LabSat has launched the LabSat 3 Wideband simulator, which can simultaneously record multiple signals from different constellations.
Small, battery powered and with a removable solid-state disk, LabSat 3 Wideband allows users to quickly gather detailed, real-world satellite data and replay those signals on the bench.
Photo: LabSat
With three channels, a bandwidth of up to 56 MHz and 6-bit sampling, LabSat 3 Wideband can handle almost any combination of constellation and signal that exists today, with plenty of spare capacity for future planned signals.
For example, users can now record GPS L1, L2 and L5 at the same time as GLONASS G1 and G2 and BeiDou B1 and B2.
An interactive bandwidth calculator allows users to see which combinations of constellation and signal can be recorded. Users can also change the bandwidth and bit depth to see how it affects the selection available.
Despite the huge capability of the unit, the LabSat 3 Wideband remains easy to use, retaining the one-touch recording and playback feature.
A removable battery pack gives two hours of use, and the 1-TB solid-state disk drive can be swapped in seconds.
Specifications
Recording bandwidth: 10MHz, 30MHz or 56MHz
Recording resolution: 2, 4 or 6 bits (depending on bandwidth)
Note: In May 2013 this newsletter published a column on “What’s New in GNSS Simulation.” This month, Editor Tony Murfin takes a brief look at a new start-up in GNSS simulation, Skydel, and its software signal simulator. We also provide quick updates on the latest from those simulation companies and others.
Skydel Software-defined simulator Skydel provides a software-defined simulator using generic hardware to accommodate system integrators who may have a consumer product or application with GNSS inside, and may not require a full-function simulator. Skydel uses a regular GPU to perform modulate the GNSS signal. The computer can be a laptop or desktop, but must include an Nvidia graphics card. The Universal Software Radio Peripheral (USRP) here is the Ettus N210. Skydel also uses the bladeRF x40 made by nuand, an alternative USB 3.0 Software Defined Radio, and Averna RP-6100 Record & Playback system.
“What’s New in GNSS Simulation” Updates
Spirent Spirent debuts practical PNT framework for more robust position, navigation and timing systems Threats to GNSS and related PNT applications are more orchestrated and coordinated, with the motivation to disrupt or cause financial loss. The technology to disrupt GPS has also become much more accessible, resulting in GPS vulnerability even gaining attention at hacker conventions. Spirent’s GNSS Interference Detector System helps users solve these problems.
Rohde & Schwarz Solutions for all aspects of LBS testing Need to verify your location based service (LBS) applications based on A-GNSS, OTDOA and eCID? Rohde & Schwarz offers a wide range of testing solutions for all aspects of LBS testing, including protocol conformance, minimum performance and OTA. Applicable from development and production to installation, the solutions support the positioning techniques and protocols deployed by mobile network operators.
CAST CAST lightweight GPS Satellite Simulator With its compact size of 7 x 11 x 3 inches and weighing in at just over four pounds, the SGX is CAST’s smallest fully capable simulator to date. The SGX lightweight portability features 16 channels of L1 C/A and P codes and is extremely accurate and repeatable. Features include a touchscreen, individual satellite power control and start-and-stop scenarios with the touch of a button.
Spectracom GNSS Simulator Compatible with IRNSS and QZSS Spectracom’s GPS/GNSS simulator is now available for testing receiver compatibility with India’s global navigation satellite system, IRNSS, and Japan’s regional satellite system, QZSS. The Spectracom GSG-6 Series multi-frequency GNSS signal simulator is designed to be field upgradeable to readily enable the addition of all current and future GNSS constellations.
iFEN SX3 GNSS Software Receiver The SX3 Black Edition is a modular dual-RF multi-GNSS software receiver with superior flexibility and performance, whether processing the dual-RF front-end data stream in real-time or post-processing IF samples from storage. Graphical user interface provides easy access to signal processing configuration properties and gives real-time feedback for channel output, correlation function and RF spectrum.
RaceLogic The 2015 leap second – LabSat scenarios now available With the LabSat 3 Simulator you can reliably test your products on the bench to see how they cope with events such as the leap second, alongside standard issues such as multipath and signal obscuration. Recordings of the leap second from the three main constellations are now available for use with LabSat 3.
IP-Solutions Replicator GNSS RF simulator, recorder and playback device — inexpensive, economical, flexible, with a high-fidelity GNSS simulation solution. This product was originally developed cooperatively for JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency). Originally developed for, and in cooperation with, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).
Cobham AvComm ATC-5000NG NextGen ATC/DME Test Set Formerly the Aeroflex AvComm business unit, Cobham introduced this year the ATC-5000NG NextGen ATC/DME Test Set, an RF signal generator/receiver for testing Mode A, C and S transponders. The ATC-5000NG was designed with modern software-defined radio technology for engineering development, design validation, manufacturing and return-to-service testing.
TeleOrbit GIPSIE TeleOrbit’s software-based GNSS multi-system performance simulation environment, GIPSIE, consists of a satellite constellation simulator and an intermediate frequency simulator. The digital signal simulator GIPSIE streams the software-generated signals or recorded live data exactly into the receiver’s baseband processing chain to support development, test, verification, validation, qualification and certification.
Averna RP-6100 The Averna RP-6100 Multi-Channel RF Record & Playback for RF application testing allows users to to record real-world signals such as GNSS, HD Radio, LTE and Wi-Fi, plus impairments, to advance projects and harden product designs. Frequency range of 10–6000 MHz, up to 4×40 MHz or 2×80 MHz bandwidth, 14-bit resolution, tight channel synchronization. Records up to 22 hours, supports Skydel’s software-defined, real-time GNSS Simulator.
