-of-band transmissions, harmonics of airborne or ground-based transmitter equipment, radar transmitters or even local oscillators in nearby equipment.
In 1996, under a presidential decision directive, a commission to investigate a broad range of infrastructure vulnerabilities, including vulnerabilities to GPS, was set up. The commission found that GPS is in fact vulnerable to unintentional disruptions, from both human-made and naturally occurring sources. The commission recommended using certified GPS receivers for critical applications. The commission further recommended monitoring, reporting and locating unintentional RFI sources.
One of the potential issues with RFI in a GNSS engine is that it can cause false local correlation peaks, which could cause the code-tracking loop and the carrier-tracking loop to diverge from the main correlation peak.
RFI in the UAS GNSS Engine. On smaller UAS, space restrictions could lead to electronic components being placed in close proximity to each other. As stated earlier, some of these components could be producing RFI in the GNSS bands. If the RFI is strong enough to significantly raise the noise floor, the GPS signals could effectively be drowned out by noise. UAS that rely primarily on GNSS for navigation will risk losing navigational capabilities during such occurrences.
With no external interference present, the noise floor should be at the receiver’s thermal noise floor. The presence of interference could be indicated by the raising of the noise floor above the level of the thermal noise.
FIGURE 1 shows a simple setup for testing the hypothesis that electronics found on a common UAS could produce harmful RFI in the GPS engine. Some of the onboard equipment was a flight-controller, a 915-MHz communication link and a 2.4-GHz communication link.
FIGURE 1. Setup to test for GPS RFI.
A GPS antenna was placed outside and inside the UAS at common antenna locations. The antenna was connected to a high-performance GPS single-frequency-receiver evaluation kit and a spectrum analyzer. To enhance the effects and signals, a 40-dB inline amplifier was connected before the signal was split.
Three tests were carried out in this case study:
In a reference test, the antenna was placed on the outside of the airframe and the UAS was not powered on.
With the UAS power remaining off, the antenna was placed inside the airframe to see how much the signal was attenuated (see FIGURE 2).
With the antenna still inside the airframe, the UAS was powered on and all systems on the UAS were running.
FIGURE 2. Inside the UAS (including the GPS antenna).
The results from the receiver can be seen in FIGURES 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows that the number of satellites being tracked by the GPS receiver did not change between tests.
FIGURE 3. Satellites tracked by the evaluation-kit receiver.FIGURE 4. C/N0 values for different antenna and power configurations.
However, Figure 4 shows C/N0 for each test, and a clear difference can be seen (up to 10-dB difference from the case where the antenna was in the same location but with the UAS on and off). While this difference did not affect the receiver’s ability to provide a position solution, the accuracy was likely degraded due to the RFI. In a real-world scenario, this could lead to the user not noticing the presence of RFI, since the receiver is still able to output a position.
TABLE 1 shows some metrics calculated from the GPS receiver data. The table clearly shows a drop in C/N0 values when the UAS is powered on.
Table 1. Calculated values.
The results from the spectrum analyzer further show the effects of turning the UAS and its equipment on. FIGURE 5 shows the frequency spectrum using an average of 50 sweeps centered at 1575.42 MHz (GPS L1) with a bandwidth of 30 MHz for the case when the antenna was inside the airframe and the UAS was switched off. Due to improper initial calibration, the absolute values of the measurements are incorrect, and should be increased by 9 dBm. However, the relative measurements are still valid. FIGURE 6 shows the same setup for the spectrum analyzer but with all the UAS equipment on with the same caveat about the absolute values.
By comparing Figures 5 and 6, it is clear that the noise floor rises significantly when the UAS and its equipment is switched on. The GPS “bump” that was visible in the center of Figure 5 is no longer visible when the UAS is switched on in Figure 6.
FIGURE 5. RF spectrum when the antenna is inside the airframe, UAS switched off. See text concerning y-axis scale.FIGURE 6. RF spectrum when the antenna is inside the airframe, UAS switched on (all systems running). See text concerning y-axis scale.
RTK Positioning
RTK positioning is a high-accuracy GNSS positioning method that involves a base station and one or more rovers. The receivers operate in two distinct modes, fix or float. When a receiver is in float mode, the number of integer wavelengths in the carrier-phase measurements has not been resolved yet. In fixed mode, these have been resolved. This is also known as ambiguity resolution. The accuracy is greatly improved if ambiguities are resolved to their correct integer values. During dynamic cases (and even sometimes during static cases), the receiver may change between the two modes repeatedly.
RTK for UAS. RTK positioning can be very useful for UAS, as it can provide a better accuracy in a lot of cases compared to traditional positioning. It can be used for navigational purposes, or for positioning of scientific payloads carried on board a UAS.
RTK use on UAS is currently limited, in part due to the number of challenges associated with it. These include the size and weight issue for smaller UAS. Space is limited on board smaller UAS, and the available payload is also limited. RTK systems require more equipment than a regular GNSS system and therefore require more space and weight.
There is also the issue of cost for smaller UAS. To get quick, high-precision RTK positioning, a dual-frequency receiver is desirable, but such a system is often expensive and could deny a wide sector of the market access to such receivers. Researchers have performed some experiments with an L1-only RTK receiver and show that it could be possible to use such a system for UAS.
The experiments to be discussed in this article assume that the receivers being tested are candidates for possible UAS use. The high-performance GPS single-frequency-receiver evaluation kit used in the RFI tests is considered the prime candidate, as it is a common receiver found on UAS and is relatively cheap and lightweight.
