CoreLogic, a global property information, analytics and data-enabled services provider, has released a new version of its EQECAT natural catastrophe modeling platform, which contains three new proprietary risk models that quantify and analyze the potential financial impact of catastrophic natural hazards in peak exposure regions across the globe. The expansion of natural catastrophe risk analysis includes modeling for earthquake and tsunami events in Japan and earthquake events in Singapore, as well as for European windstorms, including a North European offshore wind farm risk model.
EQECAT, which was acquired by CoreLogic in December 2013, first introduced its natural catastrophe risk modeling platform RQE (Risk Quantification & Engineering) in January 2013 that includes more than 180 natural hazard models for 96 countries and territories spanning six continents. Loss calculations simulate 300,000 years of losses to provide comprehensive and highly credible estimates of risk exposure to earthquakes, tropical cyclones and windstorms, severe convective storms, brushfires, winter storms and flooding.
“This release of the RQE v15.0 platform not only advances the innovative and industry-leading science that is the hallmark of EQECAT risk models, but also demonstrates the commitment CoreLogic has to delivering timely enhancements and new platform features to our clients,” said Paul Little, head of EQECAT.
The additional catastrophe risk modeling delivered through the new RQE v15.0 platform includes:
The European Windstorm Model, which introduces the ability to analyze offshore wind farm turbines that are rapidly expanding in Europe as a result of major investments in alternative energy. The “Eurowind” model extends over the North Sea, Irish Sea, Baltic Sea and Atlantic Ocean, and gives insight into loss caused by wind storms. In addition, the windstorm model includes two views of frequencies — the empirical model based on the historical record from 1960 to present, and the analytic model with a continuous 1200-year simulation of an Earth System Model (ESM) driven by climatic background conditions to characterize the frequency and severity of European windstorms. The European Windstorm Model also now incorporates Spain and Portugal, extending the existing coverage to 24 countries and provides analysis of extratropical cyclone risk. Expanded capabilities also include access to Global Climate Model research used to help determine the frequency and scale of European windstorms.
The Japan Earthquake Model, which provides the most current view of earthquake risk across the country based on December 2013 research released by the Japanese government and national research organizations. This model accounts for previously un-modeled very large magnitude events with updated seismic source zones and increased maximum magnitudes. New damage and loss data from the 2011 Great East Japan (TÅhoku-oki) earthquake prompted a complete review and update to model vulnerability functions, including major changes to performance -based effects of deep building foundations and base isolation. For the first time, CoreLogic introduces tsunami as a sub-peril, offering both a fully probabilistic and a scenario-based tsunami risk model, using 30-meter digital elevation maps for more granular and precise risk evaluations for a complete view of earthquake and tsunami risk across Japan.
The Singapore Earthquake Model, which accounts for the increased probability of a near-term large-magnitude earthquake on the Sunda (Java) megathrust fault. This fault zone is one of the most active on Earth and largely influences earthquake risk in Singapore. This new model accounts for seismic risk factors specific to Singapore, such as soft soils that amplify intermediate-period ground motions from distant large earthquakes and the existence of reinforced concrete high-rise buildings.
“Combining more than 30 years of collected data from CoreLogic with EQECAT natural catastrophe models allows us to deliver a more comprehensive, highly credible analysis of key drivers of hazard risk at various levels of exposure around the globe, from across regional borders to individual site levels,” said Mahmoud Khater, chief science officer for catastrophe modeling.
The updated EQECAT RQE v15.0 platform also offers significant enhancements to user interface, reporting options and workflow management tools. Enhancements include a more comprehensive view of exposure data with expanded filter options, event-specific hazard intensity reports for individual locations, and analysis of annual exceedance probability refined by region and sub-peril to show drivers of portfolio losses, among other capabilities.