Syntony GNSS Syntony RTG2 Constellation Simulator Syntony offers the RTG2, a GNSS constellation simulator that generates realistic GNSS RF signals, taking into account the current and future GNSS constellations. The generator is entirely configurable (troposphere and ionosphere effects, simulated receiver trajectory, etc) through a user friendly interface accessible on a separated PC through Ethernet.
Sponsored by: Hemisphere Broadcast Date: Thursday, May 16, 2013 Moderator:Alan Cameron, Editor & Publisher, GPS World Speakers: Mark Sampson, LabSat Product Manager, RaceLogic; John Fischer, Chief Technology Officer, Spectracom; Markus Lörner, Product Manager, Rohde & Schwarz; Steve Hickling, Lead Product Manager, Spirent Communications; Mark Wilson, Vice President of Sales, IfEN GmbH
Simulation and testing experts offer key technical insights on the intricacies and importance of product and signal testing, whether by simulator, record-and-replay, or in the field, in the increasingly complex environment of multiple modernizing and expanding GNSS signals, from GPS III to BeiDou, with Galileo coming on strong and GLONASS a perennial standby.
By Alison Brown, Jarrett Redd, and Mark-Anthony Hutton
GNSS signal simulators can be expensive and beyond the limited budgets of many researchers. In this month’s column, we look at one company’s approach to providing GNSS signal simulation at a low cost — one that virtually any researcher can afford.
INNOVATION INSIGHTS by Richard Langley
WHY DO WE SIMULATE REALITY in mathematics, science, engineering, and other pursuits — even in our recreational activities? Well, we do it for a variety of reasons. In mathematics and science, we try to comprehend reality, which is complicated and variable and often has some degree of randomness. We build mathematical models of physical, chemical, or biological processes to better understand them or to predict a particular outcome given some initial conditions. The model may contain a stochastic component to reflect a degree of uncertainty associated with the processes. Weather forecasting is a prime example. Typically, the models are run on a computer where the model parameters and initial conditions can be readily adjusted and the varying outcomes analyzed.
Simulations of reality are often used in teaching where students can more easily grasp the behavior of complicated systems whether they be in the natural sciences or in economics or the social sciences. In medical education, simulated human patients are used initially because it is safer than having students operate on real patients. Similarly, flight simulators are used for the training of pilots because it is cheaper and safer than using real aircraft and a wide variety of “what if” scenarios can be experienced.
Simulation is used for a range of engineering activities to see how an existing system behaves under different conditions because it is faster or cheaper than performing tests in the “real world.” It can also be used to estimate how a proposed new system might behave before it becomes a reality — looking at traffic flow in road networks, for example.
We also use simulation for recreation, whether it is playing with the latest computer game or improving our swing with a golf simulator. And simulation is a mainstay of the movie industry.
But getting back to engineering and the main interest of this magazine, simulation is a useful technique in the design and operation of equipment used with global navigation satellite systems. With a radio frequency simulator, we can mimic the radio signals generated by the satellites. These devices allow us to define scenarios, including receiver trajectories, and to replay them while varying the operating parameters of the receiver. Some simulators allow us to record live signals and then to play them back under different assumed conditions.
However, such GNSS signal simulators can be expensive and beyond the limited budgets of many researchers. In this month’s column, we look at one company’s approach to providing GNSS signal simulation at a low cost — one that virtually any researcher can afford.
As the noted French sociologist and philosopher, Jean Baudrillard, pessimistically once said: “We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning.” In the field of GNSS engineering, at least, simulation is helping to stem the tide and give us a better understanding of reality.
“Innovation” features discussions about advances in GPS technology, its applications, and the fundamentals of GPS positioning. The column is coordinated by Richard Langley, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick. To contact him with topic ideas, email him at lang @ unb.ca.
Embedded GPS receivers have become commonplace with the proliferation of GPS navigation systems into all but the least expensive vehicle and cell-phone lines. As more manufacturers embed low-cost GPS receivers into their products, the need for low-cost GPS signal simulators has also grown. Controlled virtual testing is vital in ensuring the expected system performance.
Many GPS signal generators are available that are designed specifically for high-volume production test applications for devices that use commercial GPS/SBAS, GLONASS, and Galileo receivers. Often the cost of these high-end simulators is beyond the reach of small companies or universities. In response to this need, we have developed our low-cost, software-defined radio (SDR)-based GPS Signal Architect Test Set to address a broad range of research, academic, industrial, and defense applications. The system is designed to be flexible, scalable, and most importantly, inexpensive.
Our test set leverages the capabilities of the Universal Software Radio Peripheral (USRP) radio and our GPS Signal Simulation Toolbox to provide users with a GPS signal generation capability at a much lower cost than currently available on the market. The combination of the GPS signal simulation software coupled with the record and playback capability of the USRP makes for an extremely low-cost, yet highly flexible, GPS signal simulation capability.
FIGURE 1 shows the GPS signal simulator hardware. It is designed for use with commercial software-defined radios and is based on our GPS Signal Simulation Toolbox.
FIGURE 1. GPS signal simulator hardware.
Toolbox. The Toolbox is a complete set of GPS signal simulation, test, and analysis tools. This Matlab-based signal simulation toolbox simulates the effect of the signal degradation on a conventional commercial GPS receiver, including the effect of the ionospheric activity on the code and carrier tracking loops such as losing lock or cycle slipping. The Toolbox’s geographic tools facilitate the transformation of data between the various coordinate systems commonly used in GPS research, including latitude-longitude-altitude; WGS 84 Earth-centered, Earth-fixed (ECEF); north-east-down; and body-fixed reference frames. It also provides tools to read GPS almanacs and ephemerides and compute ECEF and line-of-sight vectors to GPS satellites as a function of user position and time. The receiver design and analysis tools model different receiver architectures and simulate different error scenarios by providing tracking and navigation algorithms, including phase lock loops and delay lock loops.