As shown in the previous RFI section, it is possible for RFI to be present and for it to lower the C/N0 without affecting the number of satellites tracked. This could lead to the user being initially unaware of the RFI, and could potentially be a problem for RTK positioning as carrier-phase measurements are more easily disrupted.
Dynamic RTK Experiment. We performed an experiment to evaluate the performance of RTK in a real-world scenario that could be comparable to the use of RTK on a UAS. A comparison between RTK positioning and standard pseudorange-based positioning, essentially the GPS Standard Positioning Service (SPS), was also carried out for one of the receivers. RFI effects were not measured during the experiment.
Almost all post-processing (and some data capturing) was done using RTKLIB, a free and open source GNSS software suite. RTKLIB is modular and can be used at any stage in GNSS applications. The software is available at rtklib.com.
Three receivers were compared: the previously discussed high-performance GPS single-frequency-receiver evaluation kit; a low-cost, high-performance GPS receiver with RTK functionality; and a professional-grade multi-GNSS multi-frequency RTK survey receiver. As the low-cost receiver is marketed for UAS use, it was of interest to see how the receiver compared to the others in a dynamic case. The evaluation-kit receiver was of interest due to similar receivers often being used on UAS today. The professional-grade receiver was of interest since it is a high-end receiver capable of receiving multiple constellations and frequencies. The experiment was performed to simulate some of the conditions that might be experienced on UAS. The most approximate test vehicle that was available at the time was a car.
The receivers were set up to capture GPS signals only. The low-cost and evaluation-kit receivers are only capable of receiving the L1 signal, and were set up accordingly. The professional-grade receiver was set up to capture the L1, L2 and L5 signals. A truth reference for the test vehicle was needed for comparison, and for this we used a multi-frequency receiver with an inertial measurement unit (IMU). The benefit of the IMU is that it contains gyros and accelerometers that can capture very precise movements at times when GNSS signals might not be available (during periods of sky blockage for example).
However, due to the gyros drifting, the IMU needs to be updated with GNSS data every few minutes to give an accurate solution. The receiver was configured to capture GPS L1+L2+L5, GLONASS L1+L2 and WAAS. The GNSS data was then post-processed in precise point positioning (PPP) mode with data from several nearby stations. The GNSS PPP data was then smoothed and combined with the IMU data to form a GNSS PPP plus IMU solution. It was assumed that the GNSS receiver and IMU gave a correct solution at all times. A diagram of the setup can be seen in FIGURE 7.
FIGURE 7. Diagram of the setup of dynamic RTK experiment.
The car with the equipment was driven around the town and campus at the University of Colorado in Boulder. The path included a parking lot (a wide open area), parts of a highway (an open area), major roads (open area with parts covered by trees), residential areas (with many trees covering the sky) and a parking garage (with complete sky blockage). The parking garage was entered towards the end of the experiment.
The receiver data was post-processed using an RTKLIB setup to process the data as if it was received in real time. A multi-frequency multi-GNSS receiver was set up with a roof-mounted antenna at the University of Colorado to collect data for the duration of the experiment, and this data was later used as base-station data for the RTK calculations.
The low-cost receiver had a hard time regaining a position solution, while the evaluation-kit receiver did slightly better. The professional-grade receiver only lost a clear position for about 10 seconds. This behavior agrees with expectations: the low-cost receiver is new and is being updated regularly with new software, and the evaluation-kit receiver is known for being able to perform well under poor conditions. The professional-grade receiver has the support of additional GPS signals, which could explain why it was the first to regain a good position solution.
TABLE 2 shows some of the values calculated from the experiment, which further confirms that the evaluation-kit receiver is able to calculate a position more often than the professional-grade receiver, but a more inaccurate position. In the table, “availability” is defined as how many data points the receiver was able to capture, divided by how many would have been captured if the receiver could capture data at all times. “RTK solution” is how often the captured data was sufficient to calculate an RTK solution. “Fix solution” is defined as how often the ambiguities could be resolved out of the available RTK data points, and “float solution” is how often the ambiguities could not be resolved out the available RTK data points. The comparison of the results using SPS versus the RTK technique for the evaluation-kit receiver is interesting. Using RTK increases the accuracy only slightly, but not as much as anticipated before the test was performed.
Table 2. Tabulated results from the dynamic RTK experiment (N/A = not applicable).
Conclusions
GNSS is viable for UAS navigation, but it remains to be seen how policymakers will decide to regulate its use for this application. Many existing and emerging technologies could prove useful in increasing not only the reliability, but also the accuracy, of the GNSS engine on board a UAS.
Although UAS share many similarities with traditional manned aircraft, by their nature they are unmanned and would not pose the same immediate risk for significant loss of life if an accident were to occur. This, coupled with the fact that UAS can vary greatly in size and operational requirements, leaves the possibility open to using different certification requirements of GNSS navigation for different UAS.
RFI. The RFI experiment showed a considerable impact on C/N0 from the evaluation-kit receiver. While the number of satellites tracked remained constant between tests, it is possible that during slightly different operating conditions (different UAS and/or receivers, other onboard equipment and so on), the impact could have been more severe.
RTK for UAS. RTK systems are complex, but they have some clear advantages to traditional pseudorange-based standalone GNSS, with regard to accuracy. From the results of using the evaluation-kit receiver during the dynamic RTK experiment, it seems as though it would be only advantageous if RTK could be used on a UAS. The only visible difference between the SPS and RTK operation in the experiment was a slight increase in accuracy. The availability of the measurements (that is, how much data was available) was the same for when the receiver used SPS versus RTK. However, the slight increase in accuracy might not be sufficient to compel operators to use the RTK technique for UAS navigation, as additional equipment and setup will be required.
