Tag: OEM

  • Market Report Assesses U.S. GNSS Industry

    The United States GNSS Industry 2015 Market Research Report, now available from Wise Guy Reports, is a professional and in-depth study on the current state of the GNSS industry.

    The 316-page QYResearch Group report provides a basic overview of the industry including definitions, classifications, applications and industry chain structure. The GNSS market analysis is provided for the United States markets including development trends, competitive landscape analysis, and key regions development status.

    Development policies and plans are discussed as well as manufacturing processes and Bill of Materials cost structures are also analyzed. This report also states import/export consumption, supply and demand figures, cost, price, revenue and gross margins.

    The report focuses on leading industry players in the U.S., providing information such as company profiles, product picture and specification, capacity, production, price, cost, revenue and contact information. Upstream raw materials and equipment and downstream demand analysis is also carried out. The GNSS industry development trends and marketing channels are analyzed. Finally, the feasibility of new investment projects are assessed and overall research conclusions offered.

    With 335 tables and figures, the report provides key statistics on the state of the industry and is directed at companies and individuals interested in the market.

  • Spirent to Demo GSS9790 Simulator in ION GNSS+ Session

    Spirent Federal Systems will demonstrate its GSS9790 simulator at ION GNSS+, taking place Sept. 14-17 in Tampa, Fla.

    The Spirent demonstration “Interference and Anti-jam Antenna Testing Using the Spirent Wavefront Simulator (GSS9790)” will take place in Room 17 on Thursday, Sept. 17, 2-2:45 p.m. Attendance gains one ticket for an Apple Watch raffle, with the winner to be announced Thursday at 4 p.m., Booth C in the Exhibit Hall.

    The ability of a CRPA to null out unwanted signals while still allowing wanted signals to be received is key to its performance. This ability allows GNSS receivers to continue to operate in challenging signal environments, Spirent said in an email. The similar but slightly different signal composition at each antenna element allows the CRPA to distinguish direction for wanted and unwanted signals. Recreating this signal environment in an anechoic chamber is critical in allowing the discerning test professional to rigorously evaluate the performance of a CRPA system.

    The Spirent GSS9790 is designed for this testing. The 9790 allows for code, carrier and amplitude control on a satellite-by-satellite and interferer-by-interferer basis.

     

  • Spirent Partners with Nottingham Scientific for Robust PNT

    Spirent Partners with Nottingham Scientific for Robust PNT

    Spirent Communications has entered into a strategic partnership with Nottingham Scientific Limited (NSL) to enable the detection, characterization and regeneration of threats to GNSS receiver systems.

    NSL is one of the companies in Europe involved in satellite navigation, specializing in developing reliable and robust GNSS technologies for a variety of applications, such as those that impact safety or are critical in terms of business, finance and security. NSL has carried out many successful GNSS research programs within the UK and internationally for government organizations, regulators and policy makers, Spirent said.

    Martin Foulger (left), general manager at Spirent Communications, meets with Mark Dumville, general Manager of NSL, at NSL's headquarters in Nottingham, UK. (Photo: Spirent)
    Martin Foulger (left), general manager at Spirent Communications, meets with Mark Dumville, general Manager of NSL, at NSL’s headquarters in Nottingham, UK. (Photo: Spirent)

    The combination of NSL’s acknowledged expertise in the research of GNSS vulnerabilities with Spirent’s leadership in GNSS simulation and test development enables the provision of a range of planned robust positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) solutions.

    “Threats to GNSS and related PNT applications are becoming more orchestrated and coordinated, with the motivation to disrupt or cause financial loss becoming the driving factor,” said John Pottle, marketing director at Spirent’s Positioning division. “Real-world threats are wide-ranging and affect navigation and timing system performance differently. Our partnership with NSL enables not only detection, but also regeneration, of real threats in the lab. This allows users to understand which threats are most relevant to them, and informs decisions on improving robustness.”

    “NSL and Spirent share a vision that building robust position, navigation and timing systems is enabled through evaluating system performance against a real threats baseline” Mark Dumville, general manager at Nottingham Scientific Ltd, said. “By auditing system performance, decisions on how to improve resilience can be based on facts, not guesswork.”

  • GSA Launches Funding for Galileo Chipsets, Receivers

    The European GNSS Agency (GSA) has launched a new research and development funding mechanism supporting development of Galileo chipsets and receivers, intended to enable the adoption of Galileo and EGNOS-powered services across all market segments. The Fundamental Elements programme supports activities that will be carried out from 2015-2020 with a projected budget of EUR 100 million.

    Fundamental Elements is part of an overall strategy of market uptake initiatives led by the GSA and in accordance with EU regulation.

    “For the first time, EU regulation provides a financing tool for the market uptake of European GNSS chipsets and receivers,” said GSA Executive Director Carlo des Dorides. “The GSA will be instrumental in ensuring that the new Fundamental Elements programme contributes to the successful integration of Galileo and EGNOS.”

    Fundamental Elements complements the EU’s Horizon 2020 research programme. While Horizon 2020 aims to foster adoption of Galileo and EGNOS via content and application development, Fundamental Elements projects will focus on supporting the development of innovative chipset and receiver technologies.

    Fundamental Elements will provide two types of financing: grants and procurement. Grants will be provided with financing currently foreseen for up to 70 percent of the total value of the grant agreement. Intellectual property rights will stay with the beneficiary under the condition that the developed product is aimed at commercialization.

    In the case of grants, the GSA publishes two annual Grant Plans, one for EGNOS and another for Galileo. These plans indicate the envisaged grants to be awarded per year. The Fundamental Elements grants are included in these plans and can be consulted before the publication of the Call for Proposals. The annual Grant Plans include a brief description of the projects and the indicative budget and timings. Procurement will be used only in cases where keeping intellectual property rights allow for the better fulfillment of the programme’s objectives.

  • KVH Inertial Solutions Showcased at ION GNSS+

    KVH Inertial Solutions Showcased at ION GNSS+

    KVH_1775_IMU-WKVH is a fiber optic gyro (FOG) manufacturer that controls every aspect of its fiber-optic technology — from drawing its own specialized polarization-maintaining fiber to building precision FOGs and FOG-based inertial systems.

    KVH will be showcasing its FOG-based inertial measurement units (IMUs) at this year’s ION GNSS+ conference, taking place Sept. 14-18 in Tampa, Fla.

    Many of today’s demanding applications require high-performance inertial sensors that provide consistent and reliable accuracy — and strike the right balance between performance, size/weight, power consumption, and price, KVH explained. The company offers three IMUs:

    • 1775 IMU – Premium performance for critical applications
    • 1750 IMU – Advanced performance and versatility
    • 1725 IMU – Superior performance at MEMS prices

    KVH will be at booth 516 in the ION GNSS+ Exhibit Hall.

    Below is a video tour of KVH’s high-performance fiber-optic gyro manufacturing facility, which shows how precision, quality and accuracy are built into each KVH sensor.

  • Antenova Shows GNSS Antenna Integration for Telematics at CTIA

    Antenova Shows GNSS Antenna Integration for Telematics at CTIA

    The Antenova ODB fully assembled.
    The Antenova ODB (on-board devices) design fully assembled.

    Antenova Ltd., manufacturer of antennas and RF antenna modules for M2M and the Internet of Things, has built a model design for on-board devices (OBD) and vehicle telematics, which the company will be showing at CTIA Supermobility 2015.

    The OBD design uses three new antennas inside an OBD housing to link to GNSS satellite, Bluetooth and a terrestrial network, while obtaining optimum performance from all three antennas simultaneously. The design also features a new small GNSS RF module to fix location, which Antenova is showing for the first time.

    Antenova is using the latest antennas from it product ranges in the OBD design:

    • the Armata 3G FPC antenna for penta-band frequencies which operates at 824-960 MHz and 1710-2170 MHz
    • a new GNSS antenna named Bentoni operating at 1559-1609 MHZ,
    • the tiny Weii PCB-mounted antenna, which provides a Bluetooth connection at 2.4GHZ.

    All three are new antennas Antenova released this year.

    The new GPS/GNSS module (Antenova part number M10578) is a complete receiver that provides accurate location tracking for OBDs. It uses the latest MediaTek chipset with an additional LNA to give added performance when mounted under dashboards and out of line of sight with the sky.

    Antenova’s product designers recently introduced the concept of “Design For Integration” (DFI), which considers how the RF antenna will operate when it is embedded with a manufacturer’s product. Antenova’s antennas are always used within a customer’s design, so they are designed to provide superior RF performance from within the device, and to make the integration of the RF elements easier for the designer. In addition to this, Antenova provides its customers with technical support during the design, integration and testing phases.

    “We are demonstrating how a design for an OBD can give great performance, even when new antennas are added to an existing design,” explained Colin Newman, Antenova’s managing director. “OBD devices are growing fast in popularity, and the design of the RF components is critical to the overall performance of a device. In particular, Antenova’s engineers have invested many years in designing antennas that work effectively in very small spaces, whilst maintaining the efficiency of the antenna.”

