Tersus GNSS Inc. has released a new AutoSteer autopilot for agricultural machinery.
The AG960 AutoSteer System is designed to accelerate the application of autopilot for precision agricultural machinery and enhance and optimize operational accuracy and productivity for modern farmers.
By integrating high-precision real-time kinematic (RTK) receiver and software, the AG960 enables agricultural machines to operate in accordance with a pre-set planning path. Using precise GNSS guidance, the hydraulic system of the agricultural machinery is steered by the vehicle controller.
Agricultural machines can operate aligned with the set route automatically, while graphical detailsare displayed on the vehicle display panel. The system is easy to use and applicable for each working cycle of agriculture, such as soil tillage, plowing, building of ditches and ridges, seeding, spraying and harvesting.
Tersus plans to launch a series of solutions that meet the requirements of different farming machines. The AG960 was first commercially deployed in China, and will be rolled out in other regions around the world.
Even a GNSS receiver that can supply raw pseudorange and carrier-phase measurements now costs only a few hundred dollars, and in this month’s column, a couple of researchers from Down Under pit a couple of these receivers up against a couple of survey-grade receivers. Did this cheap receiver turn out to be a good thing?
By Robert Odolinski and Peter J.G. Teunissen
ALL GOOD THINGS ARE CHEAP; ALL BAD ARE VERY DEAR. That’s what the famous American essayist (and surveyor) Henry David Thoreau wrote in his diary on March 3, 1841. He was likely referring, in part, to the cheapness of the things he came across in nature such as birdsong or the plants and trees on the shores of Walden Pond and the dearness of some luxuries and comforts of civilization, which he tended to eschew. But what has that got to do with GPS, you might ask?
When they were first introduced in the late 1970s and early 1980s, GPS receivers were very dear. Many of them sold for anywhere from $50,000 to $250,000, which would be equivalent to about twice those amounts in today’s dollars. The first civilian receivers were large bulky affairs. As I documented in this column in April 1990 (“Smaller and Smaller: The Evolution of the GPS Receiver”), the “first commercially available GPS receiver was the STI-5010 built by Stanford Telecommunications Inc. It was a dual-frequency, C/A- and P-code, slow-sequencing receiver. Cycling through four satellites took about five minutes, and the receiver unit alone required about 30 centimeters of rack space. External counters, also requiring rack space, made pseudorange measurements. An external computer controlled the receiver and computed positions.” While it could be transported in a small truck (and some were), it was not designed for portability and ease of use by surveyors or geodesists.
Then, in 1982, Texas Instruments introduced the first relatively compact civil GPS receiver, the TI 4100, also known as the Navstar Navigator. And as I also noted in that column more than 15 years ago, this “receiver could make both C/A- and P-code measurements along with carrier-phase measurements on both L1 and L2 frequencies. Its single hardware channel could track four satellites simultaneously through a multiplexing arrangement. The 37 × 45 × 21-centimeter receiver/processor had a handheld control and display unit and an optional dual-cassette data recorder for saving measurements for post-processing. The unit, although portable, weighed 25 kilograms and consumed 110 watts of power (the receiver doubled as a hand warmer). Field operation required a supply of automobile batteries.”
My, how things have changed. Beginning around 1990, receivers steadily got smaller and smaller and cheaper and cheaper. Survey-grade GNSS (not just GPS) receivers can now be purchased for well under $10,000 and consumer-grade units sell for as little as a hundred dollars or less. And, of course, the GNSS modules inside smartphones and other devices cost manufacturers only a couple of dollars or so.
But even a GNSS receiver that can supply raw pseudorange and carrier-phase measurements now costs only a few hundred dollars, and in this month’s column, a couple of researchers from Down Under pit a couple of these receivers up against a couple of survey-grade receivers. Did this cheap receiver turn out to be a good thing?
Read on to find out.
GPS has been the number-one positioning tool for a range of applications during the past few decades. The integration of the emerging global navigation satellite systems, such as the Chinese BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS), can give improved precise (millimeter- to centimeter-level) real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning. When BDS is combined with GPS, about double the number of satellites are visible in the Asia-Pacific region, which can make single-frequency RTK and low-cost receiver RTK positioning possible.
In this article, we will analyze the performance of L1 GPS + B1 BDS in Dunedin, New Zealand, using low-cost receivers. We compare their performance to that of L1+L2 GPS survey-grade receivers.
First, we describe the GPS+BDS functional and stochastic models and the data used for our evaluations. Least-squares variance component estimation (LS-VCE) is used as a means to determine the code and phase (co)variances to formulate a realistic stochastic model. (An incorrect stochastic model will deteriorate the ambiguity resolution and consequently the achievable positioning precisions.)
Having correctly defined the stochastic model, we focus on the positioning performance. We investigated the ambiguity resolution and positioning performance, both formally and empirically, for customary and high-elevation cut-off angles. The high cut-off angles are used to mimic situations when low-elevation multipath is to be avoided. Lastly, we compared all our results between using low-cost and survey-grade antennas.
GPS+BDS POSITIONING MODEL
The model that we used for positioning is given as follows. Assume that sG + 1 GPS satellites are tracked on fG frequencies and sB + 1 BDS satellites on fB frequencies. As we apply system-specific double-differencing (DD), one pivot satellite is used per system. The total number of DD phase and code observations per epoch then equals 2 fGsG + 2 fBsB. We assume for now that cross-correlation between frequencies as well as code and phase is absent. The combined multi-frequency short-baseline GPS+BDS model is then defined as follows.
The system-specific DD phase and code observation vectors are denoted as φ* and p*, respectively, with * = {G, B} where G = GPS and B = BDS. The single-epoch GNSS model of the combined system is given as
(1)
and
(2)
in which
is the combined phase vector,
is the combined code vector,
is the combined integer ambiguity vector,
is the real-valued baseline vector,
is the combined phase random observation noise vector,
is the combined code random observation noise vector, and
D[.] denotes the dispersion operator.
The entries of the baseline design and wavelength matrices are given as
where is the x 1 vector of 1s, is the differencing matrix, is the unit matrix, the geometry-matrices GG and GB contain the undifferenced receiver-satellite unit direction vectors for GPS and BDS, respectively, is the wavelength of frequency , denotes the Kronecker product, and “diag” and “blkdiag” indicate diagonal and block diagonal matrices, respectively. The entries of the positive definite variance matrices are given as
(3)
where , denote the phase and code standard deviation, respectively, and the satellite elevation-angle-dependent weight.
The model in Equation 1 applies to short baselines, and thus the ionospheric and tropospheric delays are assumed absent. The broadcast ephemerides are used to obtain the satellite coordinates. Further, the Least-squares AMBiguity Decorrelation Adjustment (LAMBDA) technique is used to estimate the integer ambiguities a. The observation noise vectors εand e, respectively, are zero-mean vectors, provided that no multipath is present in Equation 1.