Two weeks ago, GEOHuntsville held a mini conference for emergency responders hosted by Chris Johnson of A Visual Edge, Inc., Joe Francica of Directions Magazine, and AEgis Technologies. The conference covered work being done under “The Blueprint for Safety” (BfS), a pilot effort of GEO Huntsville to support local public safety agencies with geospatial technology in the event of area emergencies.
The goal of the pilot is to integrate existing and emerging geospatial technologies to improve multi-jurisdictional rapid response. One part of the system being used is a new on-demand, online, self-service toolset created by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s (NGA) Integrated Working Group – Readiness, Response, and Recovery (IWG-R3). The pilot will also employ crowdsourcing, gamification, and RFID management while assembling all information in an Event Page to enhance information gathering and sharing during critical events.
RPScan
One emerging technology that I found especially interesting at the conference was from Robotic Paradigm Systems, LLC of Huntsville, Alabama. It is in the business of creating rapid facility layouts using a laser scanning system. I get excited when I see technology that addresses a need using an elegant approach that is simple, effective, and low cost while also having a “light footprint.” RPScan seems to be such a technology.
As you know, many laser scanning systems do a superb job building interior and exterior 3D models. Some systems produce such high-resolution 3D models that they look almost photorealistic, showing every minute detail. Those systems, by necessity, are also somewhat cumbersome and intrusive for the customer. The resultant models are also large and can be difficult to manage.
Robotic Paradigm Systems took a more pragmaticm user-oriented approach. The team there realized that many users, especially emergency responders, don’t need extremely detailed 3D models that are only available for a few facilities. What they need are “good enough” 2D models of as many facilities as possible, as soon as possible.
RPScan Operation
That has been the driving force behind RPScan. RPScan is a very light, wearable backpack with an elevated sensor that “sees” above most furniture and even people in a room. Many current 3D scanning systems require stationary equipment firmly mounted on a stand in the center of a room. By comparison, RPScan captures data as the operator simply walks through the rooms in a building. The continuous data capture is displayed on a wrist-mounted display, so verification of complete data capture is available to the operator real time. RPScan quickly maps indoor spaces, providing data that is then used to create accurate dimensional floor plans.
Here the operator walks briskly through a church capturing 2D floor plan data.The wrist-mounted screen shows the captured data as collected, thus providing continuous quality control.
RPScan is a lightweight and mobile system that can rapidly create accurate dimensional layouts of large complex facilities. It captures spatial data of occupied buildings at an approximate rate of 75,000 square feet per hour, with roughly two hours more needed to convert the raw data to CAD floor plans depending on conditions and desired CAD details. The hardware ergonomic design is also very comfortable and unobtrusive. Watch this RPScan video of a capture session to see it in operation.
Traditional 3D scanning systems typically use stationary hardware suites that are set up in a room. Frequently the operator has to work during off hours or ask occupants to leave the room during scanning. This stationary method of scanning is relatively easy since all measurements are captured from a fixed point and reference angle. By comparison, a mobile system, like RPScan, is more complicated because the location, position and attitude, are continuously changing during the capture process. To operate under these conditions, the system has to capture data while also accurately tracking and compensating for the equipment/operator movement. This is a proprietary feature of RPScan and the key to its efficient data-capture capability.
Since RPScan is capturing a horizontal “slice” of data, adjusting the height of the scanner provides several advantages. Fixing the scanner height above the heads of occupants, data capture can be done without the need to evacuate rooms. Building occupants can go about their business with minimal interruption. This is especially important in facilities like hospitals that cannot easily stop operations or move occupants. The operator can quickly and unobtrusively move from room to room with only minimal disruption. Conversely, lowering the scanner height permits the capture of cubical walls or fixed furnishings such as benches and pews. Furniture can remain in rooms because it’s not necessary to view all walls in their entirety. During post-processing, continuous walls are obvious in the laser images so conversion to architecture CAD models is fairly easy.