    Antenova offers a range of antennas for Bluetooth, ZigBee, Wi-Fi, ISM, 802.11, 3G, GSM, GPRS, Edge, UMTS, WCDMA, LTE, GLONASS, BeiDou and Gallileo.

  • YellowScan Lidar for UAVs Aided by Inertial Nav, GPS RTK

    YellowScan Lidar for UAVs Aided by Inertial Nav, GPS RTK

    A UAV carries the YellowScan lidar.
    A UAV carries the YellowScan lidar.

    SBG Systems joins YellowScan to present a lightweight lidar with inertial and GPS for UAVs. The new product will be presented at the INTERGEO trade show in Stuttgart, held Sept. 15-17.

    The YellowScan lidar is designed for fixed or rotary-wing UAVs, with an embedded Ellipse-E, a miniature inertial navigation system from SBG Systems, which helps obtaining a clear and accurate point cloud.

    The UAV market is continuously growing, especially for professional applications like 3D surveying. Developed for such applications, YellowScan’s R&D team has worked closely with researchers and professionals in industries such as construction, surveying, mining and natural resources to create a comprehensive, high-performance and easy-to-use LiDAR.

    Ellipse-E. The ready-to-use YellowScan is operational at up to 75 meters and delivers a highly dense point cloud accurate to 10/15 centimeter. The solution includes a lidar with a ±50 degree angle that measures 40,000 points per second, an Ellipse-E inertial navigation system coupled with a centimeter-level RTK GPS, an on-board computer, and an integrated battery.

    The Ellipse-E miniature inertial navigation system by SBG Systems.
    The Ellipse-E miniature inertial navigation system by SBG Systems.

    Once mounted on the drone, the user pushes the yellow button and YellowScan is ready to survey. LED lights give useful information on YellowScan state, for instance if the GPS is receiving RTK corrections or not. The user can launch the UAV and begin the survey. Once the task accomplished, a USB stick is used for downloading the data. An office software visualizes the point cloud in a few clicks, before opening it in an industry specific software like Terrasolid, AutoCAD or ESRI.

    The YellowScan research and development team was searching for a high-performance, light and ITAR-free inertial navigation system for motion compensation and data georeferencing. They tested the Ellipse-E, the new miniature inertial navigation systems from SBG. Weighting 12 grams as an OEM version, it provides roll-and-pitch data accurate to 0.2 degree. The heading is accurate to 0.5° with only one antenna. Indeed, the heading computation relies on GPS and accelerometers data. This method is used when GPS positioning is widely available and punctuated by frequent accelerations, such as turns. The R&D team found the test results satisfying, and a point cloud highly clean. “We are very satisfied with this little Ellipse-E. It perfectly matches our technical needs, and we even gained 5 percent on the total weight of the YellowScan,” said Tristan Allouis, CTO at YellowScan.

    Ellipse-E Coupled with External GPS Receiver. The Ellipse-E inertial navigation system is able to connect to any survey-grade GPS receiver and to fuse in real-time GPS position with inertial information. Ellipse-E maintains a reliable position even if GPS masks occur. In this application, the Ellipse-E is coupled with the AsterX-m OEM card from Septentrio, a receiver that uses GPS and GLONASS constellations and works with all types of RTK reference stations.

    At INTERGEO, YellowScan will be in booth # F8.014, and SBG Systems will present the Ellipse-E at booth # G4.079.

    A point cloud made with YellowScan.
    A point cloud made with YellowScan.
  • Innovation: Getting There by Tuning In

    Innovation: Getting There by Tuning In

    Using HD Radio Signals for Navigation

    By Ananta Vidyarthi, H. Howard Fan and Stewart DeVilbiss

    INNOVATION INSIGHTS by Richard Langley
    INNOVATION INSIGHTS by Richard Langley

    THE YEAR WAS 1906. On Christmas Eve of that year, Canadian inventor Reginald Fessenden carried out the first amplitude modulation (AM) radio broadcast of voice and music. He used a high-speed alternator capable of rotating at up to 20,000 revolutions per minute (rpm). Connected to an antenna circuit, it generated a continuous wave with a radio frequency equal to the product of the rotation speed and the number of magnetic rotor poles it had. With 360 poles, radio waves of up to about 100 kHz could be generated. However, Fessenden typically used a speed of 10,000 rpm to produce 60 kHz signals. By inserting a water-cooled microphone in the high-power antenna circuit, he amplitude-modulated the transmitted signal. On that Christmas Eve, he played phonograph records, spoke and played the violin with radio operators being amazed at what they heard.

    Fessenden had earlier worked with spark-gap transmitters, as these were standard at the time for the transmission of Morse code, or telegraphy, the wireless communication method already in use. But they couldn’t generate a continuous wave and couldn’t produce satisfactory AM signals. But as telegraphy was the chief means of communication, they remained in use for many years along with high-powered alternators and the Poulsen arc transmitter, which could also generate continuous waves.

    Although other experimental AM broadcasts were carried out using alternators or arc transmitters, voice transmissions — and in particular sound broadcasting — didn’t take off until the invention of amplifying vacuum tubes. Just before World War I, it was found that they could be used in an oscillator circuit to produce continuous waves, which could be easily modulated to make an AM transmitter. Such transmitters could be used for point-to-point communications but also for broadcasting, and a number of experimental broadcasting stations were established in Europe and North America during and just after the war. Tubes were also instrumental for improvements in receiver technology. “Where there was one licensed station in America in 1920, there were nearly 600 stations just five years later, and the number of radio receivers went from thousands of crystal sets to millions of vacuum-tube circuits.” — from The Science of Radio by Paul J. Nahin, one of my favorite writers on electronics and mathematics.

    AM radio broadcasting used frequencies in the long-wave, medium-wave and short-wave frequency bands, and still does. But AM signals often have low audio quality due to bandwidth limitations imposed by regulators and interference from other stations, atmospheric disturbances and electrical noise. So, over the past decade or so, many broadcasters have abandoned long-wave and medium-wave frequencies and moved to the frequency modulation or FM broadcast band with its superior signal capability.

    However, this migration pattern might be slowed or stopped if digital broadcasting were to be fully embraced on the AM broadcast bands. A digital technique developed by the iBiquity Digital Corporation is gradually being adopted by broadcasters in the United States and elsewhere. The technique provides FM-quality sound in the medium-wave band by supplementing existing AM signals or replacing them altogether. It can also supply data about the transmitting station and its broadcast. Some 240 AM radio stations in the U.S. already use the technology. (It can also be used in the FM band to provide CD-like quality.)

    But these digital signals in the AM broadcast band might serve an additional purpose beyond improving the listening experience. In this month’s column, our authors tell us about some extensive simulation work they have carried out to demonstrate the feasibility of using digital radio signals for navigation. In the future, you may be able to turn on your radio and tune in to get to where you’re going.


    “Innovation” is a regular feature that discusses advances in GPS technology and its applications as well as the fundamentals of GPS positioning. The column is coordinated by Richard Langley of the Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick. He welcomes comments and topic ideas. Email him at lang @ unb.ca.


    It is well known that the GPS signals are weak and are therefore subject to interference and blockage due to obstruction. Signals of opportunity (SOO), on the other hand, which are designed for other purposes such as communication, may also be used for navigation and have relatively greater signal power than GPS. They are plentiful and relatively more resistant to blockage and jamming compared to GPS. Many authors have presented methods and algorithms utilizing SOO such as AM and FM broadcast signals, TV broadcast signals and 3G/4G wireless communication signals (see Further Reading for examples). These signals are robust and have very good received power levels compared with GPS, and are capable of penetrating through buildings. In addition, these signals are readily available and there is no need for any additional installation of transmitting devices or infrastructure.

    In this article, we present the results of a study using AM HD Radio, digital radio in the 540–1700 kHz band of the frequency spectrum, with known transmitter locations, to locate and track receiver locations that are otherwise unknown. HD Radio, originally meaning hybrid-digital radio, is a trademarked term for iBiquity Digital Corporation’s digital radio technology. Unlike analog AM radio signals, digital radio signals are well structured and more immune to co-channel interference, and hence could be better adapted for navigation. In addition, with the proliferation of software-defined radios (SDRs), digital AM radio may eventually replace analog AM radio.

    The challenges of navigation using digital radio signals include narrow signal bandwidths, long symbol durations and lack of synchronization among transmitters. Therefore, digital radio signals are not an ideal choice for accurate position estimation, similar to many other SOO that aren’t designed for navigation. Nevertheless, in this work, we have designed algorithms to overcome such difficulties to obtain a good level of location accuracy, making it a feasible alternative for SOO navigation.