EXPERIMENT SETUP
The GNSS receivers we used are depicted in FIGURE 1. Firstly, two low-cost single-frequency receivers were set up to collect L1+B1 GPS+BDS data for two days. These receivers cost a few hundred U.S. dollars. Since the patch antennas we used have been shown to have less effective signal reception and multipath suppression in comparison to survey-grade antennas, the receivers that collected data for two days were additionally connected to such antennas. These antennas have a cost of slightly more than US$1,000 per antenna. To compare the low-cost solution to a survey-grade receiver-solution, two such receivers (which cost several thousand U.S. dollars) were connected to the same survey-grade antennas through splitters and collected L1+L2 GPS data. A detection, identification and adaption procedure was used to eliminate any outliers.
FIGURE 1. Low-cost single-frequency receivers collecting GPS+BDS data for single-baseline RTK, with patch antennas (left) and survey-grade antennas (right) on Jan. 4–6 and Jan. 6–8, 2016, respectively. Survey-grade dual- frequency GPS receivers were connected to the same survey-grade antennas simultaneously to truly track the same GPS constellation.
FIGURE 2 depicts the corresponding redundancy of the two receiver models (that is, the number of observations minus the number of estimated unknowns) together with the number of satellites over 48 hours (30-second epoch interval). The number of BDS satellites (magenta lines) is overall smaller than when compared to GPS (blue lines) in Dunedin. However, Figure 2 also shows that the model strength of L1+B1 GPS+BDS, as measured by its redundancy, is almost similar to that of L1+L2 GPS except for some hours at the middle of the two days. This implies that the two receiver models can potentially give competitive RTK ambiguity resolution and positioning performance. This is however only true if the receiver code and phase observation noise would be of similar magnitude between the receivers used, hence the need for an analysis of the receiver observation precision.
FIGURE 2. Redundancy (left) and number of satellites (right) of L1+B1 GPS+BDS and L1+L2 GPS during Jan. 6–8, 2016, (48 hours) for an elevation cut-off angle of 10°.
In our receiver evaluations, we determined a set of reference ambiguities by using a known baseline and treating them as time-constant parameters over the two days in a dynamic model.
LOW-COST RTK POSITIONING
The code and phase variances were estimated by LS-VCE using data independent from the data used for the following positioning analysis. The variances are needed to formulate a realistic stochastic model, whereas an incorrect stochastic model will deteriorate the ambiguity resolution and consequently the achievable positioning precisions. TABLE 1 depicts the corresponding estimated standard deviations (STDs) used for our positioning models.
TAB LE 1. Zenith-referenced undifferenced code and phase standard deviations estimated by least-squares variance component estimation.
Table 1 shows that the code precision of L1 GPS and B1 BDS improves significantly when the survey-grade antennas are used instead of patch antennas (49 centimeters STD for L1/B1 that decreases to about 30 centimeters), due to their better signal reception and multipath suppression abilities. For testing our stochastic model, we used data that is independent from the data used to estimate the code/phase precision.
Positioning Performance. The single-epoch (instantaneous) RTK positioning results for 24 hours data are shown in FIGURE 3, with ambiguity-float solutions shown at the top and ambiguity-fixed solutions at the bottom. Only the correctly fixed solutions are depicted as determined by comparing the instantaneously estimated ambiguities to the set of reference ambiguities. The 95% empirical and formal confidence ellipses and intervals are shown in green and red, respectively. They were computed from the empirical and formal position variance matrices. The empirical variance matrix was estimated from the positioning errors as obtained from comparing the estimated positions to precise benchmark coordinates. The formal variance matrix used was determined from the mean of all single-epoch formal variance matrices.
FIGURE 3. Horizontal (north (N), east (E)) position scatter and corresponding vertical (U) time series of the float (top) and correctly fixed (bottom) L1+B1 GPS+BDS single-epoch RTK solutions for an elevation cut-off angle of 10°. The 95% empirical and formal confidence ellipses and intervals are shown in green and red, respectively. The 24 hour (30 second) period is 22:00-22:00 UTC Jan. 5-6, 2016, for patch antennas in (a) and 21:48-21:48 UTC Jan. 8-9, 2016, for survey-grade antennas in (b), which are periods independent of the periods used to determine the stochastic model through the code/phase STDs in Table 1.
Figure 3 shows a good fit between the formal and empirical confidence ellipses/intervals, which thus illustrates realistic LS-VCE STDs in Table 1 that were used in the stochastic model. Note also the two-order of magnitude improvement when going from float to fixed solutions, and that the low-cost receiver plus survey-grade antenna has the most precise ambiguity-float positioning solutions.
Ambiguity Resolution and Positioning Performance for Higher Cut-Off Angles. We subsequently investigated the low-cost L1+B1 GPS+BDS performance for high elevation cut-off angles, so as to mimic situations in urban canyon environments or when low-elevation-angle multipath is present and is to be avoided. We have made comparisons to the survey-grade L1+L2 GPS results. It has been shown that a good ambiguity resolution performance does not necessarily imply a good positioning performance, so we investigated what effect this has on our positioning models.
The following integer least-squares (ILS) success rates (SRs) are thus computed based on epochs with the condition of positional dilution of precision (PDOP) ≤ 10 and averaged over all epochs over two days of data. By including and excluding epochs with large PDOPs, we can show how the positioning performance of the different models is affected by poor receiver-satellite geometries. To better understand how this exclusion of epochs with large PDOPs also influenced the empirical ambiguity-correctly-fixed positioning performance, we constructed TABLE 2, which shows the corresponding positioning STDs for two days of data. These STDs were computed by comparing the estimated positions to precise benchmark coordinates. In addition to the positioning performance, we depict in Table 2 the corresponding empirical ILS SR for full ambiguity-resolution, which is given by the ratio of the number of correctly fixed epochs to the total number of epochs.
TABLE 2. Single-epoch empirical STDs (N, E, U) of correctly fixed positions for the three positioning models together with their ILS SR for four elevation cut-off angles and 48 hours of data (Jan. 4–6 and Jan. 6–8, 2016). The empirical STDs and ILS SRs are also shown when conditioned on PDOP ≤ 10.
Table 2 shows that the L1+B1 low-cost receiver plus patch antenna combination has (as expected) smaller SRs in comparison to those when the survey-grade antenna is used. This latter combination has comparable SRs to the (PDOP-conditioned) SRs of the survey-grade L1+L2 GPS receiver for cut-off angles up to 25°.
In support of better understanding Table 2, FIGURE 4 shows typical positioning results for the different receiver and antenna combinations with elevation cut-off angles of 10° (top two rows) and 25° (bottom two rows). The first and third rows show the local horizontal (N, E) positioning scatterplots and the second and fourth rows the vertical (U) time series over two days of data. The float solutions are depicted in gray, and incorrectly and correctly fixed solutions in red and green, respectively. The zoom-in is given to better show the spread of the correctly fixed solutions with millimeter-centimeter level precisions. The formal ambiguity-float STDs are also shown under the up time series to reflect consistency between the empirical and formal positioning results.