The user-configurable options allow the operator to define virtually all aspects of a GPS signal environment, including the GPS spreading code(s), navigation message, and interference scenarios. Such flexibility is particularly useful in simulating GPS jamming environments, where time, resources, and repeatability are generally scarce.
Because these tools are linked directly to Matlab, it is relatively simple to define and implement new signal components as they become available. Of primary interest are the GPS modernization codes as well as those of other global navigation satellite systems (GNSS). Also of interest are new and exotic categories of jammers, including frequency-modulated, amplitude-modulated, phase-modulated, and frequency-swept jammers.
An early version of the toolbox was reviewed in a previous Innovation column (see Further Reading).
Configuration. In the configuration shown in Figure 1, the signal control unit (SCU) is used to control the radio for record and playback operation. The USRP includes a 10-MHz frequency standard as well as an input for an external reference clock. The GPS Signal Architect software can produce custom GPS scenario data files, which can use the USRP to produce a GPS signal at RF.
This article provides a review of how the signal simulator uses the USRP family of radios as low-cost RF record and playback devices using the Signal Architect files. In addition, the hardware design and supported signals are described and test results are presented showing the USRP providing simulated GPS signals to conventional GPS user equipment.
Radio Hardware
The USRP radio family provides an inexpensive development platform for software-defined radios. The USRP can also be used to record and play back the GPS signal in a static or mobile environment. The system operator can then reproduce the signal on the bench either from a simulated profile or from a previously recorded test environment. An advantage of the USRP is that it supports a wideband transceiver front-end that can accommodate the full 20 MHz of the GPS signal band and can be tuned to operate at any of the GPS signal frequencies (L1 at 1575.42 MHz, L2 at 1227.60 MHz, or L5 at 1176.45 MHz). This allows record and playback of both the civil and military GPS codes.
While the GPS Signal Architect tools can be easily adapted for use with any commercial SDR, the USRP family was chosen because of its reasonable price, quality construction, and extensive support by the GNU Radio project.
USRPs are SDRs, which can, in principle, transmit or receive signals on any frequency under software control. Typically, USRPs connect to a host computer through a high-speed USB or gigabit Ethernet link, which the host-based software uses to control the USRP hardware and to transmit or receive data. Some USRP models also integrate the general functionality of a host computer with an embedded processor that allows the USRP to operate in a standalone fashion. The USRP hardware is controlled through a hardware driver, which supports Linux, MacOS, and Windows platforms. A framework running on the host computer then accesses the USRP through the driver. Several frameworks, including GNU Radio (a free software toolkit for learning about, building, and deploying SDR systems developed under the GNU Project — “GNU” is a recursive acronym that stands for “GNU’s Not Unix”), LabView, Matlab, and Simulink, use the driver. The driver’s functionality can also be accessed directly with an application programming interface (API), which provides native support for C++. Any other language that can import C++ functions can also use the driver. This is accomplished in Python through the Simplified Wrapper and Interface Generator, for example. The API allows users to develop their own custom frameworks, as we did with our SCU.
Of the available USRP radios, the N210 was chosen because it has the highest sample rate, greatest flexibility, and largest capacity for modification (see FIGURE 2).
FIGURE 2. Univeral Software Radio Peripheral.
The USRP provides an interface between high-speed analog to digital converters, high-speed digital to analog converters, and an Ethernet interface, as previously mentioned. Daughterboards available for the USRP provide an interface from the baseband signals present at the data converters to the GPS frequency bands and vice versa.
A daughterboard (or daughtercard or piggyback board) is a circuit board meant to be an extension or “daughter” of a motherboard. The USRP uses interchangeable daughterboards, plugging into the main board, to serve as the RF front end. Several classes of daughterboard modules exist: receivers, transmitters, and transceivers. Transmitter daughterboard modules can modulate an output signal to a higher frequency; receiver daughterboard modules can acquire an RF signal and convert it to baseband; and transceiver daughterboard modules combine the functionality of a both a transmitter and receiver.
For this project, a WBX (wide bandwidth) transceiver daughterboard was installed in the USRP. The tunable range of the WBX (50 MHz to 2.2 GHz) covers all the current GNSS frequencies. An RF pre-filter is used to band-limit the GNSS signals to the sample rate selected for use in the SCU to avoid spectral folding from the N210 40-MHz channel bandwidth. For example, a 2-MHz filter centered at L1 is optimal based on the Nyquist sampling frequency of 2 MHz of both the in-phase and quadrature (I/Q) components of the signal. If sampling at 20 MHz, then a 20-MHz pre-filter should be used.
Signal Control Unit
The SCU includes a Linux single-board computer with software developed to run under the GNU Radio Companion (an open-source graphical tool for creating signal flow graphs and generating flow-graph source code using the GNU Radio libraries) and management of the GNU SDR for RF record and playback under control of the GPS Signal Architect software through an Ethernet connection. This enables the user to tap into the excellent USRP community support for his or her project and benefit from the close relationship between the GNU Radio project and the USRP manufacturer. The Ethernet connection is also used to download and upload recorded or simulated signal files from the Signal Architect signal simulation software.