However, when using a receiver with more frequencies, such as the professional-grade receiver, we saw a great increase in accuracy. This receiver was quite large and heavy, and is most likely outside the budget considerations for many smaller UAS setups. It is also likely that using a dual-frequency receiver that is similar to the evaluation-kit receiver in size and weight could improve accuracy, and this should be tested in the future.
Further investigations should be performed to determine if the RTK technique could be used successfully for UAS navigation. A natural next step would be to place an RTK setup on an actual UAS and to test how RFI affects the RTK measurements.
Acknowledgments
This article is based on the paper “GNSS/GPS Robustness for UAS” presented at The Institute of Navigation 2016 International Technical Meeting. The research was carried out in cooperation with the Research and Engineering Center for Unmanned Vehicles in the Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
JOSHUA STUBBS has an M.Sc. in space engineering, with a focus on aerospace, from Luleå University of Technology in Sweden. In 2015, he did his master’s thesis work at the University of Colorado, Boulder, where he focused on GNSS applications for UAS.
DENNIS M. AKOS completed his Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering at Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, within the Avionics Engineering Center. He is a faculty member with the Aerospace Engineering Sciences Department at the University of Colorado and maintains visiting appointments at Stanford University and Luleå University of Technology.
Further Reading
Authors’ Conference Paper
“GNSS/GPS Robustness for UAS” by J. Stubbs and D. Akos in Proceedings of ITM 2016, the 2016 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, Monterey, Calif., Jan. 25–28, 2016, pp. 485–493.
“Radio Frequency Devices” in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47 (Telecommunication), Chapter I (Federal Communications Commission), Subchapter A (General), Part 15, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC, 2016.
“Interference, Multipath, and Scintillation” by P.W. Ward, J.W. Betz and C.J. Hegarty, Chapter 6 in Understanding GPS: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed., E.D. Kaplan and C.J. Hegarty, Eds., Artech House, Boston and London, 2006.
“Analytical Derivation of Maximum Tolerable In-Band Interference Levels for Aviation Applications of GNSS” by C.J. Hegarty in Navigation, Vol. 44, No. 1, Spring 1997, pp. 25–34, doi: 10.1002/j.2161-4296.1997.tb01936.x.
“GPS Integrity and Potential Impact on Aviation Safety” by W.Y. Ochieng, K. Sauer, D. Walsh, G. Brodin, S. Griffin and M. Denney in the Journal of Navigation, Vol. 56, No. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 51–65, doi: 10.1017/S0373463302002096.
Real-Time Kinematic Positioning for Unmanned Aircraft Systems
“A Precise, Low-Cost RTK GNSS System for UAV Applications” by W. Stempfhuber and M. Buchholz in the Proceedings of UAV-g 2011, the 2011 Conference on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Geomatics, Zurich, Switzerland, Sept. 14–16, 2011, International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol. XXXVIII 1/C22, pp. 289–293, 2011.
Trimble has introduced its latest smart antenna with an integrated multi-GNSS receiver for high accuracy and precise timing applications. The Acutime 360 smart antenna provides a pulse-per-second (PPS) output synchronized to UTC within 15 nanoseconds (one sigma).
The Acutime 360 is the latest in the Acutime line of products, which have been deployed in the field for more than 20 years. With a user friendly interface for communication, the GNSS smart antenna is light weight and easy to integrate with a host system. It is suitable for critical infrastructure including wireless networks and utilities.
The Acutime 360 GNSS smart antenna is built using the Trimble 360 technology platform for multi-GNSS systems, which includes support for GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou and is Galileo-ready. The Acutime 360 has tracking sensitivity of -160 dBm and an acquisition sensitivity of -148 dBm. The increased sensitivity translates into greater reliability and accuracy.
The Acutime 360 smart antenna uses a standard 12-pin connector and is footprint-compatible with previous generations of Acutime antennas. The Acutime 360 antenna is an ideal solution for precise timing and frequency synchronization for a wide range of applications including:
sync reference for wireless and small cell networks
utilities – smart grid
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems
critical infrastructure
Designed for long-term reliability, the IP67 compliant Acutime 360 is corrosion-resistant and waterproof and has a rounded top that facilitates run-off from the elements. It weighs less than 6 ounces and offers an extremely cost-effective solution for adding GNSS reference to any application where ease of installation and long-term reliability is critical.
Once powered, the Acutime 360 automatically tracks satellites and surveys its position to within meters. It then switches to over-determined time mode and generates a PPS, outputting a time tag for each pulse. The smart antenna’s Time-Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitor (T-RAIM) algorithm maintains PPS integrity.
The GNSS smart antenna can operate in extreme temperatures (-40°C to +85°C) and hostile RF environments typically encountered at wireless network transmitter sites. It requires less than 1 watt of power to operate and outputs the Trimble Standard Interface Protocol (TSIP) or industry-standard NMEA messages.
The Acutime 360 smart timing antenna is expected to be available in the second quarter of 2016 through Trimble’s Time and Frequency sales network.
Antennas. When I was a kid, antennas meant the pair of rabbit ears sitting on top of the family TV set. We had to constantly adjust the angles to get the best reception, using aluminum foil to improve the signal.
Wow, how things have changed. Today, consumer users of smartphones, Fitbits, smartwatches, tablets and a hundred other electronic devices don’t even think about antennas. Most consumers probably haven’t given a thought to the fact that their favorite device contains an antenna.