FIGURE 4. Horizontal (N, E) scatterplots and vertical (U) time series for L1+B1 low-cost receiver with patch antenna (first column) with 99.5% (89.8%) ILS SR, L1+B1 low-cost receiver with survey-grade antenna (second column) with 100% (97.8%) ILS SR, and survey-grade L1+L2 GPS (third column) with 100% (94.1%) ILS SR, using 10° (top two rows) and 25° (bottom two rows) cut-off angles respectively (Jan. 4–6, 2016, for low-cost receiver with patch antenna and Jan. 7–8, 2016, for the low-cost and survey-grade receivers with survey-grade antennas). The SRs are conditioned on PDOP ≤ 10 and computed based on all epochs. Below the vertical time series, the ADOP is depicted in blue color, the 0.12-cycles level as red, and ambiguity-float vertical formal STDs are shown in gray.
We also depict in Figure 4 the ambiguity dilution of precision (ADOP) as an easy-to-compute scalar diagnostic to measure the intrinsic model strength for successful ambiguity resolution. The ADOP is defined as
(cycles) (4)
with n being the dimension of the ambiguity vector, the ambiguity variance matrix, and |.| denoting the determinant. ADOP gives a good approximation to the average precision of the ambiguities, and it also provides for a good approximation to the ILS SR. The rule-of-thumb is that an ADOP smaller than about 0.12 cycles corresponds to an ambiguity SR larger than 99.9%.
Figure 4 shows that more solutions are incorrectly fixed (red dots) when the ADOPs (blue lines) are larger than the 0.12 cycle level (red dashed lines). The figure also reveals that the L1+B1 low-cost receiver plus patch antenna combination achieves an ILS SR (99.5%) similar to that of the survey-grade L1+L2 GPS receiver (SR of 100%) for the cut-off angle of 10°. This ILS SR corresponds to the availability of correctly fixed solutions (green dots) with millimeter-centimeter level positioning precision over the two days. The L1+L2 GPS receiver has, moreover, large ambiguity-fixed positioning excursions at the same time as the formal STDs are large for the cut-off angle of 25° due the poor GPS-only receiver-satellite geometry for this high cut-off angle. This is also reflected by the corresponding relatively large ambiguity-fixed STDs depicted in Table 2 that are improved from decimeter- to millimeter-level when the PDOP ≤ 10 condition is applied. Figure 4 also shows that the L1+B1 low-cost receiver with the survey-grade antenna has a larger SR of 97.8% when compared to the PDOP-conditioned SR for L1+L2 GPS of 94.1% for the cut-off angle of 25° (see also Table 2), owing to the use of BDS that significantly improves the receiver-satellite geometry.
Finally, we also tested the low-cost receiver-solution (with survey-grade antennas) for a baseline length of 7 kilometers, where (small) residual slant ionospheric delays are present. It was shown that this combination still has the potential to achieve ambiguity resolution and positioning performance competitive with the survey-grade receiver-solution.
CONCLUSIONS
In this article, we evaluated a low-cost L1+B1 GPS+BDS RTK setup and compared its ambiguity resolution and positioning performance to a survey-grade L1+L2 GPS solution in Dunedin, New Zealand. The LS-VCE procedure was used to determine the variances of the low-cost receivers. The estimated variances are needed so as to formulate a realistic stochastic model, otherwise the ambiguity resolution and hence the achievable positioning precisions would deteriorate.
Since we analyzed a short baseline, the LS-VCE variances were shown to likely be affected by multipath. To mitigate multipath we connected the low-cost receivers to survey-grade antennas with better signal reception and multipath suppression abilities. It was shown that the survey-grade antennas can significantly improve the performance for the low-cost receivers so that the code/phase noise estimates more resemble that of survey-grade receivers. The LS-VCE STDs were furthermore shown to be realistically estimated for an independent time period.
We also demonstrated that the low-cost receivers can give competitive instantaneous ambiguity resolution and positioning performance to that of the survey-grade receivers. This is particularly true when the low-cost receivers are connected to survey-grade antennas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This article is based on the paper “On the Performance of a Low-cost Single-frequency GPS+BDS RTK Positioning Model” presented at the 2017 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation held Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2017, in Monterey, California.
Ryan Cambridge at the School of Surveying, University of Otago, collected the low-cost receiver data. Author Peter J.G. Teunissen was supported by an Australian Research Council Federation Fellowship. All of this support is gratefully acknowledged.
MANUFACTURERS
The low-cost receivers used in the research were u-blox EVK-M8T receivers. The survey-grade receivers were Trimble NetRS receivers. The patch antennas were u-blox ANN-MS antennas, while the survey-grade antennas were Trimble Zephyr 2 GNSS antennas.
ROBERT ODOLINSKI conducted his Ph.D. studies at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, from 2011 to 2014. His research focus is next-generation multi-GNSS integer ambiguity resolution enabled precise positioning. In 2015, Odolinski started his position as a lecturer/research fellow in geodesy/GNSS at the School of Surveying, University of Otago, New Zealand.
PETER J.G. TEUNISSEN is a professor of geodesy and navigation and the head of the Curtin GNSS Research Centre, Curtin University. He is also with the Department of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. His research interests include multiple GNSS and the modeling of next-generation GNSS for high-precision positioning, navigation and timing applications.
FURTHER READING
• Authors’ Conference Paper
“On the Performance of a Low-cost Single-frequency GPS+BDS RTK Positioning Model” by R. Odolinski and P.J.G. Teunissen in Proceedings of the 2017 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, Monterey, California, Jan. 30 – 1 Feb., 2017, pp. 745–753.
• Authors’ Related Work
“Single-Frequency, Dual-GNSS Versus Dual-frequency, Single-GNSS: A Low-cost and High-grade Receivers GPS-BDS RTK Analysis” by R. Odolinski and P.J.G. Teunissen in Journal of Geodesy, Vol. 90, No. 11, 2016, pp. 1255–1278, doi:10.1007/s00190-016-0921-x.
“Combined BDS, Galileo, QZSS and GPS Single-frequency RTK” by R. Odolinski, P.J.G. Teunissen and D. Odijk in GPS Solutions, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2015, pp. 151–163, doi:10.1007/s10291-014-0376-6.
“Instantaneous BeiDou+GPS RTK Positioning With High Cut-off Elevation Angles” by P.J.G. Teunissen, R. Odolinski and D. Odijk in Journal of Geodesy, Vol. 88, No. 4, 2014, pp. 335–350, doi: 10.1007/s00190-013-0686-4.
“The Future of Single-Frequency Integer Ambiguity Resolution” by S. Verhagen, P.J.G. Teunissen and D. Odijk in Proceedings of the VII Hotine-Marussi Symposium on Mathematical Geodesy, Rome, June 6–10, 2009, edited by N. Sneeuw, P. Novák, M. Crespi and F. Sanso, International Association of Geodesy Symposia, Vol. 137, 2012, pp. 33–38, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22078-4 5.
“Centimeter-Level Positioning for UAVs and Other Mass-Market Applications” by C. Mongredien, J.-P. Doyen, M. Strom and D. Ammann in Proceedings of ION GNSS+ 2016, the 29th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Portland, Oregon, Sept. 12–16, 2016, pp. 1441–1454.