Real-Time Display
A unique feature of RPScan is that the 2D layout is continuously displayed on a touchscreen attached to the operator’s arm. As the operator walks through the interior space, continuous data capture is displayed as the layout image is being assembled. This real-time rendered display is more than just a convenience. It is the key to complete data capture and quality control. During the scanning process, it’s important to see areas that haven’t been scanned or areas that may need to be scanned more thoroughly. Since scanning efforts typically involve onsite data collection followed by off-site post processing, seeing results immediately builds confidence that the visit to the facility has been thoroughly and properly detailed. This minimizes the possibility of a return trip to recapture an area that may have been missed or poorly scanned.
Another valuable feature of RPScan is that it can simultaneously record linked audio and video during the entire capture process. This linking of audio, video, and location is a powerful capability and could be used to enhance first responder pre-plans by permitting virtual walkthroughs.
Uses of 2D Data
The high cost of 3D scanning systems and software can become a barrier for use in many applications. Some users cannot justify the complexity and cost of high-end 3D data capture and modeling when a 2D model would suffice. Some examples where 2D data has proved effective include:
There have been significant advancements in GPS, IMUs, RFIDs, and other micro-technologies embedded in mobile devices, but much of this new capability also needs a “base map” to register the tracked locations. Thanks to overhead and ground-level imagery assembled by national agencies, Google, and Microsoft, we have very rich data sets of our exterior world. However, to fully exploit indoor tracking technology, we will need equally robust building interior maps. Until we have BIM models of all buildings, I believe that 2D mapping will fill that void faster than other options. Robotic Paradigm Systems, with its RPScan system, seems well positioned to lead the indoor mapping effort.
P.S. I’m always looking for new technology to share with my readers, but my view is limited. If you know of new technology that others might find interesting, please drop a note in the comments section so I can investigate and possibly provide some visibility for the technology.
Like it or not, as a person who works with geospatial data, UAS (unmanned aerial systems such as drones and UAVs) are in your future. The upside of said technology for “quick and dirty” mapping is undeniable.
GNSS plays a key role with UAS, just like it plays a key role in classical photogrammetry. In fact, UAS may even push GNSS technology into areas where it hasn’t gone. For example, L1 RTK. I wrote about L1 RTK technology several years ago, and while several products attempted to exploit it, L1 RTK never was adopted in any significant numbers, primarily due to the short baseline, clear sky, and longer initialization requirements. However, UAS may change that because, by their nature, they work with short baselines, clear sky environments and require some setup time, at least enough for L1 RTK initialization.
However, before we get ahead of ourselves, the regulatory machine (the Federal Aviation Administration) must publish regulations that provide guidelines on the use of UAS for commercial operations. In June, amidst its recent enforcement actions, the FAA issued its first commercial authorization for mapping UAS over land in the U.S. The FAA issued a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (CoA) to BP to conduct aerial surveys in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. According to the FAA, the first flights took place on June 8 and used a AeroEnvironment 13.5 lb. Puma AE fixed-wing UAS with a nine-foot wingspan.
According to a Wall Street Journal article, AeroEnvironment spokesman Steve Gitlin said it took about a year and considerable financial investment to win FAA approval for the BP project. Curt Smith, a director in BP’s technology office, said that manned aircraft are sometimes less expensive per flight than the AeroVironment devices, but that the drones will gather far more data, enabling BP to operate “more effectively, more safely, and at a lower cost.”
The FAA announced that last summer that it issued restricted category type certificates to the Puma and Insitu’s Scan Eagle, another small UAS. The certificates were limited to aerial surveillance only over Arctic waters. The FAA recently modified the data sheet of the Puma’s restricted category type certificate to allow operations over land after AeroVironment showed that the Puma could perform such flights safely.
Texas A&M University Becomes Fourth Operational UAS Test Site
In further UAS news, the FAA announced on June 20 that Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi became the fourth of six UAS test sites to become operational. The FAA issued a CoA for the university to use an 85 lb AAAI RS-16 UAS with a ~13-foot wingspan. The other five UAS test sites are Griffiss (NY) International Airport, North Dakota Department of Commerce, State of Nevada, University of Alaska, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
American Aerospace RS-16 UAS. 12’11” Wingspan. 85 lbs.