Unlike broadcast antennas back in the day, modern GNSS antennas in consumer devices are invisible to the consumer, but perform even in less-than-ideal conditions. Every year brings new improvements and smaller sizes.
Then there are the external antennas, which grow more rugged to withstand the elements while receiving more signals from more constellations, such as BeiDou and Galileo.
GPS World has traditionally published its Antenna Survey in February following the Receiver Survey in January. The first antenna survey appeared in 2001, nine years after we published our first receiver survey. Perhaps it took a few years to realize how critical antennas are in GNSS systems.
As usual, the Antenna Survey encapsulates the important specifications on dozens of antennas, from stand-alone designs for high-precision commercial, defense and timing applications to micro antennas for integration into a variety of smartphones, UAVs and automobiles.
This year, 30 antenna manufacturers provide all the details on their products. Check out the 20-page survey supplement, sponsored this year by NovAtel.
Assessing the performance of multi-antenna interference-rejection techniques
Several factors affect the levels of signal rejection using antenna arrays. Our authors describe experiments to assess the bounds the factors impose on its signal rejection capability.
By James T. Curran, Michele Bavaro and Joaquim Fortuny-Guasch
INNOVATION INSIGHTS with Richard Langley
IT’S ALL PHYSICS. How things work, that is. Well, maybe a little chemistry too in some cases. But I might be a little biased in my opinion given that I’m an applied physicist by training. Radio? Satellite navigation? Yes, the principles of their operation are all governed by physics. Many physicists of my generation started out as radio tinkerers. I’ve recounted in this column before that I built my first radio (from a kit) when I was 14 (not counting the crystal radio that my father helped me to put together when I was 9). Built a few more during high school, got into radio astronomy as an undergraduate, and did a Ph.D. in the application of very long baseline (radio) interferometry to geodesy.
The great American physicist Richard Feynman was also a radio tinkerer in his youth. He recounts in one of his autobiographical books how he used to fix radios. And because he would approach the task of repairing each non-functioning set by first contemplating why it wasn’t working, he got the reputation of fixing radios by thinking!
One of Feynman’s special abilities was in explaining how things worked. In fact, he has been called “The Great Explainer.” He authored what is arguably the best physics textbooks ever produced: The Feynman Lectures on Physics. The three-volume set, developed from his Caltech lectures to undergraduates between 1961 and 1964, covers mechanics, radiation, electromagnetism, matter and quantum mechanics. Many students and practicing physicists have learned or re-learned aspects of physics from the famous “red books.” Many more will now thanks to Caltech, which recently put the Lectures on line for anyone to read (feynmanlectures.caltech.edu).
In this month’s column, we are going to learn about the development of a microprocessor-controlled multi-element GNSS antenna array for interference rejection. While there are many textbooks that describe how multi-element antennas work, Feynman explains their operation in his Lectures from first principles — from the principles of physics.
The phenomenon governing the behavior of antennas with multiple elements is called interference. If we combine two electromagnetic waves, they will interfere with each other with a result that depends on the phase difference of the waves. The waves might reinforce each other leading to a larger net amplitude, called constructive interference, or partially or fully null each other out, called destructive interference. When we apply this concept to the signals received by a pair of antennas making up an array, we find that the array has directionality and we can have a null in the reception pattern in the directions parallel to the antenna baseline and will be insensitive to signals arriving from those directions. And as Feynman describes in his Lectures, by adding more antennas to the array and “some cleverness in spacing and phasing our antennas,” we can have a fairly narrow pattern null in a chosen direction. In the case of a GNSS antenna array, that direction might be that of a jamming signal and so we can null out the jammer and maintain a positioning capability.
Several factors affect the levels of signal rejection using antenna arrays. In this article, our authors describe these factors and the experiments they conducted with their microprocessor-controlled array to assess the bounds the factors impose on its signal rejection capability.
Directional antennas offer a powerful means of achieving signal selectivity when various signal sources observed by a receiver are separated spatially. In the context of GNSS, which must accommodate a mobile receiver observing many moving transmitters, adaptive antennas — or controlled radiation pattern antennas—are an attractive option. The benefits of antenna arrays have been demonstrated both for signal rejection, such as interference and multipath mitigation or anti-spoofing; and for the purposes of gain enhancement, angle-of-arrival, or attitude estimation.
A number of different factors can influence the achievable levels of signal rejection using antenna arrays. These factors include: the gain and phase stability of the analog radio-frequency (RF) and intermediate-frequency (IF) stages, the linearity of the active analog stages, and the fidelity of the signal-combining stages. Seeking to identify the bound imposed by each of these limiting factors, we have carefully examined the signal rejection capability of an antenna array in our work. The study considers a circular antenna array, consisting of seven passive dual-polarized (right-hand circularly polarized [RHCP] and left-hand circularly polarized [LHCP]) L1-L2 elements. Although signal rejection can be performed both in the analog and in the digital domain, this article focuses only on the analog combination of signals at RF, using a bank of controllable phase shifters and attenuators. We conducted broadcast experiments in a large-diameter anechoic chamber, housing a rotatable central pillar upon which the array is mounted, and two broadcast antennas mounted on movable sleds.
The results presented here include a precise three-dimensional phase and gain calibration of the antenna array using a network analyzer to explore the properties of antenna elements when placed in close proximity on a common ground plane. Further results include an investigation of the nulling depth achievable by the array via the synchronous broadcast of two GNSS-like code-division multiple access (CDMA) signals from different broadcast antennas. We then extrapolated these results to infer the relative degradation in nulling capability when the receiver’s estimate of the amplitude and phase of the signal to be rejected is poor. Finally, a comparison of analog and digital element combining is explored, with emphasis on the rejection of strong jamming signals.