“Initial Assessment of the COMPASS/BeiDou-2 Regional Navigation Satellite System” by O. Montenbruck, A. Hauschild, P. Steigenberger, U. Hugentobler, P.J.G. Teunissen and S. Nakamura in GPS Solutions, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2013, pp. 211–222, doi:10.1007/s10291-012-0272-x.
• LAMBDA
“On the Reliability of Integer Ambiguity Resolution” by S. Verhagen in Navigation, Vol. 52, No. 2, Summer 2005, pp. 99–110, doi: 10.1002/j.2161-4296.2005.tb01736.x.
“ADOP in Closed Form for a Hierarchy of Multi-frequency Single-baseline GNSS Models” by D. Odijk and P.J.G. Teunissen in Journal of Geodesy, Vol. 82, 2008, pp. 473–492, doi: 10.1007/s00190-007-0197-2.
Figure 1. Galileo constellation and occupation status of orbital slots (RAAN: right ascension of the ascending node, May 9, 2017). (Source: ESA)
What to Expect with the Current Constellation
This article demonstrates the benefits of Galileo integration for high-precision real-time kinematic (RTK) through representative case studies, considering baseline length, multipath impact and tree canopy.
The results confirm usability of the current Galileo constellation in high-precision RTK applications and show improved availability, accuracy, reliability and time-to-fix in difficult measuring environments.
Plus, Galileo-only RTK positions are compared with GPS-only and GLONASS-only solutions.
By Xiaoguang Luo, Jun Chen and Bernhard Richter, Leica Geosystems AG
Until now, based on simulated and observed data, the benefits of Galileo (FIGURE 1) for high-precision RTK have been investigated in single-base RTK and network RTK solutions. Building on the results of previous studies that frequently employed theoretic analysis and simulation, we present the benefits of Galileo for high-precision RTK based on real observations from the current Initial Operational Capability (IOC) satellite constellation. Using up-to-date real-time corrections including Galileo, we analyze the performance of network RTK under different measuring conditions with respect to availability, accuracy, reliability and time-to-fix.
To achieve the maximum inter-operability with other GNSS con-stellations, all the Galileo signals in the E1 and E5 band, i.e. E1, E5a, E5b and AltBOC (alternative binary offset carrier), are used for positioning in the latest proprietary firmware and receivers (see “Manufacturers” section for details).
The Galileo E1 signal is overlapped with the GPS L1 signal at a center frequency of 1575.420 MHz, whereas the Galileo E5a and GPS L5 signals are overlapped at 1176.450 MHz. As far as BeiDou is concerned, the E5b frequency of Galileo corresponds to the B2 frequency of BeiDou-2 at 1207.140 MHz.
The AltBOC signal is also supported in order to benefit from its superior performance in multipath suppression. The availability of more than two frequencies is beneficial for ionospheric modeling, which plays an important role in ambiguity resolution on the fly.
In addition, multi-frequency RTK provides more immunity to temporary interruption of GNSS signals caused by interference or by site-specific effects like multipath. When forming linear combinations, the incorporation of multi-frequency signals enhances flexibility and robustness, where the mathematical correlations introduced by including the same signal in different linear combinations of the same type need to be handled properly in RTK algorithms.
By enabling the tracking of Galileo satellites in the aforementioned firmware, the Galileo signals will be used in different RTK position types by default, including navigation position, phase-aided differential code position, extended RTK (xRTK) position and RTK fixed position. When compared to a standard RTK fix, an xRTK fix is provided at a slightly lower accuracy level, but with higher availability in difficult environments such as urban canyons and dense canopy.
In terms of RTK correction data formats, Galileo is included in the standardized RTCM v3 MSM format and in the proprietary 4G format. To use Galileo in network RTK, the real-time products provided by network correction services need to include Galileo as well. In the latest version of a proprietary GNSS network software, Galileo is used in network processing to provide RTK corrections via the individualized master-auxiliary (iMAX) method and the virtual reference station (VRS) method in the RTCM 3.2 MSM formats.
RTK PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
Multi-constellation and multi-frequency GNSS RTK is a complex real-time process, aiming to provide cm-level positioning accuracy with as few as possible data epochs for variable user kinematics and even in difficult measuring environments. Therefore, RTK performance characteristics need to be carefully selected to be able to evaluate the system as a whole and to address users’ concerns in their applications.
The following parameters are used in this article to assess the benefits of Galileo for high-precision RTK:
Satellite usage. Number of satellites used in RTK fixed solutions with an elevation cut-off angle of 10°;
Availability. Percentage of RTK fixed positions relative to all positions obtained during a time period;
Accuracy. Deviation of RTK fixed positions from ground truth with a higher degree of accuracy, where the ground truth can be determined by means of a total station or by post-processing long-term GNSS data;
Reliability. Percentage that the position error (with respect to ground truth) is less than 3 x coordinate quality (CQ) indicator;
Time to Fix. Time needed to regain an RTK fixed solution after losing ambiguity fix provided that GNSS signal tracking is not interrupted.
OPEN-SKY CASE STUDY
The open-sky case study was performed in the Heerbrugg testbed. Two receivers were connected to a single antenna via a four-way antenna splitter. One receiver received four-system iMAX corrections in the RTCM v3 MSM format over a short baseline of 2 km, whereas the other received RTK data of the same type over a long baseline of 116 km. By considering different baseline lengths, the open-sky experiment focused on the usability of the current Galileo constellation in GNSS RTK under normal conditions. Two days of 1-Hz GNSS data were investigated with respect to satellite usage and positioning accuracy.
Using different combinations of GNSS to analyze the short baseline data — GPS+GLO (GG), GPS+GLO+BDS (GGB) and GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS (GGGB) — the mean numbers of used satellites are 15, 17 and 20, respectively, where the elevation cut-off angle was set to 10°. On average, three Galileo satellites contribute to RTK fixed solutions.
For the four-system combination GGGB, Figure 2 shows the satellite usage for each individual system over the two-day period. It can be seen that for a short baseline of 2 km, a maximum number of four Galileo satellites can be used for positioning. In fact, during 80.3% of the whole test period, the number of Galileo satellites used in RTK fixed solutions is equal to or greater than the number of BeiDou satellites used.
Figure 2. Number of satellites used in RTK fixed positions with GGGB under open sky (iMAX, RTCM v3 MSM, baseline length: 2 km, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS, DOY: day of year).
Table 1 provides statistics on Galileo satellite usage in case of GGGB for different baseline lengths. As would be expected, the number of Galileo satellites used decreases with an increasing baseline length. In approximately 41% of the cases, three Galileo satellites are used in the short baseline test, whereas two Galileo satellites are used in the long baseline test.
Moreover, the probability that no Galileo satellites are involved in a four-system combined solution grows significantly from 1.9% to 15.0% as the baseline length increases from 2 km to 116 km. The probability that only one Galileo satellite is used under open sky is relatively small, amounting to around 0.5%. This is reasonable since no benefits for high-precision RTK are expected in this particular situation. Regarding the short baseline case, there is a 97.7% probability that at least two Galileo satellites are used for positioning, whereas this probability decreases to 84.4% in the long baseline case.