    Signal Format of Digital AM Radio

    Digital AM signals have a well-defined structure called in-band-on-channel (IBOC) that can be exploited for localization purpose. It employs sophisticated digital radio waveforms, which can deliver compact-disc-like sound quality, free of interference and noise, to radio listeners. It uses the existing AM and FM analog broadcasting bands and channel schemes to transmit digital signals. The IBOC digital radio transmitter system encodes analog audio into binary form for transmission.

    The design provided by IBOC AM radio has two service modes with two new waveform types: hybrid (denoted by MA1) and all-digital (denoted by MA3). The hybrid waveform retains the analog AM signal, while the all-digital waveform completely replaces the analog AM signal. In the hybrid service mode, the bandwidth of the analog audio signal waveform can be 5 kHz or 8 kHz. The digital signal is transmitted on both sides of the analog host signal in the primary and secondary sidebands. It is also transmitted on the tertiary sidebands, which are 20 dB beneath the analog signal as shown in FIGURE 1.

    FIGURE 1. Logical channels and sidebands on the frequency spectrum; hybrid mode with 5-kHz analog signal bandwidth. (After iBiquity.)
    FIGURE 1. Logical channels and sidebands on the frequency spectrum; hybrid mode with 5-kHz analog signal bandwidth. (After iBiquity.)

    For the 8-kHz configuration, the secondary sidebands are also beneath the analog host signal. The greatest system enhancements are realized with the all-digital system, as shown in FIGURE 2. In this system, the analog signal is replaced with the all-digital primary sidebands whose power is increased relative to the hybrid system levels. Secondary and tertiary sideband powers are also increased to the level of the hybrid waveform. Reference subcarriers are also provided to convey system control information. The end result is a higher power digital signal with an overall bandwidth reduction.

    FIGURE 2. Logical channels and sidebands on the frequency spectrum; all-digital mode. (After iBiquity.)
    FIGURE 2. Logical channels and sidebands on the frequency spectrum; all-digital mode. (After iBiquity.)

    Digital radio offers distinct advantages over analog, including mitigation of transmission artifacts and improved audio quality. These changes provide a more robust digital signal that is less susceptible to adjacent channel interference, thereby reducing the noise in the system. An overview of the AM digital system for both the service modes, MA1 and MA3, is given in the following paragraphs. However, in the simulation study we carried out, we used the all-digital AM (MA3) mode. The all-digital AM system has a smaller bandwidth than the hybrid signal. If reasonable localization results can be obtained with it, then we can predict that better localization results may be obtained with the hybrid signal.

    IBOC uses an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) waveform for signal modulation. Each OFDM subcarrier channel has a spacing of 181.7 Hz. The hybrid MA1 service mode comprises 163 subchannels indexed from -81 to 81 over a total bandwidth of 29.4 kHz as shown in Figure 1. The all-digital MA3 service mode has only 105 subchannels indexed from -52 to 52 over a total bandwidth of 18.9 kHz as shown in Figure 2. Therefore, when compared to the all-digital mode, hybrid mode contains more training symbols per OFDM symbol duration. The training symbols are important since these symbols are known and will be used to perform correlation to estimate the signal time of arrival. We predict that since the hybrid mode contains more training symbols than the all-digital mode, detection accuracy will be higher for the hybrid mode. Hence, choosing the all-digital MA3 service mode for the localization will be more challenging, and this is another reason for our decision to use MA3. Demonstrating the capability of the all-digital MA3 service mode for localization would imply that the hybrid mode could be used for the same, with at least the same or better performance.

    Interleaving in time and frequency is used to mitigate the effects of burst errors. The interleaver output is according to a structured matrix (not shown here). Each interleaver matrix consists of information associated with a specific portion of the transmitted spectrum, and consists of eight interleaver blocks, with each block of size of 32 × 25. Hence, each block has 800 symbols to be filled, out of which 50 are known training symbols. Since this work entirely relies on training symbols, understanding interleaving is important so we know exactly where the training symbols are in a signal data stream. From the interleaving matrix, the positions of all training symbols are given, which have a periodic appearance of every 16 rows.

    The OFDM subcarrier mapping transforms interleaver output into scaled 16 quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) and 64 QAM and binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) symbols and then maps them to specific OFDM subcarriers. The inputs to OFDM subcarrier mapping are according to the interleaver matrices, which map respective symbols to the primary, secondary, tertiary, Primary IBOC Data Service (PIDS) and reference subcarriers. One row of each active interleaver matrix and one bit of the system control vector are mapped into each OFDM symbol (every Ts seconds) to produce one output vector X, where Ts = 5.805 × 10-3 seconds.

    OFDM signal generation takes the complex frequency domain OFDM symbol X as generated above and outputs a time-domain representation of the digital signal. Let Xn be the vector X for the nth OFDM symbol, and Xn[k] be the kth element of Xn, which is the complex scaled constellation points for the subcarrier mapping for the nth symbol, where k = 0, 1,…, L-1 is the subcarrier index in the frequency-domain input to the signal generation for transmission. The input vector X is transformed into a shaped time-domain baseband pulse yn(t) defining the nth OFDM symbol as

    Inn-E1

    where n = 0, 1, …, ∞, Inn-E2.  Note that n indexes consecutive OFDM symbols, L = 105 is the maximum number of OFDM subcarriers, Ts and ∆f are the OFDM symbol period and OFDM subcarrier spacing, respectively, and W(t) is the time-domain pulse shaping function.

    Time of Arrival Acquisition

    Since the training symbols are known, a local copy can be generated at a receiver to correlate with the received digital AM signal to measure signal time of arrival (TOA). Measuring TOA accurately from a correlation peak is crucial, since any error in TOA measurement directly affects localization accuracy. The relatively narrow bandwidths and hence long symbol durations of the digital AM radio signals pose a challenge as they give rise to potentially large timing errors, thereby greater localization errors. To improve the location accuracy, strong digital AM signal levels are used to our advantage so methods such as curve fitting and time averaging can be performed. Moreover, unlike the structures of the civil GPS signals, which are all known, only the training symbols and their positions in the digital AM signals are known. Other data in the digital AM signals are random and cannot be used for correlation. Therefore, using long correlation vectors will help in detecting peaks as there will be more training symbols.

    Sampling. Correlation is performed, of course, after sampling. So we first discuss how to choose an appropriate sampling frequency. After correlation, if we detect the peak and record it as TOA only at the corresponding sampling instant, a maximum distance error of c/2fs can occur between two adjacent samples, where c is the speed of light and fs is the sampling frequency. At the Nyquist sampling frequency, say 40 kHz, this error could be as large as 3,750 meters. Sampling at a frequency much higher than the Nyquist can help to improve accuracy, but this improvement diminishes as the sampling frequency increases beyond a certain value, because the narrow signal bandwidth makes the peak of its correlation function rounded, so detection of the actual peak becomes less accurate. In our simulations, we found that this point of diminishing returns is at about fs = 10 MHz, at which the error between two adjacent samples is 15 meters, much better than that at the Nyquist sampling rate. This high sampling rate is easily doable with today’s digital technologies. However, this 15-meter error is the ranging error between one transmitter and one receiver. Five or more transmitters have to be considered for the location algorithm presented in a later section. Then, the ranging error of 15 meters may magnify to the order of a few kilometers as location errors. Clearly, there is a need to detect TOA of a correlation peak between two adjacent samples; that is, we need interpolation to achieve a smaller TOA error.

    Interpolation. To calculate the TOA between two adjacent samples, we interpolate by curve fitting the correlation data and estimate the TOA by solving polynomial functions. It was observed that the correlation peak is asymmetric, so the correlation curve is shaped differently to the left and right of the peak value. This is illustrated in FIGURE 3. Therefore, we need to fit two different curves on each side of the correlation peak. By a trial-and-error process, we determined that a quadratic polynomial is sufficient to fit the correlation values close to the peak. Therefore two simple quadratic functions are fitted for the correlation data points to the left and right of the peak.

    FIGURE 3. Asymmetric correlation peak denoting different slopes on either side.
    FIGURE 3. Asymmetric correlation peak denoting different slopes on either side.

    FIGURE 4 shows curve fitting for the correlation of a received signal and a local signal sampled at 10 MHz. The maximum time error due to sampling is Tsamp/2, which equals 5 ×10-8 seconds. This translates into a distance error of 15 meters and localization error of a few kilometers as mentioned before. From Figure 4, it is seen that the intersection point, which is taken as the measured TOA, is much closer to the actual TOA resulting in a much smaller distance error.

    FIGURE 4. Enlarged views of Figure 3 near the peak.
    FIGURE 4. Enlarged views of Figure 3 near the peak.