Signal Simulation Software
The GPS Signal Architect hardware and software provides users with a Matlab-based GPS signal generation capability. If our Matlab GPS Toolbox is provided, the Signal Architect GPS simulation can be run under the Matlab environment. For the non-Matlab user, the Signal Architect software is bundled as a stand-alone executable. The signal simulation flow is depicted in FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 3. Signal Architect simulation flow. (Click to enlarge.)
GUI. Using a simple, intuitive graphical user interface (GUI), the user specifies a trajectory and a complete set of simulation parameters to create an I/Q data file (see FIGURE 4). The user specifies a trajectory either from an NMEA file (most GPS receivers use the National Marine Electronics Association 0183 interface standard for logging positions and other data) or a KML file from Google Earth (Google’s Keyhole Markup Language has become a standard for describing geographically referenced features), and an almanac file used to define GPS satellites to be simulated. The user defines the mask angle for the satellite selection and the noise figure to be simulated. The Signal Architect software then generates a simulated digital storage file, including the selected pseudorandom noise codes (C/A and/or the unencrypted military P or M′ codes).
FIGURE 4. Signal Architect graphical user interface. (Click to enlarge.)TABLE 1. Signal simulator system specifications.
Scenarios. The Signal Architect software also ships with preloaded scenario files that the user can run right out of the box into the SCU using the USRP. The Signal Architect software supports computers with multi-core processors and will automatically configure itself to run on all available processors. The Signal Architect software will generate either static or dynamic simulation profiles. The Signal Architect GUI allows the operator to easily modify a wide range of scenario variables from the pre-set defaults. Complete scenarios are easily shared between signal simulation systems, supporting collaborative testing between similar projects and reducing the amount of time spent developing test tools.
The signal data file can then be used for subsequent analysis within Matlab using the Matlab GPS Toolbox, or can be provided to the SCU and USRP to create a GPS signal suitable for playback into a GPS receiver. If the Matlab GPS Toolbox is available, the user has complete flexibility to manipulate the signal at various stages of generation or post-generation to simulate GPS anomalies. Without the toolbox, the user is restricted to using only the standard error modeling provided by the compiled Signal Architect code.
Simulation Test Results
To demonstrate the high fidelity of our Signal Architect signal record and playback capability, a series of stationary GPS simulations were run. In these tests, the USRP was used to record and play back GPS C/A-code signals at the L1 band (1575.42 MHz). The SCU and USRP were connected to a rooftop-mounted GPS L1 antenna. The GPS signal was split between a commercial GPS receiver and the USRP to allow the operator to monitor the GPS receiver while the USRP was recording the GPS signal.
In record mode, the I/Q data is written from the USRP to a file on the SCU. In playback mode, the data is read from the file by the USRP to generate the RF signal. The RF signals are output to the GPS receiver through an external variable attenuator. The attenuator allows the operator to adjust the signal power into the GPS receiver as different lengths of antenna cable are added or as the signal is split to other GPS receivers.
To demonstrate the GPS Signal Architect Test Set performance, representative data was collected in a series of two laboratory tests. The first test demonstrates the system performance as a record and playback GPS signal simulator. The second test results demonstrate the system performance when using the Signal Architect software to generate custom GPS scenario files for playback into the GPS receiver.
In the first test, the GPS simulator hardware was configured as shown in FIGURE 5. The GPS receiver and USRP were connected to a commercially available antenna. The antenna was positioned at a known location with a clear view of the GPS constellation. The signal from the GPS antenna was split between the GPS receiver and the USRP so that the data could be logged by the receiver software at the same time as it was being recorded by the SCU.
FIGURE 5. GPS Signal Simulator record and playback GPS simulation.
The simulated satellite constellation is shown in FIGURE 6. Seven GPS satellites are in view.
FIGURE 6. Simulated satellite constellation.
The 2-D position error from the simulated signal is shown in FIGURE 7. The errors are representative of the accuracies achievable using GPS C/A-code pseudoranges.
FIGURE 7. North-east (2-D) position error.
We can examine the performance of our test set by looking at plots of the measurements of carrier-to-noise-density ratio (C/N0) from the GPS receiver for both the live sky data and for the recorded signal when played into the GPS receiver by the Signal Simulator for three of the GPS receiver channels (see FIGURE 8). The C/N0 data collected from the GPS antenna is shown in blue, while the C/N0 from the USRP is shown in green.
FIGURE 8. C/N0 record and playback vs. live sky collection.
As we can see, the C/N0 was 1–2 dB lower in playback mode when compared to the data collected from the GPS antenna. The signal loss is due to the 1-bit sampling of the incoming GPS signal by the Signal Architect software. One-bit and 2-bit quantization are used in many commercial GPS receivers. The rule of thumb states that 1-bit quantization degrades the signal-to-noise ratio by 1.96 dB, and 2-bit quantization degrades the signal-to-noise by 0.55 dB. These results show that 1-bit I/Q sampling is sufficient for reproducing GPS L1 C/A-code signals with the USRP.
In the second test, the Signal Architect software was used to generate a 10-minute static GPS C/A-code L1 scenario file. The SCU used the USRP to generate the GPS signal.
Shown in FIGURE 9 are the number of satellites the GPS receiver was able to track. When using the GPS Signal Architect Test Set to play back the scenario file, the GPS receiver was able to track all the simulated satellites in the file. The time necessary for the GPS receiver to acquire and track the satellites is consistent with the performance one would expect from the GPS receiver when connected to an external antenna.
FIGURE 10 shows the C/N0 measurements from the GPS receiver for three of the receiver channels. There were nine satellites in this static scenario file. The C/N0 for all the satellites is stable for the duration of the scenario playback.