Table 1. Probability [%] that n Galileo satellites are used in RTK fixed positions with GGGB during the two-day period of the open-sky experiment (iMAX, RTCM v3 MSM, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS).In terms of positioning accuracy, Figure 3 compares the 3D errors from analyzing the long baseline data with different GNSS constellations. Regarding the entire two-day period illustrated in Figure 3a, the integration of BeiDou (GG vs. GGB) and Galileo (GGB vs. GGGB) results in higher position repeatability with more consistent errors. For a selected period of 12 hours, Figure 3b highlights the advantages of Galileo in reducing large 3D errors from 6–8 cm to 3–4 cm, where two or three Galileo satellites are used in case of GGGB.
Figure 3. 3D errors of RTK fixed positions under open sky (iMAX, RTCM v3 MSM, baseline length: 116 km, GG: GPS+GLO in green, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS in blue, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS in red, DOY: day of year) (a) Entire two-day period, (b) Selected 12-hour period (28–40 h).
MULTIPATH CASE STUDY
In this case study, a GNSS smart antenna was set up in a location with strong multipath effects, where GNSS signals were obstructed and reflected by the surrounding buildings (Figure 4). This test setup simulates the use case that a user measures a point near a building with degraded GNSS signal reception, even at high elevation angels.
Figure 4. Test setup in a strong multipath environment in Heerbrugg (rover: GS16, antenna height: 1.8 m) (a) View from the south, (b) View from the north.
The default elevation cut-off angle of 10° was applied. The receiver received four-system VRS corrections in the RTCM v3 MSM format, where the distance to the physical reference station was approximately 200 m. Three hours of 1-Hz GNSS data were analyzed with respect to accuracy, reliability and time to fix.
Figure 5 illustrates the 3D errors from multi-GNSS RTK with and without Galileo (GGGB vs. GGB), along with the number of used satellites. Regarding the periods marked with dashed rectangles, the inclusion of two or three Galileo satellites (Figure 5b) leads to significant improvements in positioning accuracy at the few cm to dm level (Figure 5a). By comparing the empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the 3D errors, the probability that 3D error is within 5 cm increases from 70% to 85% if Galileo is used, even with a maximum number of three satellites.
Figure 5. Impact of Galileo integration on RTK positioning accuracy under strong multipath (VRS, RTCM v3 MSM, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS in blue, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS in red, DOY: day of year) (a) 3D errors of RTK fixed positions, (b) Number of used satellites (Galileo in green).
Tables 2 and 3 provide the root mean square (RMS) errors and reliability of RTK fixed positions from the multipath experiment, respectively. By using Galileo in high-precision RTK, the 3D RMS error is significantly reduced by 56.3% in this case study, from 0.080 m (GGB) to 0.035 m (GGGB). When compared to the horizontal components, the height RMS error shows a larger relative improvement of 58.7% due to Galileo integration. The reliability reflects the consistency between the actual position error with respect to ground truth and the CQ indicator estimated based on mathematical models in RTK algorithms. As shown in Table 3, the 3D reliability improves by 7.3%, from 88.2% (GGB) to 95.5% (GGGB), where the increases for the horizontal components and height are comparable.
Table 2. Root mean square errors [m] of RTK fixed positions under strong multipath (VRS, RTCM v3 MSM, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS).Table 3. Reliability [%] of RTK fixed positions under strong multipath (VRS, RTCM v3 MSM, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS).The time to fix (TTF) was determined by constantly re-initializing RTK once an ambiguity fix was gained. During the whole period of repeatedly resetting the RTK filter, the GNSS signals were tracked continuously without interruption. A total of 765 TTF values were obtained with GGB, whereas 1,128 TTF estimates were available with GGGB. The significantly larger number of the TTF samples from GGGB indicates higher availability of RTK fix if Galileo is used.
Figure 6 shows the statistical distribution of TTF with respect to Galileo integration. As can be seen in the empirical CDF in Figure 6a, it takes shorter time for GGGB to regain an ambiguity fix. As an example, GGGB allows ambiguity resolution within 5 s (10 s) with 46% (87%) probability, which is 29% (16%) higher than GGB. Regarding the boxplots of TTF in Figure 6b, GGGB shows a smaller median (by 25% from 8 s to 6 s) and a smaller interquartile range (IQR; by 50% from 4 s to 2 s) than GGB, where the IQR is the length of the box. This indicates that the integration of Galileo enables a faster ambiguity resolution with more consistent fixing performance.
Figure 6. Impact of Galileo integration on time to fix (TTF) statistics under strong multipath (VRS, RTCM v3 MSM) (a) Empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) of TTF, (b) Boxplot of TTF with median and interquartile range (IQR).
CANOPY CASE STUDY
In this case study, a receiver was connected to an antenna under tree canopy (Figure 7), where GNSS signals are blocked, attenuated and reflected, leading to decreased number of observations, low data quality and degraded RTK performance.
Under these circumstances, the inclusion of Galileo satellites transmitting multi-frequency signals could be particularly beneficial for high-precision RTK. Using an elevation cut-off angle of 10°, the receiver received four-system iMAX corrections in the RTCM v3 MSM format, where the baseline length was 116 km. A long baseline was intentionally selected as an additional challenge for the RTK system. About seven hours of 1-Hz GNSS data were investigated regarding availability, accuracy and reliability.
Figure 7. Test setup under canopy in Heerbrugg (rover: GS10, antenna: AS10).
Figure 8 illustrates the impact of Galileo integration on RTK availability and accuracy under canopy, along with the number of used satellites. As can be seen in Figure 8a, the inclusion of Galileo improves the availability of RTK fixed positions by 12.2%, from 65.7% (GGB) to 77.9% (GGGB). Moreover, dm-level position errors are largely reduced, as shown in FigURE 8c. The improvements in availability and accuracy are achieved by using up to three Galileo satellites (Figure 8b). This demonstrates that the current Galileo constellation in the IOC phase brings considerable benefits to high-precision RTK under canopy conditions.
Figure 8. Impact of Galileo integration on RTK availability and accuracy under canopy (iMAX, RTCM v3 MSM, baseline length: 116 km, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS in blue, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS in red, DOY: day of year) (a) Availability of RTK fixed positions over time, (b) Number of used satellites (Galileo in green), (c) 3D errors of RTK fixed positions.
Tables 4 and 5 provide the RMS errors and reliability of RTK fixed positions from the canopy experiment, respectively. The main factors degrading the RTK accuracy in this case study are not only the canopy environment, but also the long baseline length of 116 km. It can be seen in Table 4 that the integration of Galileo leads to a significant reduction of 3D RMS error by 23.7%, from 0.114 m (GGB) to 0.087 m (GGGB).