This experiment sought to illustrate and quantify the unique benefits and limitations of each technique. In particular, we note that analog combining enjoys high linearity and can accommodate high interference power, but is typically restricted to the use of coarse phase and gain coefficients when combining elements. In contrast, digital combining can offer notably higher gain and phase resolution, but is limited by the dynamic range of the digitizer.
Antenna Characterization
The work reported in this article has focused on the use of a seven-element circular antenna array, consisting of dual-polarized (RHCP and LHCP), dual-frequency (L1 and L2) elements. The antenna elements are mounted on a single circular aluminum ground plane 2 millimeters thick and 50 centimeters in diameter, and placed in a hexagonal arrangement at a spacing of 12.5 centimeters, as depicted in FIGURE 1. Because the antennas are passive, and can be used both for transmission and for reception, characterization tests were performed in broadcast mode while the typical receive-mode operation of the array is performed using an in-line low-noise amplifier (LNA) after the antenna.
The experiments described here were conducted in an anechoic chamber, hemispherical in shape with a diameter of 20 meters, as depicted in FIGURE 2. The array was mounted on a surveyor’s tripod and placed at a known position on a rotatable pillar at the center of the chamber. The chamber contains two sleds, Sled A and B, which can be precisely positioned along an arc through the zenith at positions between ±115° either side of the vertical. These antennas include 1.0 to 6.0 GHz vertically and horizontally polarized standard-gain horn antennas.
FIGURE 2. Antenna array and digitizing front end in the anechoic chamber during broadcast tests.
Because the characteristics of the antenna array itself are central to the ultimate performance of beamforming or null-steering techniques, a thorough characterization of the gain and phase properties of each of the seven antenna elements was conducted.
To do so, a network analyzer was used to observe the gain and phase response of the antenna under test from a range of observation angles. The array was operated in transmit mode, broadcasting a signal sourced from Port A of the network analyzer, which was received by an antenna mounted on one of the movable sleds, and fed to Port B of the network analyzer.
The network analyzer was configured to broadcast a series of 201 equally spaced tones spanning 20 MHz centered at 1575.42 MHz at a power of -7 dBm from the antenna array.
A mechanical RF multiplexer was used to implement a time-division multiplexing of this broadcast measurement signal across each of the seven elements, such that the series of tones were transmitted once per antenna element. By performing the scan for each antenna element, for a range of positions of Sled A, and repeating this for different rotations of the central pillar, a precise frequency response could be calculated for a large set of points across the entire upper hemisphere of the antenna. The scan was computed on signals received by both the horizontal and vertical elements on Sled A, such that both the RHCP and LHCP response could be computed. The vertical cuts of this gain pattern were measured with resolution of 2°, while the horizontal cuts were measured with a resolution of 5°.
The average gain response, calculated across the 20-MHz band, for each of the seven elements is depicted in FIGURE 3. The elevation cut of the peripheral element is taken such that the -90° direction of the cut aligns with a radial line pointing away from the center of the array. The azimuth cuts are oriented such that the 0° direction aligns with a radial line extending from the center of element number 1 to the center of element number 2.
FIGURE 3. The measured gain pattern of the central element, number 1, (blue lines) and one of the peripheral elements, number 2, (red lines). The gain of the peripheral element is deflected inwards toward the center of the array because of the asymmetry of its positioning on the ground plane. (a) Elevation angle cut at an azimuth of 0°; (b) Azimuth cut at an elevation angle of 40°.
It is interesting to note that the gain pattern exhibited by each element is sensitive to its position on the ground plane and its position relative to other elements. Because of the rotational symmetry of the array, the gain patterns of all of the peripheral elements are similar, differing only in orientation, each one exhibiting a deflection of the maximum gain towards the center of the array. The central element is circularly symmetric with a single lobe in the direction of the zenith, while gain of the peripheral elements is deflected inwards, having lower gain away from the center of the array and an increased gain for high elevation angles from the center of the array. The difference in gain pattern across elements is stark and should, perhaps, influence the choice of elements to be used when forming a beam or null in a given direction. One or other of the signals should be scaled to compensate for this gain difference.
Measuring Signal Rejection
Before exploring factors that influence signal rejection, this section details the figure of merit, which might quantify the achievable performance of the array. We examined the nulling performance of the system in terms of its rejection capability: assessed as the relative received power of the signal of interest, b(t), that is to be preserved, and an unwanted signal, a(t), which is to be rejected, before and after the nulling combination. If sj(t) denotes some signal as received at antenna j, then the combination of signals received at antennas j and k can be denoted by:
(1)
where κ and ϕ, respectively, represent a unitless scaling gain and a phase rotation in radians applied in the combination. When intending to form a beam in the direction of the source of s(t), then this phase might be chosen to bring sk(t) into alignment with sj(t), and the gain may be determined as a function of the signal-to-noise ratio at each antenna, or simply set to unity. In contrast, when it is intended to reject s(t) then eiϕ must be chosen to place sk(t) in antiphase with sj(t) and must be chosen to scale the amplitude of sk(t) to be exactly equal to that of sj(t).
In this case, we consider the problem of placing a null in the direction of signal a(t) while preserving signal b(t). If the relative received power of a(t) and b(t) at antenna j is taken as a reference, then the rejection of a(t) with respect to b(t), denoted Ra,b , can be assessed by examining the change in relative power after the null has been placed:
(2)
where denotes the expected value of x. Note also that this convention implies that a value of Ra,b greater than unity corresponds to signal rejection.