FIGURE 9. Number of satellites tracked (digital signal file playback mode).FIGURE 10. C/N0 (digital signal file playback mode).
Another Hardware/Software Option
We have also worked with the manufacturer of the LabSat hardware signal simulator to include some of the software functionality of our USRP system.
The LabSat GNSS simulator (see FIGURE 11) can be used to record live navigation satellite RF data streamed onto a hard drive. This can then be played back as an RF signal. When integrated with the SatGen software, simulated digitized RF data can be generated and played back into the LabSat simulator in place of the recorded, digitized GNSS RF signals.
FIGURE 11. LabSat GNSS simulator.
The core of the SatGen software is our Signal Architect software component, which has been adapted to run on the LabSat platform to allow simulation of the multiple GNSS satellite signals.
Hardware. The latest version of the LabSat hardware design (LabSat 2) enables the record and playback of GPS and GLONASS synchronized RF data streams (see FIGURE 12). When recording the GPS or GLONASS signals, the RF L1 channels (1575.42 MHz for GPS and 1602.0 MHz for GLONASS) are down-converted to a 0-Hz intermediate frequency. The signals are sampled (2 bit I and Q) at 16.368 MHz to capture the full GLONASS set of frequency channels. The GPS and GLONASS data is then interleaved into a 4-bit data stream and recorded in an internal buffer as a binary file. A high-speed USB link then transmits the data to a PC before streaming onto the PC hard disk. For playback, the PC streams the stored binary data to the LabSat via the USB link. The recorded digital GPS and GLONASS signals are up-converted onto the GPS and GLONASS RF channels and played back into the receiver under test. A digital attenuator on the output can adjust the RF output level.
FIGURE 12. LabSat GNSS simulator hardware design.
Using the LabSat record and playback mode, all of the real-world effects on the GNSS signals are recorded, including multipath effects, drop-outs, and atmospheric effects, allowing repeatable tests to be performed on GNSS receivers under a variety of real-world conditions, such as operating in urban canyons. This is ideal for debugging fault conditions on GNSS equipment and software. For more extensive simulations in different environments, the LabSat SatGen software can be used to generate simulated scenarios at any time or place or for a dynamic environment.
SatGen Scenario Simulation. SatGen is a software package that allows users to define trajectories for use in generating simulated data files for playback into LabSat. A user-defined trajectory file can be used to create a LabSat-simulated scenario for a route anywhere in the world. Routes can be generated directly from NMEA files imported directly into SatGen from a GPS datalogger or from user-defined routes generated using Google Earth.
SatGen users can use Google Earth to define a route by creating a path using its “Add Path” tool. The user can use as many or as few waypoints as the user wants, and can edit routes by moving, adding, or removing waypoints. The path is saved as a standard Google Earth KML file, which is imported into SatGen, which then fills in and smoothes the trajectory between the waypoints. The user can also define velocity profiles, or SatGen can provide these automatically. SatGen creates an NMEA file that is used to generate a binary I/Q simulated signal file for replay on the LabSat hardware.
Signal Architect Simulation. The core of the SatGen software is GNSS Signal Architect, an upgraded version of our GPS Signal Architect, which provides the capability to simulate multiple GPS signals and also different GNSS signals.
Signal Architect imports the NMEA trajectory either from a prerecorded file or from one generated using SatGen, and uses this file to generate a GNSS-simulated scenario. The user specifies the input GPS satellite constellation through a Yuma-format almanac file and the GLONASS constellation through a GLONASS almanac file in “.agl” or RINEX format. These files are then used to generate the simulated pseudorange, Doppler, and carrier phase for the GPS and GLONASS satellites in view of the simulated GNSS receivers above a specified mask angle. This simulated range data is then used to generate the digitized I/Q signals for the GPS and GLONASS satellites. Users who have access to our GNSS Signal Simulation Toolbox (an upgrade of our GPS toolbox) will have the added ability to modify the GNSS signal strength and add additional high-resolution error models to the simulated signals including multipath or GNSS signal error characteristics. The resulting I/Q simulated data file for the GPS plus GLONASS constellation is then recorded in a data file, which can be loaded into the LabSat hardware for playback into a receiver under test.
Test results using the LabSat and SatGen combination have demonstrated that highly accurate navigation solutions can be obtained with a variety of playback modes.
Conclusion
The combination of our GPS Signal Architect software with either the SCU and USRP or LabSat has proven to be an ideal low-cost GPS signal simulation tool with the capability of simulating or recording the complete GPS signal spectrum, including both the civil and the military codes for playback. The initial release of the GPS Signal Architect Test Set supports L1 operation and C/A- and P-code and M′ signal simulation or C/A- and P(Y)-code and M′ record and playback, while both GPS and GLONASS signal generation and playback is available with LabSat.
Our team of GPS and RF experts is continually developing and updating the system to provide additional functionality. Future releases of our test set will include support for multi-frequency SDR hardware and the capability to simulate other civil and military GPS signals, and also those of other global navigation satellite systems. To reflect this capability, we have branded the latest version of our simulation system, the GNSS Signal Architect Test Set.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support of Ettus Research LLC in the development of the technology associated with the USRP system, as well as Racelogic Ltd. for collaboration on the LabSat GNSS simulator. USRP is a registered trademark of National Instruments Corp.
The article is based primarily on the papers “GPS Signal Simulation Using Open Source GPS Receiver Platform” presented at the Virginia Tech Symposium on Wireless Personal Communication in June 2011 and “SatGen GNSS Signal Simulation Software” presented at ION GNSS 2011 in Portland, Oregon, in September 2011.