By comparing the 2D and 1D RMS errors, the benefits of Galileo for the height are more dominant than for the horizontal components, which was also observed in the multipath experiment (Table 2). In terms of reliability, only slight (below 2%) increases are visible in Table 5. 116km baseline length and heavy canopy are considered extreme conditions and beyond the standard conditions relevant for specifications. Considering reliability together with availability (Figure 8a), it is encouraging to see that both the RTK performance characteristics are improved in this case study.
Table 4. Root mean square errors [m] of RTK fixed positions under canopy (iMAX, RTCM v3 MSM, baseline length: 116 km, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS).Table 5. Reliability [%] of RTK fixed positions under canopy (iMAX, RTCM v3 MSM, baseline length: 116 km, GGB: GPS+GLO+BDS, GGGB: GPS+GLO+GAL+BDS).
GALILEO-ONLY RTK
To optimize the performance of multi-GNSS RTK positioning, the individual systems need to be fully understood and mastered. With a previous firmware release in August 2014, mass-market devices were able to perform GLONASS-only and BeiDou-only high-precision RTK. In 2014 tests, we compared the performance of GPS-only, GLONASS-only and BeiDou-only RTK at different accuracy levels. Considering that Galileo has reached the IOC phase, it is reasonable to assess the Galileo-only RTK performance with the latest firmware.
Due to the limited number of usable Galileo satellites, Galileo-only RTK positioning was carried out in the Heerbrugg open-sky testbed over a very short baseline of 1 m. In addition, the elevation cut-off angle was set to 0° in order to track as many Galileo satellites as possible simultaneously. Two receivers were connected to two choke-ring antennas with good low-elevation tracking ability. Single-base RTK positioning was performed with four-system corrections in the RTCM v3 MSM format. About one hour of 1-Hz GNSS data was analyzed with a special focus on positioning accuracy.
Figure 9 shows the 3D errors from GPS-only, GLONASS-only and Galileo-only RTK positioning, where the numbers of used satellites are 8–11, 7–9 and 5–6, respectively. During the test period, only three or four BeiDou satellites were tracked with poor geometry, making BeiDou-only RTK impossible. As the figure shows, the 3D errors from GPS-only and Galileo-only RTK are at a comparable level with similar RMS values, whereas the 3D RMS error from GLONASS-only RTK is almost twice as large as the GPS/Galileo-only case. Note that when compared to GPS-only RTK, almost half as many satellites are used in Galileo-only RTK.
Figure 9. 3D errors of RTK fixed positions from GPS-only, GLONASS-only and Galileo-only RTK under open sky (single-base RTK, baseline length: 1 m, RTCM v3 MSM, DOY: day of year, RMS: root mean square).
Figure 10 displays the statistical distribution of the 3D errors from GPS-only, GLONASS-only and Galileo-only RTK positioning. Regarding the empirical CDF in Figure 10a, GPS/Galileo-only RTK shows a clearly more favorable error distribution than the GLONASS-only case. Using only GPS or Galileo, the probability that 3D error is within 1 cm is above 80%, which is approximately 30% higher than using only GLONASS. For 3D errors ranging between 5 mm and 1.7 cm, Galileo-only RTK even provides a slightly higher cumulative probability than the GPS-only case. The 3D error boxplots in Figure 10b illustrate a similar pattern between GPS-only and Galileo-only RTK, which is superior to GLONASS-only RTK due to the significantly smaller median and IQR.
Figure 10. 3D error statistics from GPS-only, GLONASS-only and Galileo-only RTK under open sky (single-base RTK, baseline length: 1 m, RTCM v3 MSM). (a) Empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) of 3D errors, (b) Boxplot of 3D errors (IQR: interquartile range).
CONCLUSIONS
With the declaration of Galileo Initial Services in December 2016, for the first time ever all GNSS users worldwide are able to use the positioning, navigation and timing information provided by Galileo’s global satellite constellation. Upon full system completion by 2020, Galileo will play an important role in high-precision GNSS applications for users around the world. This article showed representative case studies to understand the benefits of the current Galileo constellation for high-precision RTK. In addition to a multi-GNSS solution, the performance of Galileo-only RTK was presented. The main findings from the case studies can be summarized as follows:
In the open-sky test, with an elevation cut-off angle of 10°, on average three Galileo satellites can be used for high-precision multi-GNSS RTK. This leads to cm-level improvements in coordinate repeatability over a long baseline of 116 km.
In the multipath case study, the additional use of two or three Galileo satellites produces significant enhancements in positioning accuracy at the few cm to dm level, where the benefits for the height component are more significant. Moreover, the integration of Galileo increases the 3D reliability of RTK fixed positions by 7.3% and reduces the median time to fix by 2 s (25%).
In the canopy experiment, the inclusion of Galileo improves the availability of RTK fixed solutions by 12.2%. Furthermore, dm-level position errors are largely reduced.
When compared to GPS-only RTK, Galileo-only RTK provides a similar positioning accuracy over a 1-m baseline under open sky, where almost half as many satellites are used. The 3D RMS error from GLONASS-only RTK is approximately twice as large as the GPS/Galileo-only case.
The promising results achieved through Galileo integration already indicate the very important role of the European GNSS in high-precision, multi-frequency and multi-constellation RTK positioning. During the deployment of the Galileo system, more benefits can be expected in the near future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The staffs of Leica Geosystems AG (Heerbrugg/Switzerland), Christian Waese and Youssef Tawk, are gratefully acknowledged for support in setting up the variety of RTK network streams.
MANUFACTURERS
SmartWorx 6.16 of Leica Viva GNSS is the latest firmware cited and used in these high-precision RTK tests. Leica GNSS Spider 7.0.0 furnished the GNSS real-time corrections. The open-sky case study used two Leica Viva GS10 units connected to a Leica Viva AS10 antenna via a four-way antenna splitter. The multipath case study used a Leica Viva GS16 GNSS smart antenna. The canopy case study used a Leica Viva GS10 receiver and a Leica Viva AS10 antenna. The Galileo-only RTK test used two Leica Viva GS10 receivers and two Leica AR25 choke ring antennas.
Tersus GNSS has launched what it calls a new generation GNSS RTK system with multi-technology integrated for surveyors: the NeoRTK System.
NeoRTK System is a high-performing GNSS RTK system applied with a multi-constellation and multi-frequency GNSS engine and various communication protocols. It aims at providing high performance and stable signal reception satisfying surveyors’ demands.
With a high-end GNSS antenna inside, NeoRTK can speed up the time to first fix (TTFF) and improve the capability of anti-jamming.
The 16G internal storage and up to 32G external SD card, along with the built-in large capacity battery for 10-hour field work, unleash surveyors’ productivity in their daily practice. The radio module in the package makes long distance operation more convenient, Tersus said.
With a smart personal digital assistant, which offers high readability, access to essential functions and modes becomes easier and faster. An adjustable measurement rod with automatic tilt compensation ensures efficiency in working.
With all the features, the NeoRTK System enables surveyors to keep up with the latest advancements, leading to a more convenient working mode, which will enhance surveying experience providing exceptional productivity, Tersus said.