Analog Null Steering at RF
This section explores some of the receiver-side factors that can limit nulling performance. The performance of an analog RF-combining circuit is examined, wherein the combining function was implemented using controllable analog attenuators and phase shifters.
The received signal from each of two antennas, j and k, was fed to a custom RF circuit board hosting a controllable phase shifter and attenuator chips. The output of two of these boards was then combined using a passive power combiner, filtered by an analog RF filter, limiting the band to the range 1530–1620 MHz, and finally fed to a power detector, which produced a signal voltage that was proportional to the total observed power. The experimental setup is depicted in FIGURE 4. The attenuators and phase shifters were controlled digitally via a microcontroller board, which also sampled the output of the power detector.
FIGURE 5. A simplified example of the steering constellation of an analog gain and phase shifter, having 3-bit phase and gain control and a gain step-size of ~1 dB.
The attenuators accept a 6-bit control, providing a dynamic range of 30 dB in steps of approximately 0.5 dB, while the phase shifters accept a 4-bit control traversing the unit circle in steps of 22.5°.
A simplified example of the finite resolution achievable using such a phase and gain shifter is shown by the steering constellation depicted in FIGURE 5, taking the case of 3-bit gain and phase control and assuming a gain step size of 1 dB. Note that the gain is displayed on a logarithmic scale. Each of the circular markers represents a possible gain and phase coefficient for a received signal, which would be used to steer one signal, a, to be approximately equal in amplitude and in anti-phase with the second signal, b.
FIGURE 4. A custom-built programmable analog phase shifter and attenuator pair used for the analog null-steering configuration.
The residual misalignment between the signals stems from the finite constellation of steering points and results in a reduced nulling performance, whereby a portion of the interference signal remains. The relative magnitude of the remaining interference signal is maximum when the true relative phase and amplitude of the signals a and b lies equidistant from the four nearest steering vectors. This is depicted in Figure 5, where the cross marker lies equidistant from the four vertices located at the corners of {0°,45°} and {7,8} dB. Note that as the gain is depicted on a logarithmic scale, the relative error is equal for points centered in any of the quadrants.
To investigate the performance of the system, we broadcast a continuous-wave interference toward the array, while the signal from one antenna was manipulated by all possible gain and phase combinations, keeping the signal from the second antenna at a fixed zero phase shift and –15 dB attenuation. For each of the 1,024 possible gain and phase combinations, the power detector was sampled and logged. A trace of the measured signal rejection as a function of the gain and phase is depicted in FIGURE 6, wherein a sharp peak is observable at approximately {–15 dB, 210°}, corresponding to the point at which the unwanted signal is most rejected — in this particular case, to a level of approximately 29 dB.
FIGURE 6. The measured interference rejection for a broadcast jamming scenario, where a brute-force search through all possible combinations of phase shift and attenuation was conducted. In this case, the maximum rejection happens to occur at an attenuation of 16.5 dB and a phase shift of 225°.
Estimating the Achievable Rejection Level. In this particular experiment, because all 1,024 possible gain and phase combinations were examined in a brute-force search, the signal rejection was not limited by inaccuracies in the estimation of the steering variables κ and ϕ. Rather, it was limited by how accurately the steering variables can be applied. A residual error exists between the phase and gain that would perfectly align and null the signal and the nearest values of phase and gain that the circuit can produce. This error is a function of the distribution of the true steering parameter and the resolution with which it is rendered. In this case, as the range and angle to the unwanted signal source is arbitrary and the distance between antenna elements is comparable to the carrier wavelength, then it is reasonable, perhaps, to assume that the residual error in the steering parameters is zero mean and uniform over the discrete control steps. To model this effect, similar to the previous section, the combining function, inclusive of these errors, can be expressed as:
(3)
where U denotes a uniform distribution, δϕ denotes the step size of the phase shifter control and δA denotes the attenuator step size. Note that as κ is in units of amplitude and δA represents the discrete steps in power gain, which corresponds to discrete steps of in amplitude, then the residual error will be distributed over a region extending in either direction. In this case, if a B-bit phase shifter is used, then:
. (4)
From this model, the minimum expected rejection level can be estimated as a function of the phase and attenuator resolution. Considering first the rejection expression given by Equation (2), we note that the variation of the power signal of interest, b(t), is a function only of the relative angles between each of a(t) and b(t) and the antenna array. When the signals are well separated, a gain of 3 dB is observed on b(t), and when a(t) and b(t) are located nearby or in exact opposite directions, then the rejection of a(t) will also reject b(t). As this power variation is a function of geometry and not of the particular nulling technique, for simplicity it is assumed that b(t) experiences no power variation. What remains is the relative power variation of a(t) with respect to and δϕ.
To find the minimum expected rejection level, we must examine the following metric:
(5)
(6)
where the two variables, eκ and eϕ, respectively represent the residual errors in amplitude and phase between the perfect steering vector, and that which can be attained by the combiner. Examining Equations (3) and (6), it is clear that the minimum rejection will be achieved when the residual phase error is equal to eϕ = 1/2δϕ and the amplitude mismatch is given by eκ = . Substituting these values yields the minimum expected rejection, as given in Equation (7):
.(7)
Determination of the average expected rejection level requires the averaging of Equation (6) over the distributions of the two error variables, eκ and eϕ. As these errors are assumed to be uniform in this particular case, this reduces to the following:
(8)
which, after some manipulation, admits the closed form expression of Equation (9):
.