Manufacturers
The GNSS Signal Architect Test Set was developed by Navsys Corp. The USRP used for the test set is the Ettus Research LLC model USRP N210. The LabSat 2 GNSS Simulator and associated SatGen software is produced by Racelogic Ltd. The GPS equipment used in our tests was a Novatel DL-4 plus receiver and a GPS-702GG antenna.
Alison Brown is the president and chief executive officer of Navsys Corp., Colorado Springs, Colorado, which she founded in 1986. Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanics, aerospace, and nuclear engineering from UCLA, an M.S. in aeronautics and astronautics from MIT, and an M.A. and B.A. in engineering from Cambridge University. She is a fellow of the Institute of Navigation and an honorary fellow of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.
Jarrett Redd is a senior systems engineer with Navsys Corp. working on hardware, firmware, and embedded systems development for signal acquisition, processing, and transmission. He holds an M.S. and B.S. in computer engineering from Texas A&M University.
Mark-Anthony Hutton is a software engineer with Navsys Corp. working on GNSS signal simulation tools and the GPS Jammer Detection and Location System. He holds a B.S. in computer science from the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.
FURTHER READING
• Authors’ Proceedings Papers
“SatGen GNSS Signal Simulation Software” by A. K. Brown, M.-A. Hutton, M. Quigley, and M. Sampson in Proceedings of ION GNSS 2011, the 24th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Portland, Oregon, September 19–23, 2011, pp. 2031–2034.
“GPS M’-Code and P-Code Signal Simulation Using an Open Source Radio Platform” by A. Brown and B. Johnson in Proceedings of ION GNSS 2011, the 24th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Portland, Oregon, September 19–23, 2011, pp. 1494–1498.
“Modeling and Simulation of GPS Using Software Signal Generation and Digital Signal Reconstruction” by A. Brown, N. Gerein, and K. Taylor in Proceedings of the 2000 National Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, Anaheim, California, January 26–28, 2000, pp. 646–652.
“GPS Simulation” by M. B. May in GPS World, Vol. 5, No. 10, October 1994, pp. 51–56.
• Matlab Simulation Toolboxes
“GPS MATLAB Toolbox Review” by A.K. Tetewsky and A. Soltz in GPS World, Vol. 9, No. 10, October 1998, pp. 50–56.
• NMEA 0183
NMEA 0183, The Standard for Interfacing Marine Electronic Devices, Ver. 4.00, published by the National Marine Electronics Association, Severna Park, Maryland, November 2008.
This article addresses how best to quantify “which navigation system performs best” in a realistic testing scenario. The methodology focuses on land vehicles navigating in urban environments, but applies equally well to pedestrian navigation and can be adapted for testing assisted-GNSS implementations. During a drive test, the truth-reference system and RF recording system log samples to disk, with no need for the receivers under test to be included during the actual drive.
By Eric Vinande, Brian Weinstein, Tianxing Chu, and Dennis Akos, University of Colorado, Boulder
FIGURE 1. Traditional in-vehicle receiver testing.
Radio frequency record-and-playback systems (RPS) have recently become commercially available. These systems sample the RF environment and store it to disk during a drive test and can replay it through receivers back in the lab environment. Here we explore the improvements in dynamic testing methodology created by these units.
RPS test system installation.
RPS constitute a stark contrast to more traditional signal simulators that use pre-defined trajectories and mathematical models to determine appropriate RF output. Signal simulators attempt to reproduce environmental error factors such as multipath, inertial aiding system errors, and building and vehicle obstructions. They rely on mathematical models to simulate these various error sources. In some cases they do a reasonable job of reproducing these errors, but the dynamic urban environment is so complex (for example, rapidly varying/fading signal strength(s), multiple multipath signals, short/long duration obstructions of multiple layers) that even a sophisticated mathematical model can not replicate all effects completely. Some simulators include software that enables the user to define a trajectory and a limited amount of urban scenario details. Again, only so much realism can be created in a simulation environment. Existing testing standards are simulator-based, and as such, are circumscribed by the signal simulator limitations in representing a dynamic environment.
Positioning performance of a satellite navigation receiver under test (RUT) is coupled with its RF front-end system and local oscillator quality. Because of the variation in RF components between RUTs, some likely have superior RF interference (RFI) immunity. RFI can be a serious issue in certain land vehicles due to on-board electrical systems or because of external interference sources.
This article describes a testing method applicable to all receiver types, and complementary to that described in the December 2009 GPS World article by Mitelman and colleagues, “Testing Software Receivers,” regarding validation testing within a production environment. Added elements include taking into account truth-system uncertainty and a repeatability verification of the RF playback process through non-deterministic hardware receivers.
We present here the dynamic testing approach currently used at the University of Colorado in Boulder for receiver evaluation and comparison in the urban environment. The approach also includes the ability to assess the effect of sensor augmentations (for example, inertial, environmental) on positioning performance.
Truth Reference. Comparison with a truth reference system is essential for evaluation of satellite navigation receivers. For dynamic testing, this typically includes a survey-grade receiver coupled with a tactical-grade (or better) inertial measurement unit (IMU) and associated carrier-phase differential post-processing software. This software is filter-based and provides a positioning-error estimate in various components. Truth reference systems provide a continuous position estimate whose quality can vary depending on factors experienced in the urban environment, including length of full/partial satellite signal outage. In this study, we subtracted the 99th-percentile horizontal positioning error estimate of the truth system from the nominal RUT positioning error at each reporting epoch, as shown in Figure 2.
If the RUT position happens to lie within the truth-system position uncertainty, it is not considered to have any position error.