    Based on the HD Radio documentation, a normal signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is calculated to be 52 dB. However, in case of adverse channel conditions, lower SNR levels of 30 dB and 10 dB have also been considered. Our simulations show that, with additive white Gaussian noise, the TOA estimation errors are affected by SNR very little above 10 dB, and are improved by an order of magnitude compared with no curve fitting. To make sure the TOA estimation error for the 10 dB SNR case can be used for the purpose of localization, we carried out a Monte Carlo simulation. Twenty-one different random signals were simulated, and the TOA measurement errors after curve fitting were recorded at different delays. The ensemble average of these TOA estimation errors was within 2 ×10-9 seconds. These results confirm that a 10 dB SNR signal can be very well used for localization. Thus, we used an SNR of 10 dB for all the simulations discussed later in this article.

    Differential Time-Difference of Arrival

    Once all the TOAs from different transmitters are obtained, they are sent to a processing station, which could be one of the receivers. Due to lack of synchronization in digital AM radio transmitters as well as unknown clock offsets in digital AM radio receivers, the obtained TOAs are not aligned, so they cannot be directly used for location determination. A technique called differential time-difference of arrival (dTDOA), which is similar to GPS double differencing and was published by the authors elsewhere (see Further Reading), is employed here to overcome this problem.

    Consider the case where there are two transmitters, A and B, and two receivers, C and D, as shown in FIGURE 5.

    FIGURE 5. Principle of differential time-difference of arrival (dTDOA).
    FIGURE 5. Principle of differential time-difference of arrival (dTDOA).

    When transmitter A is transmitting, its signal is received at different time instances by receivers C and D due to different propagation delays. The internal clock of each receiver records the correlation peak with respect to its local time at the corresponding receivers. TOAs of the signal from transmitter A at both receivers C and D are recorded as Inn-TAC and Inn-TAD, which also contain the unknown transmitter A clock time offset. Differencing these two TOAs Inn-TAC-TAD , the unknown transmitter A clock time offset is cancelled. But this TDOA is unsynchronized, so it cannot be used for location determination. Then we find the similar unsynchronized TDOA from transmitter B, Inn-TBC-TBD. To eliminate the unknown receiver clock offsets we difference the two TDOAs, resulting in a dTDOA:

    Inn-E3

    Thus, by using a minimum of two transmitters and two receivers, a dTDOA cancels receiver clock offsets and transmitter clock offsets, thus avoiding the need of precise clock synchronization. The number of independent dTDOA equations required to solve for the locations of n receivers is given by (m-1)(n-1) where m is the number of transmitters, and n is the number of receivers. For two receivers, there are four unknowns in a two-dimensional positioning plane, so we need a minimum of five transmitters to obtain four independent equations to solve for four unknown location parameters. If one of the receivers is permanently stationary with a known location such as in differential GPS, then we only need three transmitters to solve for two unknown horizontal location parameters, or four transmitters for three unknown location parameters in 3-D .

    The above dTDOA equations, when expressed in terms of receiver locations, are non-linear. The non-linear over-determined or exact system of equations can be solved using iterative procedures, such as non-linear least squares or the Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) technique. In the simulations we ran, we found that the LM method was more robust than the Gauss-Newton method because it was capable of converging to the solution in the global minimum even if the initial guess was relatively far away. But a reasonable initial estimate of the solution can help with faster convergence. If the initial estimate is too far away, the solution often converges to a local minimum instead of the global minimum.

    Therefore, a good initial estimate of the solution is crucial. An approximate initial estimate can be calculated in several ways. For example we can solve linearized equations based on the non-linear dTDOA equations. Or we can use a simple table lookup if we have some a priori knowledge of roughly where the receivers are located.

    Once the initial locations are found, the next step is to track the locations of the receivers when they are moving. A Kalman filter should be used for tracking. A Kalman filter can also incorporate the non-linear dTDOA equations with TOA measurement as input for close coupling between localization and tracking. Or, for simplicity, short of using a Kalman filter, the previous locations can be fed into the LM method to find the next locations. The LM method for this kind of tracking has faster convergence than for repeated initialization, so the next locations can be calculated quickly.

    Time Averaging. Due to error in tracking, the computed locations are not exact but are usually around the actual location. Time averaging is then used to further improve tracking performance. Time averaging can also be used to smooth the TOA measurements or the locations computed from dTDOA equations as input to a Kalman filter.

    Repeated use of the LM method, as shown in FIGURE 6, for estimating a stationary receiver’s coordinates always forms an error ellipsoid because of the noise and computation error. The estimated points are depicted by black points in Figure 6. The small yellow circle in the middle corresponds to the actual location. By simulation, it was found that averaging all the possible estimated locations produced a location much closer to the actual location, as depicted by the red cross in Figure 6. Obviously the more points to average — that is, the larger the time-averaging window — the more accurate the averaged location will be. In general, such time averaging can improve location and tracking performance by an order of magnitude.

    FIGURE 6. Image depicting time averaging of a stationary receiver’s location.
    FIGURE 6. Image depicting time averaging of a stationary receiver’s location.

    For a moving receiver, there is a trade off in choosing the time-averaging window. The larger the time-averaging window, the better the averaged location accuracy, but the larger the resulting time delay in the averaged location. This time delay is also affected by how frequently we update the tracked locations. Receiver velocity and the Doppler effect also affect the choice of the time-averaging window.

    Simulation Results

    We performed a comprehensive computer simulation study. The primary aim of this simulation study was to prove that the accuracy of digital AM signals for navigation can be improved using the methods introduced in the previous sections, despite the narrow bandwidth of the signals, thereby making digital AM a viable choice for navigation. A number of factors will affect the performance of navigation using digital AM signals including the sampling frequency, SNR, time-averaging window and location update frequency. In this simulation study, these factors have been taken into consideration.

    To simulate a realistic environment, we chose the city of Chicago, where there are many digital AM transmitters providing good coverage to the city. We chose the six best transmitters in Chicago based on the power of the signal and location. The working range of the receivers is large enough to perform a detailed study of all the navigation techniques. The locations of the radio station transmitters are shown in FIGURE 7. All figure axes are in kilometers. Colored dots are transmitter locations; colored circles are their ranges. Green tracks are the chosen routes for a fast-moving receiver. Short brown tracks are those of the other receiver, somewhere in the same zone and traveling slowly.

    FIGURE 7. Transmitter locations and two different routes considered for simulation with two receivers. (Map courtesy of Google.)
    FIGURE 7. Transmitter locations and two different routes considered for simulation with two receivers. (Map courtesy of Google.)

    We simulated two receivers moving along the chosen green and brown routes, but we will only show the navigation results of the faster moving receiver along the green routes. A minimum of five transmitters is needed. The entire simulation was done in Matlab. The time-domain digital AM received signals were modeled according to the specifications described previously. Delays corresponding to transmitter and receiver locations were calculated and simulated into the signals received at the two receivers. An SNR of 10 dB was used for all received signals. Along Route 1 (upper left corner of Figure 7), five transmitter signals can be received, whereas along Route 2 (center right in Figure 7), six transmitter signals are received. Simulation conditions and results for these two routes are given in TABLES 1 and 2.

    TABLE 1. Simulation parameters and results of Route 1 (five-transmitter zone).
    TABLE 1. Simulation parameters and results of Route 1 (five-transmitter zone).
    TABLE 2. Simulation parameters and results of Route 2 (six-transmitter zone).
    TABLE 2. Simulation parameters and results of Route 2 (six-transmitter zone).

    In addition, the tracking results for the fast-moving receiver are laid on top of photo maps of the routes, and are shown in FIGURES 8 and 9. The worst-case situation happens when, for example, transition of zones or handover of transmitters happen, for which no specific additional measures were taken in the simulations as shown in Figure 8.

    FIGURE 8. Worst-case result for five-transmitter tracking. (Photo map courtesy of Google.)
    FIGURE 8. Worst-case result for five-transmitter tracking. (Photo map courtesy of Google.)

    However, the typical tracking result in Figure 9 happens most of the time. Clearly, the more transmitters that can be used, the better the accuracy results. Use of more than two receivers or use of a stationary receiver with a known location can reduce this demand on the number of transmitters.

    FIGURE 9. Typical six-transmitter tracking result. (Photo map courtesy of Google.)
    FIGURE 9. Typical six-transmitter tracking result. (Photo map courtesy of Google.)

    The fast sampling frequency, the curve fitting and the time-averaging window are the most important factors affecting the accuracy of this work, and are easily adjustable. In our simulations we used a time-averaging window of 1 second. We expect that the accuracy would further improve as the time-averaging window is increased, but this would result in increased latency. The velocity of the receiver is one limiting factor in choosing the time-averaging window. For a receiver traveling at a maximum speed of 145 kilometers per hour, a time-averaging window of 1 second corresponds to 20.14 meters of tracking lag. Any greater tracking lag may become intolerable. In general, our simulations show that curve fitting alone and time averaging alone each improved localization accuracy by an order of magnitude. When curve fitting and time averaging were combined, the localization accuracy was improved by two orders of magnitude. If a Kalman filter were used for tracking, we would expect further accuracy improvement.