Spectra Precision has introduced its new SP90m multi-frequency and multi-application GNSS receiver.
Spectra Precision’s SP90m GNSS receiver.
The Spectra Precision SP90m is a powerful, highly versatile, ultra-rugged and reliable GNSS positioning solution for a wide variety of real-time and post-processing applications. It features integrated communications options such as Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, UHF radio and cellular modem as well as two MSS L-band channels to receive Trimble RTX correction services.
With a modular form factor, the SP90m is flexible and can be used as a base station, campaign receiver, continuously operating reference station (CORS), real-time kinematic (RTK) or Trimble RTX rover, or integrated on-board a machine.
The patented Z-Blade GNSS-centric technology uses all available GNSS signals to deliver fast and reliable positions in real-time. The SP90m GNSS receiver also allows the connection of two GNSS antennas for precise heading or relative positioning determination without a secondary GNSS receiver.
The SP90m’s unique design enables a broad range of mounting capabilities. In addition to the wide range of built-in communication options, the SP90m features an internal removable battery, internal memory, optional accessory kits for specific applications.
The receiver is also compatible with a variety of software solutions such as Spectra Precision Survey Pro. The weatherproof, high-impact-resistant molded aluminum housing ensures the user’s investment is safe in extreme field conditions, which is important for campaign or base-station applications.
“With the addition of the SP90m receiver to its portfolio, Spectra Precision has introduced a new generation of ultra-rugged, compact and feature rich GNSS solution to the surveying market,” said Olivier Casabianca, general manager of Trimble’s Spectra Precision Division. “This highly flexible receiver can be used where a typical integrated receiver on a range pole is not optimal and other configurations may be required. It is an ideal solution for geospatial professionals looking for a single receiver that can be used for multiple applications.”
The Spectra Precision SP90m receiver is available now through the Spectra Precision global dealer network. For more information, visit www.spectraprecision.com or email: [email protected].
Tallysman, a manufacturer of high-performance GNSS antennas and related products, has introduced a magnetic-mount triple-band (plus L-band) GNSS antenna, TW7972, and a dual-band antenna, TW7872.
They are designed for precision agriculture, autonomous vehicles, navigation, real-time kinematic (RTK), precise point positioning (PPP), and other applications where precision matters. The ability of the TW7972 to access L-Band correction services extends its utility to a wider range of applications.
The introduction of these antennas is a continuation of Tallysman’s expansion into broader band GNSS antennas. These antennas are the first releases in a line of new enclosures that will be used for additional broadband GNSS solutions.
Photo: Tallysman
The antennas employ Tallysman’s Accutenna technology.
The TW7972 is capable of receiving GPS L1/L2/L5, GLONASS G1/G2/G5, BeiDou B1/B2, Galileo E1/E5a+b and L-band correction services (1164 MHz to 1254 MHz + 1525 MHz to 1606 MHz).
The TW7872 is capable of receiving GPS L1/L2, GLONASS G1/G2, BeiDou B1 and Galileo E1.
The precisely tuned antennas have a tight pre-filter to protect against intermodulation and saturation caused by high-level cellular 700 MHz and other signals.
The antennas provide superior multi-path signal rejection, a linear phase response, and a tight phase-center variation (PCV) at a new economical price point, Tallysman said. The antennas provide comparable or superior performance to higher priced triple- and dual-band GNSS antennas on the market.
The TW7972 and TW7872 are housed in a magnetic-mount, IP67 weather-proof enclosure with pre-tapped screw holes. The antennas can also be ordered without the magnet.
The TW3967 (28-dB gain) and the TW3972E (35-dB gain) are the embedded versions of the TW7972. The TW3867 and TW3872E are the embedded versions of the TW7872. They are available with a wide selection of connectors and custom cable lengths, and can be custom tuned by Tallysman to ensure optimum performance within the customer’s enclosure.
Trimble has launched a patent-pending VerticalPoint RTK system for grade control in agriculture.
VerticalPoint RTK provides significantly enhanced vertical accuracy and stability of standard single-baseline RTK systems reducing the downtime and costly delays experienced by many agriculture land improvement contractors today.
VerticalPoint RTK is available in North America and Australia as an unlock on the Trimble FmX integrated and TMX-2050 displays and works in combination with the Trimble FieldLevel II system, which streamlines the surveying, designing and leveling steps required for land leveling projects.
The VerticalPoint RTK system also includes two stationary supplemental rovers for live, dynamic data collection.
When vertical accuracy inconsistencies occur, agriculture contractors must wait to restart leveling until the vertical signal is once again accurate, and in some instances even rework portions of the field that were incorrectly leveled before the vertical signal inconsistency was discovered.
VerticalPoint RTK significantly reduces vertical design errors in leveling and land forming projects, which occur from inconsistent vertical GPS signals resulting from atmospheric interference. With VerticalPoint RTK, contractors can experience an approximate 25 percent increase in overall uptime.
The industry experiences about 75 percent uptime; however, with VerticalPoint RTK uptime can increase to approximately 95 percent. In addition, this increase in uptime occurs even in the most challenging environments and at any time of year.
“Trimble is excited to launch a world-first technology that enhances vertical GPS accuracy, enabling agriculture contractors to better perform leveling or land forming operations,” said Josh Shuler, product manager for Trimble’s Agriculture Division. “Our new VerticalPoint RTK system can significantly reduce downtime leading to reduced expenses in labor and fuel while also increasing productivity.”
“On average during the summer months we may see 5-6 hours a day where we don’t have the level of vertical GPS accuracy that we need to complete finish passes,” said Jarrett Lawfield, owner of Lawfield Land Grading, a custom land leveling business. “At times all we lack is a finish pass and then we very well may have to stop and wait. I can’t get onto the next job since I’m waiting for the vertical accuracy to be where it needs to be.”
“The vertical accuracy capabilities of VerticalPoint RTK allows the whole project—from bulk hauling to finish passes—to be more efficient. The more accurate bulk hauling is, the less work to be done while finishing,” Lawfield said. “From first thing in the morning until the evening or even to the next day, VerticalPoint RTK is consistent and repeats elevation, so it has virtually eliminated the times when we are unsure of the vertical GPS accuracy. It has helped us to be more timely and efficient in our work.”
SmartNet North America, a high-precision, high-availability network RTK correction service, is assuming operations and incorporating all of the Maine Technical Source (MTS) RTK Network into SmartNet. The merger brings professionals along the East Coast access to a broader coverage area, better geometry and optimized performance.
The MTS RTK Network has two national CORS base stations and 27 base stations covering most of New England. The incorporation of the MTS Network into SmartNet strengthens the network by giving users access to a range of additional tools, including full network quality monitoring and a comprehensive user portal with live status maps and rover management.
The MTS RTK Network has two national CORS base stations and 27 base stations covering most of New England.
Users will also be able to take advantage of immediate enhancements and investments SmartNet is currently making in the New England region. The network will continue to be supported by Maine Technical Source, the authorized sales and support organization for SmartNet solutions on the East Coast.