The FAA UAS Legal Stuff
Despite its setback when an NTSB administrative law judge ruled against the FAA in March 2013, the FAA sternly maintains its position that commercial operations of UAS in the U.S. are strictly prohibited without a CoA. In fact, just this week (June 23), the FAA issued a press release about a Federal Register Notice the FAA published of its interpretation of UAS rules for model aircraft in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. In the Act, the Sec. 336 Special Rule for Model Aircraft reads:
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating
(3) the aircraft; and
(4) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
You can read more (lots more) about the FAA’s interpretation of the Act here. You can submit a comment on the FAA’s interpretation of the Act here. The comment period ends July 25.
More FAA UAS Legal Stuff
On June 25, the FAA issued a press release announcing that seven aerial photo and video production companies requested regulatory exemptions from the FAA to operate UAS before the FAA UAS rule-making is finalized. According to the FAA, “the Motion Picture Association of America facilitated the exemption requests on behalf of their membership. The firms that filed the petitions are all independent aerial cinematography professionals who collectively developed the exemption requests as a requirement to satisfy the safety and public interest concerns of the FAA, MPAA, and the public at large.”
From the FAA press release, “The FAA published a brief summary of the petition from Astraeus Aerial in the Federal Register. The agency opted to ask for comments only on the Astraeus petition because that company’s request came in first, and the petitions from the other six companies ask for identical exemptions.”
Interestingly enough, the FAA is soliciting public comment before it makes a ruling on the MPAA request, clearly highlighting the tremendous pressure the FAA is under to integrate commercial use of UAS in the U.S.
More Commercial Use of UAS Despite what the FAA Says
The NTSB ruling against the FAA fueled the commercial UAS fire and certainly gave commercial UAS operators, operating illegally according to the FAA, more confidence that the FAA may not pursue them. That might be the case in an incident publicized last week in Seattle, Washington, where a woman called police after she saw a UAS buzzing around outside of her apartment building, believing it was spying on her 26th-floor apartment. The Portland, Oregon-based UAS operator, Skyris Imaging, was interviewed by Portland’s KATU news.
“It was not our intent to view anything other than the views from a 20-story office building that will be built across the street,” said Skyris’s Joe Vaughn. Vaughn told KATU that a Seattle-based developer hired Vaughn’s company to use one of his drones equipped with cameras to take photos of the view for a new 20-story building.
Vaughn told KATU that his company has a fleet of six drones he says he responsibly flies. He told KATU that his company has strict guidelines to never fly for a third party, over crowds, above 400 feet, or beyond visual range. Click below to view the KATU interview.
Live Webinar at the Esri International User Conference
In a GPS World first, we’ll be producing a live webinar from the Esri International User Conference on Thursday, July 17, @ 10 a.m. Pacific Time in the exhibit hall at the San Diego Convention Center. Of course, the webinar will be focused on one of the hottest topics: high-precision mobile GIS. It will cover high-precision GNSS on mobile devices, from iPads to Android tablets to smartphones.
Tune in or join us live from the exhibit hall floor! Register here.
A Hansel and Gretel Approach to Cooperative Vehicle Positioning
By Scott Stephenson, Xiaolin Meng, Terry Moore, Anthony Baxendale, and Tim Edwards
MEET GEORGE JETSON.Those of us of a certain age will remember the animated TV sitcom The Jetsons, which featured George Jetson, “his boy Elroy, daughter Judy, and Jane, his wife.” It portrayed life in 2062, 100 years after the series debuted in 1962. George and his family used many futuristic gadgets including robot maids, talking alarm clocks, flat-screen TVs, and flying automated cars. Many of those devices are already available, well ahead of schedule. But flying cars are not quite with us yet. However, asphalt-hugging automated vehicles are already here, albeit still in limited numbers. Google created a buzz recently with tests of its self-driving car. Google’s cars were developed as an outcome of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s 2005 Grand Challenge in which teams created autonomous vehicles and raced them through a challenging road course.