    Other challenges that deserve further study to make this concept a mature technology include multipath propagation and its mitigation, incorporation of estimating digital AM carrier phase, and incorporation of a Kalman filter for tracking. Further increased location accuracy is expected by incorporation of these techniques.

    Acknowledgment

    This article is based, in part, on the paper “A Navigation Solution Using HD Radio Signals” presented at the 2015 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, Dana Point, Calif., Jan. 26–28, 2015.


    ANANTA VIDYARTHI graduated from Anna University, India, in 2009 with a B. Tech. degree in electronics and communication engineering. She came to the University of Cincinnati in the fall of 2009 and earned her M.S. degree in 2012 in electrical engineering. Currently, she is working with Cummins Inc. in Columbus, Ind.

    H. HOWARD FAN graduated from the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering in 1985. He has been on the faculty of the University of Cincinnati since then, where he is a professor of electrical engineering and computing systems. His research interests are in digital signal processing, system identification, signal processing for communications, interference mitigation, direction finding, and navigation and location.

    STEWART DEVILBISS graduated from Ohio State University with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering in 1994. Since 2007 he has served as the technical advisor for the Navigation and Communication Branch at the Sensors Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. His primary research interest is in technologies to improve navigation robustness and accuracy.

    FURTHER READING

    • Authors’ Conference Paper

    “Navigation Solution Using HD Radio Signals” by A. Vidyarthi and H.H. Fan in Proceedings of ION ITM 2015, the 2015 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, Dana Point, Calif., Jan. 26–28, 2015, pp. 285–292.

    • HD Radio

    The IBOC Handbook: Understanding HD Radio Technology by D.P. Maxson. Published by Focal Press, Burlington, Mass., 2013.

    HD Radio Air Interface Design Description – Layer 1 AM, Doc. No. SY_IDD_1012s, Revision E. Published by iBiquity Digital Corporation, Columbia, Md., March 22, 2005.

    HD Radio AM Transmission System Specifications, Doc. No SY_SSS_1082s, Revision F. Published by iBiquity Digital Corporation, Columbia, Md., Aug. 24, 2011.

    • Differential Time-Difference of Arrival

    “Asynchronous Differential TDOA for Non-GPS Navigation Using Signals of Opportunity” by C. Yan and H.H. Fan in Proceedings of ICASSP 2008, the IEEE 2008 International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Las Vegas, Nev., March 31–April 4, 2008, pp. 5312–5315, doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.2008.4518859.

    • Positioning Using Analog AM Signals of Opportunity

    Opportunistic Navigation: Finding Your Way with AM Signals of Opportunity” by J. McEllroy, J.F. Raquet and M.A. Temple in GPS World, Vol. 18, No. 7, July 2007, pp. 44–49.

    “Phase Measurements Using Direct Conversion AM Radio Navigation” by A. Dinh, R. Mason, R. Palmer and K. Runtz in Proceedings of WESCANEX 97, the IEEE 1997 Conference on Communications, Power and Computing, 22–23 May 1997, pp. 280–285, doi: 10.1109/WESCAN.1997.627154.

    • Positioning Using TV Signals of Opportunity

    “Cooperative position location with signals of opportunity” by C. Yang, T. Nguyen, D. Venable, M. White and R. Siegel in Proceedings of NAECON 2009, the IEEE 2009 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, Dayton, Ohio, July 21–23, 2009, pp. 18–25, doi: 10.1109/NAECON.2009.5426658.

    Prime Time Positioning: Using Broadcast TV Signals to Fill GPS Acquisition Gaps” by M. Martone and J. Metzler in GPS World, Vol. 16, No. 9, Sept. 2005, pp. 52–60.

    “A New Positioning System Using Television Synchronization Signals” by M. Rabinowitz and J. J. Spilker, Jr. in IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, Vol. 51, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 51–61, doi: 10.1109/TBC.2004.837876.

    • Positioning Using 3G Cellar Signals of Opportunity

    “A Signals of Opportunity Based Cooperative Navigation Network” by M.A. Enright and C.N. Kurby in Proceedings of NAECON 2009, the IEEE 2009 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, Dayton, Ohio, July 21–23, 2009, pp. 213–218, doi: 10.1109/NAECON.2009.5426626.

  • Receiver Design for the Future: Webinar Q&A

    The September article Receiver Design for the Future is based on a GPS World webinar, which sprang from a presentation at the Stanford PNT Symposium. Listener questions and Greg Turetzky’s answers during the webinar are provided below. Greg Turetzky is a principal engineer at Intel responsible for strategic business development in Intel’s Wireless Communication Group focusing on location. He has more than 25 years of experience in the GNSS industry at JHU-APL, Stanford Telecom, Trimble, SiRF and CSR.

     

    Is dual frequency expected to be seen in smartphones this year?

    If what you’re saying there is L1, L2, L5, the answer is absolutely not. But if what you’re saying is GPS, Galileo, BeiDou, which are all in different bands, then I think we are already seeing tri-bands between the GLONASS band, the GPS band and the BeiDou band. I expect to see that continue from a multi-constellation standpoint, rather than multi-frequency on individual constellations.

    How do you see antenna design changing and developing relative to receiver design?

    If you go back to that slide, the answer is the opposite — antenna design has been getting worse and worse in order to shave cost and size and is being made up for in silicon design. A really good example is, most GPS receivers that we build for mobile phones aren’t optimized to work at -140 dBm, our standard normal outdoor power, because we never see that. The antennas that we typically work with are 8, 10, 12 dB down, so no matter what, we never see anything above -140.

    So I think the answer is the opposite — no one is trying in my market to make better antenna design, they’re trying to make them even smaller and even cheaper. Especially if you think about getting into wearables and button-sized things, you need a GPS antenna, a Bluetooth antenna and a Wi-Fi antenna in a button. That’s the problem, and still leaving room for performance. So basically we’re being asked to make up for that in the receiver design.

    One of your slides showed GPS with 100% penetration, and SBAS was one of the next highest bars on that chart, outdated as it was, even though it’s only less than a year old. What are the benefits of SBAS in a commercial receiver?

    The issue with that fact is we like geostationary satellites, because they’re easy to find and they’re useful from a visibility standpoint. But the data demodulation of those is even more challenging than GPS because of the additional coding schemes that go on top of it. It’s very difficult for us to demodulate off the SBAS satellite, so we primarily use them for ranging and for autonomous operation when we’re not aided.

    In aided operation, we use them less, because we get the data that we need off the Internet, right off a feed, or it comes in off of a satellite, which is much more useful. So SBAS stuff is there because it doesn’t add a lot of cost of difficulty to the receiver design, but it’s not a crucial part of the operation anymore — I’d say with the exception of QZSS, which has a large impact in its regional operating area.

    Let’s continue the trend in questions towards multi-constellations. What’s the strategy to switch on another GNSS constellation in case of a GPS problem for a future receiver?

    It’s a really good question, but it comes from a premise that we would switch something on that was normally off. The general strategy that’s being followed is to use everything that’s available all the time, so that we can use the methodologies of essentially autonomous RAIM on a receiver where we now have 8, 10, 12 signals coming into the receiver. It’s pretty obvious right away when something has gone wrong, and so it’s not so much time when we can flag when to switch on. It’s more a time when we can switch off. If we see a systemic problem in multiple satellites, then we may use that in our definition, but it’s not from a switching-on standpoint.

    So, basically what we’re doing is we’re keeping everything on all the time and relying on autonomous RAIM capabilities from the fact that we’re tracking 14 or 16 satellites at a time with all this extra compute horsepower, because now I’m running embedded CPUs at hundreds of megahertz, where back at SiRF when we could get 15 megahertz, we were happy. So we have a lot more compute horsepower on the mobile side to do autonomous RAIM.

  • Receiver Design for the Future

    Receiver Design for the Future

    Figure 1. Major shifts in underlying platforms.
    Figure 1. Major shifts in underlying platforms.

    How the Internet of Things Now Drives Location Technology

    The number of devices connecting to the Internet is growing fast. The applications running on them require location context to determine the most likely use case. These devices need continuous location — not necessarily noticed or activated by the user, but always on. The specification that becomes important is energy per day: the device must maintain its location without draining its battery — and increase location availability indoors. That creates new design requirements for hybrid capability.

    By Greg Turetzky

    A lot of people have the opinion that the GNSS market is kind of flat. Actually, several different market studies would indicate that it’s not as flat as you would think. See FIGURE 2, taken from the European GNSS Agency’s (GSA’s) 2015 GNSS Market Report. The growth rate certainly is slowing, but any market that continues to grow at a 9 percent annual growth rate is a very nice target area. As you can see, the GSA expects that we’re going to have somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 billion devices within the next eight to ten years.