We focus here on a method to evaluate and compare mass-market, consumer-grade receivers to survey-grade receivers. One difference between these two receiver types is the way they handle the trade-off between accuracy and availability. Consumer receivers strive to provide the user with the highest availability, whereas survey receivers’ goal is to maximize accuracy. As a result, consumer-grade receivers will produce more regular position updates in harsh signal-tracking conditions, but must sacrifice accuracy to do so.
FIGURE 2. RUT position error calculation
Current Testing Standards
Currently accepted A-GPS standards such as those used by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) provide very limited dynamic testing in simulated urban conditions, being mainly designed to evaluate the first position calculation achieved in a particular simulated scenario. High-sensitivity receivers that pass or greatly exceed the 3GPP tests, in our opinion, are not guaranteed to have superior navigation performance in urban areas. Also, local oscillator performance is not specified. The trajectory dynamics imposed can actually be much smaller than the clock dynamics of a very low-cost local oscillator. A GPS receiver cannot tell the difference between the two and must track the effective Doppler variation.
The 3GPP defines five independent tests for A-GPS receiver certification. They include tests in the areas of: sensitivity with coarse/fine time assistance, nominal accuracy, dynamic range, multipath performance, and moving scenario/periodic update performance. The last three tests include elements that ostensibly pertain to the urban environment. These tests specify discrete, constant signal power levels for implementation in a hardware signal simulator. The discrepancy between the 3GPP-prescribed signal levels and those observed during actual drive testing is detailed as follows.
The 3GPP moving scenario/periodic update performance test trajectory is shown in Figure 3.
This test profile calls for the simulation of five satellites with a constant signal strength of 2130 dBm while the vehicle travels around the racetrack trajectory. In contrast, during an actual drive test in an urban area, a receiver reported the distribution of carrier-to-noise-density values for all tracked satellites as shown in Figure 4. This more accurately shows the range of signal strengths that should be expected in urban conditions.
FIGURE 4. Drive-test C/N0 distribution
The 3GPP moving test is considered passed if positions are reported regularly, and 95 percent of them are within 100 meters of the true position. This is not a particularly difficult test for a RUT to retain signal lock through, as the linear acceleration is about 0.15 g and the centripetal acceleration is about 0.25 g.
It is difficult for independent third parties to carry out a receiver evaluation following 3GPP guidelines as several of the tests require receiver restarts, which in turn requires testing automation. Depending on the receiver-evaluation hardware availability, restart commands may not be available to to an independent evaluator.
3GPP receiver testing results are quoted as pass or fail over a large number of short evaluations. For the dynamic environment, the system performance over continuous time is required to make a proper comparison between evaluated receivers.
In general, evaluating the GPS engines embedded within cell phones or other devices is difficult. Most are not made to interface with an external antenna, and the mere act of adding an antenna connection can significantly alter performance. The output format is not always documented, if it is even available to an end user. To allow fair across-the-board comparisons, GPS chipset manufacturers should make available development kits that have external antenna connections and well-documented message output formats.
Drive-Test Configuration
Current live dynamic testing requires multiple systems to be operating in a moving vehicle (see opening Figure 1). A truth-reference system, usually a high-grade GPS/INS device along with post-processing, provides the basis to which all other RUT are compared. This system requires a dedicated vehicle rooftop antenna with the best possible sky view, separate from a lower-grade test antenna located within the vehicle. Each RUT is connected to the representative consumer-grade antenna located in the vehicle through a high-isolation splitter that suppresses inter-receiver interference. It is important at this point that the gain be set appropriately for each RUT, depending on the front-end expectations while maintaining an equivalent noise figure across all receivers.
Visualization Methods
In addition to quantitative methods, we have created a qualitative visualization to assist with interpretation of the raw data. The same parsed data sets that provide the statistical script input are fed into a viewer script along with the post-processed truth reference data. With the truth-reference system data plotted in the center of the screen, each RUT is then plotted the correct distance and direction away, based on the distance and direction of error compared to truth. The receiver plots are overlaid onto Google Earth images centered on the truth-reference location. Plots of number of satellites utilized (top right of Figure 5) and elevation (middle right) as reported by each receiver and the sampled RF spectrum (lower right) are also included.
For each reporting epoch, based on the data frequency of the truth-reference system, a frame is generated with the aforementioned characteristics. These frames are gathered and encoded into a movie clip which can then be used as a quick and simple qualitative tool for receiver comparison. Figure 5 shows an individual movie frame. A forward-looking camera capability is also being added to this movie so the test environment can be documented from multiple angles.
FIGURE 5. Movie visualization screenshot
While observing this movie, variations in the sampled RF spectrum from interference or blockages can be associated with the current landscape. Locations of RFI sources can be identified and avoided (or included) in future testing. These RFI and significant blockage locations are of interest for receiver RF component and navigation filter development. The next three figures show spectrum snapshots during various parts of a drive test. In Figure 6, the cumulative GPS spectra rises above the noise floor and is visible during open sky conditions. While below ground level, Figure 7 shows only the front-end filter shape (and relatively minor RFI). Figure 8 shows an example of severe RFI when near a specific parking garage location.
FIGURE 6. Open-sky spectrum (centered on 1575.42 MHz)
FIGURE 7. Spectrum while below ground level (centered on 1575.42 MHz).
FIGURE 8. Spectrum near interference source (centered on 1575.42 MHz).
Record/Playback Concept
To overcome the limitations of hardware signal simulators and repeated vehicle drive testing, the RF record/playback testing method is utilized at the university. Commercially available equipment, capable of recording and playing back an RF signal, has recently become available. Equipment options exist for between $10,000–100,000, with 1–16 bit sampling and 4–25 MHz front-end bandwidth.