Self-driving cars use a host of sensors to determine their position with respect to their surroundings and to navigate a chosen route legally and safely. Although wide-spread ownership of self-driving cars might still be a ways off, drivers of conventional vehicles will soon benefit from the research being conducted to provide them with positional awareness of other vehicles in their vicinity. This work may be characterized as part of the larger effort in developing intelligent transportation systems or ITS.
What is ITS? In the words of ITS Canada, it’s “the application of advanced and emerging technologies (computers, sensors, control, communications, and electronic devices) in transportation to save lives, time, money, energy and the environment.” This definition applies to all modes of transportation, including ground transportation such as private automobiles, commercial vehicles, and public transit, as well as rail, marine, and air modalities. The term ITS includes consideration not only of the vehicle, but also the infrastructure, and the driver or user, interacting together dynamically.
Just looking at ground transportation, there are many ITS developments underway, some of which are already implemented to some degree including systems for vehicle navigation, traffic-signal-control, automatic license-plate recognition, parking guidance, and road lighting to name but a few.
An important aspect of ITS is cooperative vehicle communication, which includes transmission of data vehicle–to–vehicle or vehicle–to–infrastructure (and vice versa — known by the abbreviation V2X. Data from vehicles can be acquired and transmitted to other vehicles or to a server for central fusion and processing. These data can include accurate real-time vehicle coordinates, which can be used to improve driver situational awareness and to monitor traffic flow for example. This use of V2X is known as cooperative vehicle positioning.
Several technologies are being developed for accurate cooperative vehicle positioning including lidar, radar, image-based cameras, ultra-wideband, and signals of opportunity. But GNSS also has a role to play. In this month’s column, team of British researchers turn to a children’s fairy tale for inspiration in their development of a cooperative vehicle positioning approach using carrier-phase observations — another innovative application of real-time kinematic or RTK GNSS technology.
“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.
There is little doubt in the benefit gained from cooperative modes of road transport, as agents working together generally perform better. In simple terms, this is the holistic idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, commonly known as synergy. On top of this clear advantage, the complex systems theory of emergence suggests that novel strategies will develop from the as-yet-undefined patterns and structures. It is clear, however, that to facilitate this development certain technological advances need to be achieved. In this case, individual road agents need to accurately identify their location, and communicate easily and safely with other agents. This is a shift away from protective and passive systems toward preventative and active transport safety.
Cooperative driving, or vehicle-to-vehicle or vehicle-to-infrastructure driving (V2X), is proposed as the next major safety breakthrough in road transport. An example of the concept is shown in FIGURE 1. It involves agents in the road transport environment communicating on local and national levels in real time, to maximize the efficiency of movement, dramatically reduce the number of accidents and fatalities, and make transportation more environmentally friendly.
Figure 1. Vehicle-to-vehicle communications as envisioned by the United States Department of Transportation.
In the U.S., the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration has commented that connected vehicle technology “can transform the nation’s surface transportation safety, mobility and environmental performance,” with industry experts predicting the widespread uptake of the technology within five to six years. This provides an opportunity for road vehicles to share GNSS information.
To an extent, this is possible with current technology. Communication is fairly pervasive and pretty robust, with the explosion in personal handheld mobile devices, using the GSM/GPRS, 3G, and 4G cellular communications networks. Positioning systems exist now that will provide a reasonably accurate and reliable location most of the time. However, the type of applications included in cooperative driving demand much higher performance from these positioning systems. For instance, as shown in the example in FIGURE 2, two vehicles approaching an intersection at relatively high speeds require accurate and reliable high output position information, and an ability to communicate with one another, in order to assess the likelihood of collision.