    Figure 2. Installed base of GNSS devices by region; the GNSS market continues to grow at a rapid pace. Source: GSA GNSS Market Report.
    Figure 2. Installed base of GNSS devices by region; the GNSS market continues to grow at a rapid pace. Source: GSA GNSS Market Report.

    We’re getting to the point where the number of GNSS receivers exceeds the population of the planet, which makes for an interesting thought process as to where GNSS is going to end up, and how it’s going to have to end up in everything that we do. That makes for a nice market opportunity. A big reason for that is we’ve seen a lot of growth in demand for multi-constellation GNSS. Everything pretty much has GPS in it that everyone terms as GNSS, but the growth of these other constellations is happening relatively quickly.

    FIGURE 3, in my opinion, is already significantly out of date, even though it is less than a year old. Other market estimates indicate that GLONASS penetration into receivers, especially in the mobile phone field, is closer to 70 or 80 percent today, and that is expected to grow. There’s really no technical or economic reason why GNSS receivers can’t support multiple constellations, even at the consumer mobile device level.

    Figure 3. Multi-constellation trends: GNSS capability in receivers. Source: GSA GNSS Market Report.
    Figure 3. Multi-constellation trends: GNSS capability in receivers. Source: GSA GNSS Market Report.

    Once all those constellations are in place, let’s look at where those receivers are going from a market standpoint. FIGURE 4 is divided by revenue, which is an interesting way to do it because we all know if you divided it by actual units, then the location-based services (LBS) portions in phones would dominate everything; everything else would just be a sliver that wouldn’t be visible. But if you look at it from a revenue standpoint, there are still many revenue opportunities in the phone segment and in the automotive segment.

    Figure 4. GNSS market segments, cumulative core revenue  2012–2022. Source: GSA GNSS Market Report.
    Figure 4. GNSS market segments, cumulative core revenue
    2012–2022. Source: GSA GNSS Market Report.

    Another reason to expect continued market growth is, if you examine Figure 4, you’ll notice that the Internet of Things (IoT) category (see SIDEBAR) doesn’t even show up here. We’ll see going forward that there will be a new slice of pie showing a focus on that segment and those types of applications.

    Intel and the Internet of Things

    Intel’s mission is no longer only to build PCs. We’re about bringing smart, connected devices to everyone. That encompasses a range of products, and we’ve been expanding our portfolio appropriately.

    We start with everything from big iron data centers (which are part of smart devices) to mobile clients and all the way down to the Internet of Things (IoT) and wearable devices. All those devices are part of this smart connected world. Our group’s job is to help on the connectivity side, which varies by product.

    This whole idea expands beyond mobile phones and into the IoT, a big trend whose methodology is transforming business, starting at sensors all the way up to big data, to make interesting decisions. The number of devices that are being able to connect to the Internet is growing faster than anybody can keep up with, and that creates a really interesting opportunity. That gives you a bit of a picture as to why Intel is interested in this market and where you’re going to see us playing.

    Looking at how we provide this location capability beyond just GNSS, how are people determining their location in these different platforms, and what are the different technologies available? FIGURE 5 shows that in 2014–2015 the most popular technology is still GPS, but there is a fast-growing trend in both Bluetooth-enabled and Wi-Fi-enabled penetration of location technology. Both of these are more suited to indoor operation, where the market is still in its early stages.

    Figure 5. Alternative location technology shipments, world market forecast: 2010–2018. Source: ABI Location Technologies Market Data.
    Figure 5. Alternative location technology shipments, world market forecast: 2010–2018. Source: ABI Location Technologies Market Data.

    Although GNSS continues to grow with market growth, the growth of other technologies and the ability to incorporate them into location solutions is growing pretty quickly, and the radio versions of those are, in general, growing the fastest, followed by the inertial sensors. I think we’re going to see this combination of location technologies, jointly providing a single answer, becoming the norm in mobile products.

    These technologies are going to end up, especially for indoors, in different areas. FIGURE 6 shows a huge growth, not only growth but segmentation among a bunch of different types of venues, all of which seem to be adopting an indoor location methodology. Not all of them will adopt the same one, but all these types of venues are looking at that market and are looking at potential different technologies to serve their needs. What might be most appropriate in a grocery store — geared towards finding a particular item — like a Bluetooth beacon might be less interesting in an airport, where there’s still a need for navigation from place to place, where proximity is not necessarily the right answer.

    Figure 6. Indoor location technology installations by vertical market, world market forecast, 2010–2018. Source: ABI.
    Figure 6. Indoor location technology installations by vertical market, world market forecast, 2010–2018. Source: ABI.

    We see a large growth of a very disparate technology base; at the right of the figure is a pie chart where I had to remove all the callouts, the list of all the different technology suppliers addressing these particular indoor markets. What you see is a highly fragmented supplier base; that’s very consistent with an early market implementation. There’s a lot of different people attempting to get into this market with a lot of different solutions. This is pretty classic for an early-adopter scenario.

    The Stack. Changing accuracy requirements will come up a bit later in this article. Once we’ve looked at where those different venues are from a requirements standpoint, we start to look at the types of companies that are trying to participate in the ecosystem required to do that (FIGURE 7). If you start from the bottom, where I live as a chipset manufacturer, and you move up the chain, you see seven different layers of people in the creation of a location to the end user, especially indoors. And every single person you see in this value chain is trying to make money.

    Figure 7. LBS value chain: a highly complex ecosystem with each segment looking to differentiate and monetize indoor location. Source: GSA GNSS Market Report.
    Figure 7. LBS value chain: a highly complex ecosystem with each segment looking to differentiate and monetize indoor location. Source: GSA GNSS Market Report.

    That’s the crux of the issue: a lot of people want a piece of that pie, and all of them have a relevant part to play, but when seven people in the stack are all trying to own the location result in order to monetize it, it becomes difficult to create a unified methodology. I live at the bottom of this complex ecosystem, in the technology implementation layer. Getting dollars to flow from the top to the bottom gets relatively difficult, so we are very driven to bring cost competitiveness into this market.

    In summary, from a market standpoint, we see that the market opportunity is very big and still growing. This makes it interesting to a company like Intel, even though we aren’t a major player in the business today, to continue to invest in it. We see a trend going from GPS to GNSS and on to location, and now the big opportunity is indoor location. But this indoor-location market is not a stand-alone device opportunity. Indoor location requires this kind of technology inside other devices, inside phones and tablets and IoT types of things.

    Context. Let’s look at indoor location as a feature in a larger portion of product. That idea comes from the requirement for location not just for the location itself, but in order to provide context. That’s critical because now these smart, mobile devices are not just used to make phone calls, but are used all the time. As a result, many applications running on them really require that location context to determine the most likely use case that the device is currently operating, making the consumer experience easier and more natural. This is evident throughout the entire value chain from phones and tablets to wearables. If you think about that from a requirement standpoint, you see the major places where GNSS has enabled trend changes in the market.

    Let’s step back a bit in history to go through FIGURE 1, the opening figure, horizontally. In the early 2000s when I was at SiRF Technology, the main market drivers were personal navigation devices (PNDs). There were all these dashboard-mounted PNDs, and the main things we were trying to fix was the urban-canyon problem. GPS always worked well in the rural areas but always had trouble in urban canyons; to fix that, we had to improve the sensitivity. The solution in that timeframe was with multi-correlator designs and improved RF frontends; we were able to improve the sensitivity of the receivers by a good 5–10 dB, which enabled us to really keep the antennas inside the car so that there was no need for roof-mounted antennas. The PND could be mounted on the dash and work just fine. That was a big factor in improving the user experience. The secondary specification that enabled that market to grow quickly was time-to-first-fix; those devices had to power-up and work fast to prevent user frustration.

    Within about five years, however, the PND market was overtaken by growth in the feature phone market. The reason for that was the FCC E911 mandate; everyone had to figure out a way to make sure that phones sold in the United States had the ability to meet that 911 mandate. GPS was one of the major methodologies in meeting that, and the main driver there was not around sensitivity, it was improving first-fix times. The mandate required a 30-second TTFF implementation in a very challenged environment to support emergency-services dispatch. This led us to the development of assisted GPS (AGPS) and further integration into phones. We had a secondary requirement of continuing to improve the sensitivity, because now we had to deal with an even worse antenna in a handset.

    Once that was taken care of in the mid 2000s, the next thing we saw coming — and what’s coming now — is the change in GPS requirements for smartphone navigation. This comes from the huge growth of higher end smartphones that are running multiple applications driving the use-cases around LBS. How will the location be used to provide services, now that we can provide applications on that platform? Now the most important specification has become active power? Every time a GPS receiver is turned on for use in an LBS mode, you have to make sure that the power consumption is kept to a minimum, or no one will use those services. So the active power of the device became a very important specification that we were all trying to improve.

    The secondary specification we had to improve was the availability. This is where the advantage of multi-GNSS started to show up — using handsets for car navigation on Google map types of implementations. So the performance of smartphone navigation in the urban canyon became a big driver recently as the main use case.