(9)
Inserting the specifications of the experimental setup used here, we find that the minimum rejection that can be expected is equal to approximately 14 dB with an average value equal to 18.8 dB. Further exploring this result, it is possible to predict the minimum performance that can be achieved given some arbitrary, but finite, resolution in gain and phase rotation. A portion of the surface defined by Equation (9) is presented in FIGURE 7. One useful application of this result is that it may be used by a designer to ensure that the resolution in gain and in phase are commensurate. This can be inferred by examining the gradient of the surface, noting that optimal choices of gain and phase step size will lie along the line of steepest gradient of this surface. A flattening of the surface in one dimension indicates that the performance is limited by the other dimension. For example, it can be seen that an increase in phase resolution beyond 6 bits yields no improvement in rejection when the gain step size is greater than 0.5 dB.
FIGURE 7. Minimum achievable rejection of analog nulling-combiner as a function of phase-shifter resolution (bits) and attenuator step size (dB).
Conclusion
Early results from this study suggest that the achievable signal rejection using a controlled radiation pattern GNSS antenna, under ideal conditions, is in excess of 70 dB, and is primarily limited by the accuracy with which the angle of incidence of the interference can be estimated. Accounting for typical estimation errors, the nominal rejection levels of the order of 20 to 40 dB can be expected. However, it is observed that other aspects limit the signal rejection performance. In a practical receiver, these factors stem from component selection for the signal-combining circuitry.
For analog combining schemes, this is the resolution of the controlled attenuators and phase shifters used. The results here attempt to characterize the relationship between the minimum expected performance and the component properties. Results suggest that the choice of analog combining components should be chosen such that the phase and gain resolution are commensurate and such that resolution in one parameter is not rendered useless by a lack of resolution in the other. These results may form useful guidelines when designing analog RF null-steering antennas.
Acknowledgments
This article is based, in part, on the paper “Analog and Digital Nulling Techniques for Multi-Element Antennas in GNSS Receivers” presented at ION GNSS+ 2015, the 28th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation held in Tampa, Fla., Sept. 14–18, 2015.
Manufacturers
The equipment used in our study included an Agilent, now Keysight Technologies E8361A PNA network analyzer, Antcom Corporation 2DG1215A-MNS-4 GPS L1/L2 antennas, an Arduino LLC (www.arduino.cc) Arduino Uno microcontroller, a MACOM MAPS-010143 4-bit digital phase shifter, a Skyworks Solutions SKY12347-362LF 6-bit digital attenuator and a Tallysman Wireless TW127 in-line amplifier.
Further Reading
• Authors’ Conference Paper
“Analog and Digital Nulling Techniques for Multi-Element Antennas in GNSS receivers” by J.T. Curran, M. Bavaro and J. Fortuny in Proceedings of ION GNSS+ 2015, the 28th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Tampa, Fla., Sept. 14–18, 2015, pp. 3249–3261.
• Adaptive GNSS Antennas for Interference Suppression
“Advances in the Theory and Implementation of GNSS Antenna Array Receivers” by P. Arribas, C. Closas, M. Fernández-Prades, M. Cuntz, M. Meurer and A. Konovaltsev, Chapter 9 in Microwave and Millimeter Wave Circuits and Systems: Emerging Design, Technologies, and Applications, edited by A. Georgiadis, H. Rogier, L. Roselli and P. Arcioni and published by Wiley, 2012, pp. 227–273.
“Mitigation of Continuous and Pulsed Radio Interference with GNSS Antenna Arrays” by A. Konovaltsev, D.S. De Lorenzo, A. Hornbostel and P. Enge in Proceedings of ION GNSS 2008, the 21st International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Savannah, Ga., Sept. 16–19, 2008, pp. 2786–2795.
“Navigation Accuracy and Interference Rejection for an Adaptive GPS Antenna Array” by D.S. De Lorenzo, J. Rife, P. Enge and D.M. Akos in Proceedings of ION GNSS 2006, the 19th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Fort Worth, Texas, Sept. 26–29, 2006, pp. 763–773.
“A Novel Interference Suppression Scheme for Global Navigation Satellite Systems Using Antenna Array” by M.G. Amin and W. Sun in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 23, No. 5, May 2005, pp. 999–1012, doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2005.845404.
“Wideband Cancellation of Interference in a GPS Receive Array” by R.L. Fante and J. Vaccaro in IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. 36, No. 2, April 2000, pp. 549–564, doi: 10.1109/7.845241.
JAMES T. CURRAN received a B.E. in electrical and electronic engineering in 2006 and a Ph.D. in telecommunications in 2010 from the Department of Electrical Engineering, University College Cork, Ireland. He worked as a senior research engineer with the Position, Location and Navigation group at the University of Calgary between 2011 and 2013 and is currently a grant holder at the Joint Research Center (JRC) of the European Commission (EC), Ispra, Italy. His main research interests are signal processing, information theory, cryptography and software-defined radios (SDRs) for GNSS.
MICHELE BAVARO received his master’s degree in computer science in 2003 from the University of Pisa, Italy. Shortly afterwards, he started his work on SDR technologies applied to navigation. First in Italy, then in The Netherlands and in the United Kingdom, he worked on several projects directly involved with the design, manufacture, integration, and test of GNSS equipment and supporting customers in the development of their applications. Today he is appointed as a grant holder at the EC JRC.