Figure 2. Vehicles approaching a road intersection would benefit from V2X communication.
These requirements are partly inter-linked, and can be mutually beneficial. For instance, communications methods can be used to share information to aid positioning, and some existing positioning systems can also be utilized to share information.
Many recent solutions in vehicle tracking research have shifted the GNSS receiver to a supplemental role in the positioning system, favoring an inertial device as the core of the integrated solution. The clear advantage is that an inertial device operates continuously, although other sensors are required to achieve the required navigation performance. The GNSS receiver is demoted because of its inherent limitations, namely the requirement of a clear view of the satellites and the availability of correctional information.
Most vehicle positioning research over the past two decades has focused attention on GNSS-centered systems, as evidenced by the abundant use of satnav devices used to assist in-car navigation. Despite its apparent monopoly over vehicle positioning in the commercial sector, the most
successful systems developed to guide autonomous vehicles either relegate GNSS to one of a suite of sensors, or almost disregard it altogether. This is often due to its apparent lack of positioning accuracy or availability. Popular terrestrial positioning sensors include lidar, radar, image-based cameras, ultra-wideband (UWB), and signals of opportunity. Clearly, the combination of different complementary sensors is important, but it would be a mistake to discount the more advanced GNSS positioning techniques that are available, especially with the expansion of the four global GNSS services.
Cooperative Positioning
The positioning of GNSS receivers relative to one another is a common application in transportation, such as during the aerial refueling of an airborne fighter jet by a tanker. In this case, it is important to know accurately the relative position of the two airplanes, but not necessarily their absolute position.
Relative positioning of road vehicles is more complex. By their nature, road vehicles are almost always close to other vehicles or road infrastructure, and there are many separate agents in each scenario. Vehicles can also travel large distances, and in terms of GNSS positioning, this may mean vastly different atmospheric conditions. Hence, relative positioning in road transport is useful if all GNSS receivers relate to the same datum, which in most cases is effectively absolute positioning.
Some previous work carried out by others concentrated on using GNSS code (pseudorange) and Doppler measurements for the relative positioning of vehicles, because it offers a simpler implementation method and is not susceptible to the cycle slips attributed to carrier-phase measurements. However, this means sacrificing the higher accuracy solution available from carrier-phase measurements. A major obstacle to GNSS positioning for V2X applications is the likely scenario of mixed receiver and antenna technology between vehicles. This has a major influence on the performance of relative positioning. By comparing various V2X relative positioning solutions, researchers found that an increase in positioning accuracy was typically accompanied by a decrease in availability and an increased demand for transmission bandwidth between the vehicles.
RTK GNSS Positioning. Real-time kinematic (RTK) GNSS positioning can be used to provide a solution at an accuracy of better than 5 centimeters (horizontal). This relies on the static reference receiver being located within 20 kilometers of the roving receiver, observing a good selection of common satellites with dual-frequency receivers.
When RTK positioning is used, the distance to the reference station has a bearing on the successfulness of the integer ambiguity resolution. A short baseline will benefit from a closer correlation of errors, due to the GNSS signals traveling through very similar parts of the atmosphere. Assuming each receiver is observing common satellites, this similarity will typically result in a higher success rate in the ratio test using the common Least Squares Ambiguity Decorrelation Adjustment, or LAMBDA, technique. This is particularly important following a GNSS outage.
GNSS positioning of road vehicles using RTK or network RTK (where a network of reference stations replaces a single RTK reference station) can provide highly accurate (< 5 centimeters), high integrity, real-time tracking information with little delay and at a high output rate. The proliferation of network RTK GNSS positioning systems has increased dramatically over the last decade. Network RTK GNSS positioning can minimize the spatial decorrelation of errors that is a characteristic of single-reference RTK positioning as distance increases between reference and rover receivers. This allows the wide mobility range demanded from automotive applications.