    Impacts of New Requirements on Silicon Design

    • Standby power reduction impacts
    • SRAM is the leakiest component of typical design
    • Needs to be reduced or ideally eliminated
    • Non-continuous fix methods
    • Ability to quickly save and restore state information
    • Hybrid location solutions
    • Support measurements from multiple radios
    • Need to share radios, not duplicate chains
    • Increased integration of of multiple radios on single die
    • Need more interference rejection capability
    • Ability to support concurrent radio operation on single die

    Next! What’s coming next is the idea that these wearables and IoT platforms are not just doing LBS on demand because of the currently active application. They are going to need continuous location. The device needs to provide location capability all the time, but it’s not necessarily going to be noticed by the user or activated by the user, so the specification that becomes important is energy per day. You want to make sure your device can maintain its location without draining its battery. Then we are also going to have to increase the availability of location into indoors to really fix this whole problem. And that will really move us into hybrid capability.

    If we look at those changes in the market and we look at how they’re going to impact the GNSS architecture, the first thing we want to look at is: Where is GNSS? FIGURE 8 is a plot that I’m sure everybody has and is hard to keep up to date. It looks at the satellites coming from the different satellite constellations. The important thing here is that we are approaching a timeframe where a significant uptick in the growth of satellites can send the numbers over 100. That can really have an impact on receiver design, if you’re building a multi-GNSS receiver and you have to deal with a hundred satellites. How are you going to do that?

    Figure 8. Projected number of satellites for each signal band.
    Figure 8. Projected number of satellites for each signal band.

    FIGURE 9 shows the relationship between the coherent period and the number of correlators required to search for one satellite in each constellation. We looked at particular scenarios — in this case, let’s say we are trying to do an outdoor location, so –130 dBm cold start test (FIGURE 10) with an initial frequency certainty of around 1 part per million (ppm). We wanted to look at the impact of the different constellations on doing that, and what it takes inside of the receiver to implement it. I’m not going to go into great detail here. But looking at those impacts in correlator counts, you can see the difference between building a GPS receiver that can do this and building a Galileo receiver that can do this. From the simplest one, that is, GLONASS, and from the most difficult one, which is Galileo, you see a 75x difference in the number of correlators required to do that, based on signal structure. This would indicate that, maybe from a cold start fix point of view, you might prefer a GLONASS implementation, and do GPS or Galileo later.

    Figure 9. Relationship between the coherent period and number of correlators requried to search for one satellite in each constellation.  ±1 ppm local oscillator frequency uncertainty; ±10 kHz Doppler shift range; 50 percent Doppler bin overlap; 1/4-chip correlator spacing.
    Figure 9. Relationship between the coherent period and number of correlators requried to search for one satellite in each constellation. ±1 ppm local oscillator frequency uncertainty; ±10 kHz Doppler shift range; 50 percent Doppler bin overlap; 1/4-chip correlator spacing.
    Figure 10. Test scenarios, cold start test.
    Figure 10. Test scenarios, cold start test.

    If that specification was your primary concern, then you would look at how those requirements got implemented into those devices. In addition, you try to come down to these low levels of power consumption, maintain sufficient accuracy to support these applications, and be able to move this into a very small form factor. If we look at the relationship between the number of correlators required to search for each satellite and amount of silicon area that requires, we see a big difference in the growth of those, depending on which constellation you look at. But if you look at a hot start scenario (FIGURE 11) rather than a cold start and at a weaker signal level, which is the more common implementation in devices today, you see a different result. With an improved starting condition because we have better information on the oscillators and reduced other uncertainties producing a smaller search space, the silicon area impact is greatly reduced. Then we have to really look at reducing standby power. That means we need to look at static random-access memory (SRAM) because SRAMs are a horribly leaky component and create very large standby power, but they are what we’ve been using for years in the standalone GPS world.

    Figure 11. Test scenarios, hot start test.
    Figure 11. Test scenarios, hot start test.

    We also have to look at non-continuous fix methodologies: this idea of turning things on and off to save power, which relates back to the standby power issues. We also have to look at hybrids: How are we going to support measurements from multiple radios like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth that are becoming important for indoor location? How are we going to share those radios without just pasting them together? That involves integration onto single die, and looking at what happens on the silicon level, and at what happens when you try to run radios at the same time.

    What we have to work with, especially here at Intel, the home of Gordon Moore, is Moore’s Law. It is still working 30 years after it was proposed. Recently, we see that we are tracking this progression of constantly reducing device sizes and moving forward. The dates in FIGURE 12 are for the process technology nodes associated with a classical digital process. We are not at the 22-nanometer level today on GPS receivers, but we are moving down that curve.

    Figure 12. Moore’s Law in action: transistor scaling and improved performance. In GNSS terms, this means more gates and more memory for less cost, improved TTTF and sensitivity by allowing more search capability.
    Figure 12. Moore’s Law in action: transistor scaling and improved performance. In GNSS terms, this means more gates and more memory for less cost, improved TTTF and sensitivity by allowing more search capability.
    Figure 13. Scaling also increases speed and reduces power. HIgher clock speed provides better search and more complex navigation algorithms.
    Figure 13. Scaling also increases speed and reduces power. HIgher clock speed provides better search and more complex navigation algorithms.

    Obviously, when you move down that curve, you greatly increase your ability to add more gates to improve TTFF and sensitivity. More correlators help you search out more uncertainty faster. The other thing this does is allow us to run faster, to up the central processor unit (CPU) clockspeed. This allows more software capability to do things like process more advanced navigation algorithms, bring in more satellites from multiple GNSS, run very expansive Kalman filters, and look at hybrid technologies. It has also driven down the power, so that reducing the active power requirement that we had was kind of coming along with Moore’s law without a whole lot of effort.

    But now we’ve run into a problem: the parameter that we care more about, standby power, is actually going up. Although we are getting benefits out of Moore’s Law from speed and active power, we are actually having a problem. It’s increasing our standby power, which makes it difficult to go to these lower fix rates with faster restarts.

    You see a trend here. As you move down in technology nodes, you find that the more advanced technology nodes are less applicable to the smaller multi-purpose devices. This is part of the reason why you don’t see the mobile phone devices coming down as fast as you see the desktop devices coming towards those new technology nodes.

    This means some really significant silicon design challenges. We need to figure out how to take the advantages of Moore’s Law and maintain the benefits of smaller geometry, we need higher clock-speeds, and we need more memory for multi-constellation methodology and that gets lower active power and smaller size.

    But we have to figure out a way to not give up our standby power when we start moving down into these very small geometries. That will require some new methodologies, both at the chip level in terms of how we build silicon, and at the system design level, in terms of how we put these things together inside a mobile phone.

    What Intel Is Doing

    can’t tell you what we haven’t done yet, but we look at location as an opportunity where the strength of Intel comes into play. We have very advanced silicon processors and we are bringing those to bear on the location technology problem — just starting in the last few years. Our goal is to provide a GNSS and location silicon solution with best-in-class performance based on Intel technology. Once we’ve done that at the silicon level, we’ll look at bringing the platform-level integration capability together.

    We have the ability to merge multiple location technologies. We have a platform-level capability to integrate hardware and software to solve the indoor location problem on a variety of platforms. To execute to Intel’s vision, we’re going to push this into a ubiquitous technology present in all these devices, so that we can improve the variants on these mobile products.

    Multiple Radios. That’s part of what’s driving the whole industry towards the kind of consolidation that we’ve seen: stand-alone chipsets are not the only (or even the preferred) way to solve this problem. Without some access to the system design level, we’re not able to solve this problem for mobile phones and IoT type devices. We’re going to see this trend — that we all see coming — of putting multiple radios onto a single die, because that does reduce cost and size as we try to get into watches.

    The 2015 Consumer Electronics Show brought out the new stuff. They’re talking about IoT buttons. We still have a ways to go; bringing that capability down to that size in a GNSS radio is a difficult problem. Once we start incorporating these different radios, such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, into this solution, we run back into the problem of the value chain: How to get everyone aligned in a device with these capabilities into a single unified solution?

    One of the problems a lot of us see with these mobile products is that they have a lot of application and they require a lot of interaction. We’d all like these devices to become smarter and present the information that we want, when we want it. A big part of that is the location context, and so that’s what we’re planning on doing: integrating that location context into all these platforms so that these smart connected devices can be even smarter and provide a better user experience.


    GREG TURETZKY is a principal engineer at Intel responsible for strategic business development in Intel’s Wireless Communication Group focusing on location. He has more than 25 years of experience in the GNSS industry at JHU-APL, Stanford Telecom, Trimble, SiRF and CSR. He is a member of GPS World’s Editorial Advisory Board.

    The statements, views, and opinions presented in this article are those of the author and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author’s present and/or former employers or any other organization with whom the author may be associated.