JOAQUIM FORTUNY-GUASCH received the engineering degree in telecommunications from the Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain, in 1988, and the Dr.- Ing. degree in electrical engineering from the Universität Karlsruhe, Germany, in 2001. Since 1993, he has been working for the EC JRC as a senior scientific officer. He is the head of the European Microwave Signature Laboratory and leads the JRC research group on GNSS and wireless communications systems.
Antenova Ltd., manufacturer of antennas and RF antenna modules for machine-to-machine (M2M) and the Internet of Things, is adding two new positioning antennas to its range of flexible FPC antennas.
Bentoni is a positioning antenna for all of the global public satellite constellations: GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou and Galileo. It is designed to be used in trackers, portable devices, network components, drones and wearable electronics.
Asper is a dual antenna with two separate antenna systems in a single form factor. It combines a 1559–1609 MHz antenna with a 2.4–2.5 GHz antenna in the same part for positioning applications with wireless connectivity as well. This antenna is suitable for sports cameras, trackers, dash cams, portable devices, network devices and wearable electronics.
Both antennas offer high performance and maintain good isolation in situ within a device.
Bentoni and Asper are the latest flexible FPC antennas in Antenova’s flexiiANT product range. They are supplied with an I-PEX MHF connector and a 1.13 mm RF cable in a choice of three lengths. They can be folded to save space in operation within a device.
Antenova’s antenna design team aims to create antennas that a product designer can integrate with the other circuits in a design in a convenient way, rather than designing a product to fit around the antenna. The aim of these antenna designs is plug and play simplicity — they are self-adhesive mounted so that they can easily be fixed inside an electronic device.
Bentoni antenna and Asper antennas are available to order now.
Antenova Ltd., manufacturer of antennas and RF antenna modules for machine-to-machine (M2M) and the Internet of Things, has released two new modules for GPS and GNSS. Both provide an easy drop-in receiver solution — a way to add a location capability to very small consumer devices.
The two modules are similar, both measuring 9.0 x 9.0 x 1.8 millimeters, with low current consumption, making them suitable for smaller portable devices such as smartwatches, navigation devices, OBD II modules, asset tracking, personal safety, sports cameras and equipment. They are based on a MediaTek processor.
The M10578-A2 module operates with GPS, with a 1-5 Hz update rate, and the M10578-A3 operates with GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou and Galileo with an update rate of 1-10 Hz.
Antenova has added two features to enhance performance of the modules. An internal self-generated orbit prediction uses two GNSS systems simultaneously to give a faster time to fix, and a second high-quality low noise amplifier (LNA) boosts low-powered satellite signals.
The new M10578 modules are the latest in Antenova’s Radionova series of fully optimized RF modules for wireless M2M and embedded devices. Both modules are pin compatible, offering easy integration and upgrade from GPS to GNSS; for the antenna function, Antenova offers the small Sinica SR4G008 GNSS antenna.
The new modules are built on high-grade FR4 substrates with a high density, multi-layered design that places the critical RF functions in the best position for location finding and performance.
The M10578-A2 and M10578-A3 are available to order now.
PCTEL Inc. has launched a new antenna for high-speed rail, fleet and other transportation modes. The new SkyCompass Dual multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) Long Term Evolution (LTE) antenna is designed for high data-rate applications such as direct video feeds and broadband connectivity for commuters.
The SkyCompass series comprises six new configurable antenna platforms, including single-band and multiband GNSS options that address the majority of rail and fleet management installation needs. The antenna features new ultra-ruggedized design and housing, outstanding electrical efficiency performance, high isolation between elements and pattern consistency.
In addition, as wireless routers adopt MIMO, the antenna’s inherent MIMO capabilities protect a network’s investment in cellular and — more specifically — LTE installations.
“MIMO and efficiency with optimized patterns enable high throughput in performance critical mobile applications for public safety, fleet and rail markets,” said Rishi Bharadwaj, vice president and general manager of PCTEL’s Connected Solutions. “PCTEL’s innovations continue to deliver high performance antennas in robust, easy-to-install housings.”
The series is currently available to select OEM customers and will be generally available at the end of January 2016.
Tallysman has introduced the TW2920 antenna for simultaneous reception of L-band correction signals and all of the upper band GNSS signals, including GPS L1, GLONASS G1, Galileo E1 and BeiDou B1.
The TW2920’s 1-dB bandwidth covers 1525-1559 MHz for the L-band downlink and 1559-1610MHz for the upper-band GNSS.
The LNA of the TW2920 provides 28dB of gain; the TW2940 is a higher gain version with 35-dB LNA gain. The TW2926 antenna is an unhoused OEM version of the TW2920 with 28-dB of gain.
The antennas employ Tallysman’s Accutenna technology, which provides strong cross-polarization rejection for greatly improved multipath rejection, low axial ratio and tight Phase Center Variation (PCV).
All of the antennas include a sharp pre-filter to protect against sub-harmonic signals such 700MHz LTE and strong near frequency signals such as Wi-Fi.
The Tallysman TW2920.
The Tallysman TW2940.
The Tallysman TW2926.
The TW2920 and TW2940 have metal bases with wide temperature range plastic radomes, 57mm in diameter and 15mm in height, with a magnetic mount or adhesive mount along with four tapped screw holes. They are IP67 compliant and available with either a watertight SMA connector on the bulkhead or with a RG174 cable with your choice of connector.
The TW2926 OEM version of the antenna is 56 mm in diameter and has four drilled plated holes for secure mounting within customers’ products. This antenna can be custom tuned to ensure optimal performance within an enclosure.