Figures 9 and 10 show the concept of “record once, playback many times.” During a drive test, the truth-reference system and RF recording system log samples to disk. There is no need for the RUT to be included during the actual drive test.
In the laboratory, the logged RF samples are replayed through a splitter to all RUT. The effect of receiver configuration changes can be evaluated without having to repeat the drive test. At a later time, additional receivers can also be tested using the same stored RF sample file.
During separate record and playback phases, testing considerations and methods discussed previously are implemented.
Since the recording process can only obviously capture current conditions, additional drive-test collections are required if different satellite geometry is desired, or if additional representative antennas need to be evaluated.
Repeatability of RPS Testing
To validate that the playback signal levels were not significantly different from live signals, we conducted an urban, dynamic evaluation. Figure 11 shows that there is typically not more than a 1 dB difference in reported C/N0 between live and playback modes when testing a receiver that only reported integer values. The two dropout instances were excursions into parking garages.
FIGURE 11. Live and playback C/N0 values
Figure 12 compares the navigation statistics between replays, using the same five playbacks as in Figure 11. The playbacks show a 1-sigma horizontal position solution spread under 1 meter for approximately 83 percent of the test.
FIGURE 12. Playback Horizontal Position Error Spread.
These two figures verify the repeatability of the RPS testing method and solidify it as an alternative to both signal-simulator testing and live testing of satellite navigation receivers.
Denver Testing Method
To evaluate the RPS concept, we conducted tests in three locations: Boulder, Denver, and Interstate Highway 70, all in Colorado. The Boulder and Denver locations were urban collections, while the Interstate 70 location was a natural canyon with significant elevation change. The collection at each location was repeated with two different representative antennas (patch and cell phone) at nearly the same sidereal time in order to keep the overhead satellite constellation similar.
We examine here the November 11 and 16 Denver tests. The November 11 test used a patch antenna that places nearly all its gain in the upward direction, making it more immune to interfering sources below and to its sides. Figure 13 shows the patch antenn
a location on the van, as well as the truth-system antenna location utilized for testing on both days.
FIGURE 13. Patch antenna (dashboard) and truth-system antenna (rooftop) locations.
The November 16 test used a cell-phone GPS antenna that does not have a preferential gain direction, making it more susceptible to interfering sources below and to its sides. This antenna type is representative of the typical low-cost antenna (in some cases as simple as a piece of wire) found in consumer cell phones. Figure 14 shows the cell-phone antenna suction-cup mounted to the front window of the testing van. The representative antenna mounting location was chosen to minimize locally-generated RFI effects while also being representative of a typical vehicle-use case.
FIGURE 14. Cell-phone antenna location.
The required equipment and connections are minimal when performing RPS drive testing, as no RUTs are included. The inset to Figure 1 at the beginning of this article shows the RPS unit in the rear of the van, mounted on layers of foam to reduce vibration, which, if not properly addressed, can cause errors in mechanical hard drives writing data at high rates. Also visible are the truth receiver on the center of the van floor, and the car batteries for powering it and the IMU. The IMU is mounted to the vehicle frame and is not shown.
The test drive trajectory through Denver on November 11 and 16 as reported by the truth system is shown in black in Figure 15 and is also repeated in Figures 16 and 17. The test lasted approximately 40 minutes on both days. It started in the upper left part of Figure 15 and continued zig-zagging through downtown to the lower right.
FIGURE 15. Truth trajectory for November 11 and 16 tests.
Figures 16 and 17 show particularly difficult blocks for the four receivers tested under the replay method. These receivers are denoted A (green), B (blue), C (red), and D (yellow).
FIGURE 16. Difficult block #1 during November 11 test and truth system antenna (rooftop) locations.
The horizontal positioning error statistics for two receivers on the November 11 test are shown in Figures 18 and 19. The left side shows horizontal error in two different zoom levels. The right side shows a histogram and cumulative distribution of errors, and several reporting metrics over the entire test. Even though receiver A in general outperformed receiver B, from the error time histories there are noticeable periods where both receivers simultaneously had positioning difficulties.
FIGURE 17. Difficult block #2 during November 11 test.
Table 1 summarizes the horizontal positioning statistics for all receivers during both tests. Positioning accuracy was severely degraded when replaying samples collected with the cell-phone antenna as compared to the patch antenna. Receiver A was the most accurate across both tests, while receiver B was the least accurate. The uncertainty of the truth system was subtracted out when producing the horizontal positioning results for all receivers.
Table 1
Conclusions
The record-and-playback system testing approach, in our opinion, represents the best way to test hardware receivers. It overcomes the fidelity limits of simulator-based testing, especially when considering the difficult-to-model urban environment. During receiver development, it requires only a single drive test for each location, as sampled RF data can be replayed from disk.
Having demonstrated that RPS testing is repeatable, we have produced a library of RF sample files representing real-world conditions for continued receiver development and testing purposes.
Eric Vinande is Ph.D. student at the University of Colorado studying GPS/MEMS inertial sensor integration and urban RFI aspects.
Brian Weinstein is a BSEE student participating in the Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program for GNSS receiver testing at the University of Colorado.
Tianxing Chu is a visiting researcher at the University of Colorado from Peking University where he is a Ph.D. student.
Dennis Akos is an associate professor within the Aerospace Engineering Sciences Department at the University of Colorado with concurrent appointments at Stanford University and Luleå University of Technology.
Manufacturers
Development of the methodology described here used two different RPS systems, one from LabSat (RaceLogic) and one from Averna. The test data come from the Averna system.