    This article is based on a GPS World webinar, which sprang from a presentation at the Stanford PNT Symposium. Listener questions and Greg Turetzky’s answers during the webinar, which can be read here.

    The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of Figures 9, 10 and 11 from the paper “Optimal search strategy in a multi-constellatoin environment” by Intel colleagues Anyaegbu et al, from ION GNSS+ 2015.

  • Telit Introduces GNSS Receiver with Flash Memory

    Telit Introduces GNSS Receiver with Flash Memory

    Telit's Jupiter SE873 GNSS receiver with flash memory.
    Telit’s Jupiter SE873 GNSS receiver with flash memory.

    Telit has introduced the Jupiter SE873, a GNSS receiver in a 7 x 7 x 1.85 mm module with serial quad I/O flash memory, an integrated low noise amplifier, SAW filter, TXCO and real-time clock.

    The new addition to Telit’s GNSS portfolio is a complete multi-constellation position, velocity and time engine that the company says delivers versatile performance in harsh environments.

    The Jupiter SE873 supports Assisted GPS (both autonomous and server-based) plus Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS), which improve Time-To-First-Fix and position accuracy. AGPS data is stored in flash memory and is available even after all power has been removed and then restored. This is especially important for battery-operated equipment, Telit said.

    The SE873 is a high-performance, high-sensitivity product that supports the entire GNSS spectrum: GPS, GLONASS and BeiDou, and it is Galileo ready. It delivers simultaneous low-power tracking of GPS and GLONASS or GPS and BeiDou. In the future, users will be able to add new functionalities.

    “The SE873 outperforms all its competitors, most of which are ROM based. Employing flash memory results in a module that packs a lot of functionality into a small footprint,” said Felix Marchal, CPO of Telit.

    Telit Jupiter SE873 is being presented to the market at Telit DevCon 2015 Sept. 8 and CTIA’s Super Mobility Week in Las Vegas Sept. 9. Telit DevCon is a one-day event that takes place the day before CTIA Super Mobility 2015 and is located close to the Sands Expo and Convention Center in Las Vegas. Visit Telit at booth #5032 during CTIA Super Mobility 2015.

  • High-Precision Receiver Design: More than Accuracy

    Anticipating New, Different Application and User Needs

    Users in emerging applications may have different requirements from traditional high-precision users. New users increasingly look to the technology not solely for position, but to navigate them through the environment, often autonomously or semi-autonomously. Tracking all of the new multi-GNSS signals, and then using the large number of inputs in the positioning engine, drives the amount of processing power and memory required onboard the receiver. These in turn drive the cost, size and power consumption of the receiver in exactly the opposite direction from the expectations of customers.

    By Jason Hamilton

    In considering the future of high-precision satellite navigation, we need to consider what users of the technology are trying to accomplish, and which growing and emerging applications will drive adoption of GNSS technology in the future. These applications will drive growth in our industry if we can correctly anticipate their future needs.

    Traditional applications of high-precision GNSS are well understood, but what these customers have demanded from GNSS can be at odds with what users in emerging applications require. Survey and mapping users were early adopters of high-precision GNSS and remain large user segments. Surveying with GNSS requires the very best accuracy that GNSS can achieve. Every centimetre of accuracy matters. Power and size are important product attributes to survey manufacturers. Mapping customers increasingly are asking for not just position, but orientation of a camera or other sensors.

    Once accuracy challenges were well in hand, the topic of availability came into play. It was no longer good enough to have an accurate position in open-sky situations. Applications demanded continuous positions that were accurate in more and more corner cases and challenging environments.

    In addition to using GNSS to measure location in an environment, new applications are increasingly looking to the technology to navigate them through the environment — often autonomously, or semi-autonomously. For these users, whether operating on a farm, in a mine, on the ground, or in the air, position accuracy is only part of the requirement. Solution accuracy of course matters, but other receiver attributes such as real-time quality control and solution integrity monitoring, are equally or more important.

    Multi-constellation, multi-frequency GNSS provides tremendous opportunity and also presents significant challenges for receiver manufacturers. Constellation and frequency support has previously been a differentiator among high-precision GNSS providers, and among product generations. The relative stability of the satellite constellation definition means that the signals broadcast from space will be relatively predictable for some time into the future, and as such, GNSS products are increasingly supporting “all in view,” the ability to track everything that is broadcast.

    The benefits of more satellites, more frequencies (and resulting frequency combinations) and modern signal structures have been well publicized. As new and modernized GNSS constellations come on line, they will deliver more robust positioning in increasingly challenging environments such as urban centers, open-pit mines and under tree cover. We will be able to account for atmospheric effects more accurately, which will help during times of high ionospheric activity and extend the length of RTK baselines. Users have a great deal to look forward to from their next-generation receivers.

    All of these improvements necessitate pretty dramatic changes in receiver design. Tracking four global constellations and numerous regional SBAS systems increases the complexity of tracking and positioning firmware and algorithms. Tracking multiple frequencies and signal types on each of these constellations drives the receiver channel count up substantially. The days of the 12-channel receiver are gone. Channels, typically implemented within the manufacturers’ custom chips, drive application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) complexity, which drives cost, power consumption and physical size. Some of this can be mitigated through the use of smaller process geometries, embedded processors and peripherals, and RF chip integration; however, there are down-stream effects to all of these signals as well.

    Challenges

    Once your receiver has enough ASIC channels to track all-in-view, you need to do something with all that data. The receiver’s tracking sub-system generates code (pseudorange), carrier-phase and Doppler measurements for every signal on each satellite. With four global and multiple regional constellations and up to four frequencies on each satellite, that amounts to a great deal of data. These measurements are what we turn into position, through a range of different positioning algorithms from code positioning to real-time kinematic (RTK) to precise point positioning (PPP). Tracking all of these signals, and then using the large number of inputs in the positioning engine, drives the amount of processing power and memory required onboard the receiver. These in turn drive the cost, size and power consumption of the receiver in exactly the opposite direction from the expectations of customers.

    Bandwidth. Communications bandwidth is also a future challenge. Positioning methods, such as RTK, that transmit base-station observations for each GNSS signal to field rover receivers, will require much more bandwidth in the all-in-view future. PPP, which provides a state-space correction of the underlying GNSS error sources, is a promising alternative to RTK that scales better with more satellites than RTK and provides performance that is good enough for many applications.

    Utilizing the multiple frequencies available from modern constellations also presents challenges to receiver designers. RF designers are faced with the opposing challenges of making GNSS receivers and antennas smaller, lighter and lower cost, while also supporting more GNSS broadcast frequencies and mitigating against increasing amounts of interference in the L-band RF spectrum from non-GNSS uses. Robust RF design makes the difference between a system that works most of the time, and a system that works reliably all of the time.

    Expectations

    If we now come back to the expectations of end users, the challenges are clear. Most customers actually don’t care about all-in-view tracking, how many satellites are tracked, or about what the receiver is up to behind the scenes. Users will judge their GNSS receiver on whether or not they are receiving a position that meets the requirements of their application. Are they meeting their targets for accuracy, availability, latency, data rate, and does the receiver fit from a size, power consumption, regulatory and cost perspective? After a certain level, more observations do not make the solution more accurate or more robust. Manufacturers need to carefully manage the tradeoffs in their systems on behalf of users to produce the best quality position possible, while still meeting the customer expectations on all the other receiver attributes.

    Sensor Fusion. Demands of new applications drive GNSS providers to consider more than just position. Most vehicle control applications require orientation information as well as highly accurate position. Multiple-antenna GNSS heading systems are becoming smaller than ever. Inertial measurement device technology is also evolving quickly. Miniature micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) inertial sensors can now deliver performance that only a few years ago was exclusive to large, heavy, bulky systems. The integration of GNSS and inertial technologies has been well adopted in highly demanding applications like aerial and ground mapping. As the size, weight and cost of the technology continues to shrink, sensor fusion in many forms will become the standard for all machine control and autonomous vehicle applications.

    Safety. This is a key consideration for system designers working on remotely or optionally piloted and autonomous systems. Position and orientation accuracy is important, but so, too, is assuring that the solution is right and can be trusted. The accuracy of the solution needs to be characterized in real time so that control systems can react as necessary to protect users on and around the vehicle. Often in these applications, accuracy can be traded off against the robustness and reliability of the solution. This presents new ways of thinking for firmware and algorithm developers who have focused for so long on solution accuracy.

    Support. Lastly, let’s not forget having reliable supply of high-quality product, and expert customer service to back it up. As high-precision GNSS attracts new users in a range of new industries, they are less often geodesists or geomatics engineers. The products absolutely need to be easy to use correctly, backed up by complete and accurate product documentation and supported by world-class application engineers.


    Jason Hamilton is vice president of marketing at NovAtel Inc. Since joining the company, he has held a number of research, development and product management roles. Jason holds a Bachelor of Science degree in geomatics engineering from the University of Calgary and an MBA from Royal Roads University.