SmartNet North America is fully open to all makes and models of GNSS equipment and is designed to provide the highest reliability and accuracy 24/7. A variety of different subscription plans are available at the state, regional and national level for any application requiring precision GNSS corrections. The latest expansion brings the total number of SmartNet North America stations to over 1,200 in 40 states and 8 provinces, strengthening SmartNet’s position as the most extensive network coverage of any network service provider on the continent.
“Our commitment to excellence drives us to keep expanding to serve the needs of our customers,†said Wendy Watson, director of reference station operations — GNSS reference networks for SmartNet North America. “Whether it is through enriching our toolsets, adding new stations or incorporating existing networks with the assistance of valuable partners like Maine Technical Source, we will continue to make investments that provide users with the best possible service.”
“The MTS RTK Network was already built on reliable, high-performance Leica Geosystems GPS technology,†said Jim Bosworth of Maine Technical Source. “Now users will have the added benefit of being supported by the industry-leading SmartNet service. The incorporation of the MTS RTK Network into SmartNet is a logical next step in supporting our GPS and GNSS customers in the region.”
NovAtel introduced its RTK Assist service at the Intergeo show, held this week in Hamburg, Germany.
RTK Asssit is a subscription-based service that provides users with satellite-delivered correction data to seamlessly continue centimeter-level accuracy during real-time kinematic (RTK) correction outages caused by communication disruptions. Users are able to maintain RTK level performance for up to 20 minutes, reducing any associated downtime and optimizing solution productivity.
RTK is a well-established method of achieving cm-level accuracy with GNSS. However, if the RTK correction data link to the receiver is interrupted, performance degrades quickly. RTK ASSIST subscribers are able to maintain the accuracy of their positioning solution during these interruptions, avoiding any down-time. RTK ASSIST is best suited for applications where there are potential obstructions, dead spots or baseline limitations that would cause RTK network correction losses for short periods of time.
Neil Gerein, Portfolio Manager for NovAtel stated, “Combining NovAtel’s long history of expertise in RTK positioning with correction data delivered directly to the receiver via satellite allows for a continuous centimeter-level solution that is globally available 24/7.”
Septentrio has introduced its next-generation high-precision Altus APS3G real-time kinematic (RTK) receiver, which brings technology only previously available in scientific receivers into the field for professional surveyors.
The new multi-constellation APS3G addresses major concerns about compatibility with new satellite constellations, as well as interference and jamming, according to Neil Vancans, vice president of Septentrio Americas.
Built on Septentrio’s AsteRx4 engine, the APS3G tracks all-in-view GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, IRNSS, SBAS, Galileo and QZSS, including E6/L6, and all other signals known to be available in the medium term.
The APS3G incorporates Septentrio’s AIM technology with three notch filters for in-band jamming and chirp jammer resistance, ensuring the highest possible levels of accuracy and resilience under all conditions. This technology is proven in Septentrio’s reference station and scientific products, which are acknowledged as technology leaders and deployed by major research institutions all over the world.
With two hot-swappable batteries, the APS3G provides up to 14 hours of operation without recharging, the longest endurance of any high-precision GNSS receiver in the surveying industry, maximizing uptime in the field.
The APS3G provides optimum GSM signal reception, as well as a built-in advanced UHF receiver for reliable performance on longer baselines, yielding real-time 25 Hz RTK. It also supports TERRASTAR L-band corrections for sub decimeter-level accuracy.
The flexible APS3G receiver can function as either a rover or base station, providing maximum versatility in the field.
“The Altus APS3G with embedded AsteRx4 technology brings what has previously been available only in high-priced scientific GNSS receivers to the workplace of the average surveyor,” said Vancans.
“With 544 channels capable of tracking all known and foreseen satellite signals and bands, the all-in-one unit is future proof, and Septentrio’s open architecture makes the APS3G compatible with most other hardware and software solutions, driving down the lifetime cost of ownership. In addition, with its extremely low power consumption, no other survey receiver on the market gives as much battery life, saving time and money on the job.”
u-blox has launched a receiver module that brings real-time kinematic accuracy to the mass market. The NEO-M8P GNSS receiver module delivers high performance down to centimeter-level accuracy.
RTK technologies have been used for some time in low-volume niche markets, such as surveying and construction. Because of high costs and complexity, this enhanced positioning technology has been inaccessible for most other uses.
Emerging high volume markets, such as unmanned vehicles, require high-precision performance that is low cost and energy efficient. Other application areas include agriculture and robotic guidance systems, such as tractors or robotic lawnmowers. The u-blox NEO-M8P answers these demands for a small-sized, highly cost-effective, and very precise RTK-based module solution.
The RTK algorithms are pre-integrated into the module. As a result, the size and weight are significantly reduced, and power consumption is five times lower than existing solutions, cutting costs and improving usability dramatically, u-blox said.
Measuring 12.2 x 16 x 2.4 millimeters, NEO-M8P is a small, high-precision GNSS RTK module based on GPS and GLONASS satellite-based navigation systems.
The module is available in two variants. The NEO-M8P-0 has rover functionality, and the NEO-M8P-2 has rover and base-station functionality. The rover with the u-blox NEO-M8P-0 receives corrections from the u-blox base receiver NEO-M8P-2 via a communication link that uses the RTCM (Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services) protocol, enabling centimeter-level positioning accuracy.
By using the NEO-M8P module, customers can reduce their research and development efforts, because they do not have to spend significant resources and time to develop an in-house RTK solution on a separate microprocessor system.
“NEO-M8P lowers the barriers for innovative companies looking to develop equipment that needs centimeter-level accuracy in many markets and applications, such as UAVs,” said Daniel Ammann, Executive Director Positioning and Co-Founder of u-blox. “Today, most solutions are based on board-level receiver products. NEO-M8P delivers performance that is simply a level above competitive offerings in terms of size and low-power consumption, thereby providing easy integration into customers’ existing product platforms, as well as a significant saving in their cost of goods.”
u-blox NEO-M8P is available for sampling now and will be shipping in volumes in the third quarter of 2016.
Piksi is a low-cost, high-performance GPS receiver with real-time kinematic (RTK) functionality for centimeter-level relative positioning accuracy.
Its small form factor, fast position-solution update rate, and low-power consumption make Piksi ideal for integration into autonomous vehicles and portable surveying equipment. An open-source architecture with a high-performance DSP on-board and our flexible correlation accelerator make it the perfect platform for GNSS research.
Piksi is designed for autonomous vehicle guidance, such as formation flight and autonomous landing; GPS/GNSS research; and surveying systems.
Swift Navigation is a San Francisco-based startup building centimeter-accurate GPS technology for automotive, surveying, robotics, agriculture and drones.
The company says its products are 100 times more accurate than the GPS in a cell phone, at a tenth of the price of the competition.
In November, the company raised $11 million in a series-A investment round led by Pierre Lamond and Lior Susan at Eclipse Ventures. Swift Navigation plans to use the funds for taking current customers to scale and growing their team, with a focus on core engineering. Another focus continues to be research and development, with a second new product due out this year.