The transmission protocol of network RTK corrections is typically RTCM v3.0 or higher, and the composition of the correction information varies depending on the commercial service provider. The most common type of correction message format is that for a virtual reference station (VRS), although the most comprehensive and versatile method is the master-auxiliary concept (MAC). See references in Further Reading for details.
In V2X and other intelligent transportation systems (ITS) applications, the position must be accurate, reliable, available, and continuous. Previous research has shown that network RTK GNSS positioning can deliver a highly accurate and precise solution in an ideal observation environment. In one test, more than 99 percent of the observations lay within 2 centimeters of the truth solution, with a very small number of anomalous results of up to 20 centimeters.
The availability of a network RTK solution is determined by the availability of GNSS signals and the network RTK corrections. As network RTK positioning uses carrier-phase observations, GNSS outages and cycle slips significantly affect the performance of a receiver. However, the re-initialization of the fixed integer ambiguity resolution following a GNSS outage (such as caused by an overhead bridge) can be relatively fast. But from a cold start, the ambiguity resolution can take up to two minutes. This limits the widespread adoption of the technology for vehicle positioning.
NGI Road Vehicle and Electric Locomotive Testbeds. We have carried out research at the Nottingham Geospatial Institute (NGI) using state-of-the-art testing facilities. These bespoke in-house facilities allow repeated controlled experiments, and are a useful tool in the development of ITS and V2X technology.
To test the positioning performance thoroughly and under real-world conditions, we carried out experiments using the NGI’s road vehicle, which is equipped with a collection of on-board ground-truth systems.
Also, the roof of the Nottingham Geospatial Building (home of NGI) is the location of a remotely operated electric locomotive running on a 200-millimeter-gauge railway track. A photograph of the locomotive and plan of the track are shown in FIGURE 3. The locomotive can carry a selection of various positioning instruments, such as GNSS receivers, inertial navigation system (INS) devices, and tracking prisms, and can travel at a speed of over three meters per second. The position of the track is accurately known, and has previously been scanned at a resolution of 2 millimeters.
Figure 3. The NGB2 reference base station and electric locomotive track on the roof of the Nottingham Geospatial Building.
Three control solutions are used to assess the performance of the cooperative positioning techniques in real-world tests: An RTK GNSS control solution provided by a local static continuously operating reference station (CORS); a network RTK GNSS solution based on the MAC standard; and a dual-frequency GPS/INS system. Each vehicle also can be independently tracked using survey-grade total stations or a proprietary UWB positioning system.
Sharing Network RTK Corrections
If vehicles could communicate with one another on the road, this would help overcome the communication system limitation in network RTK positioning of road vehicles. For instance, if vehicle A has an external connection to a network RTK service provider (such as a mobile Internet connection) and a local connection to a second vehicle (B), then it could share its network RTK correction messages directly. Effectively, vehicle A would re-broadcast the correction information it has received from the corrections provider to the receiver on vehicle B. However, this would rely on the functional capability of the receiver of vehicle B, as network RTK real-time processing can be computationally intensive.
Not all network RTK correction messages can be shared in this way, and the range over which the correction messages are still valid needs to be determined. As vehicles communicating with V2X devices are likely to be relatively close (a few hundred meters at most), the feasibility of sharing network RTK information is good.
However, the network RTK VRS technique may offer more advantages. It is the most common form of network RTK used around the world, and requires significantly less bandwidth (approximately 10 kilobits per second at 10 Hz). The rover receiver is also less burdened by processing requirements. A VRS system operating on buses in Minnesota restricts the baseline to 2 miles, by updating the VRS location every 2 minutes.
Correction messages typically have a lifespan of 10 seconds. After this time, the receiver determines the messages to be too old and does not compute a fixed-integer position. It can, however, use the information to calculate a differential GNSS (DGNSS) position. Therefore, the relayed message must arrive at the receiver on vehicle B well within 10 seconds. Previous trials at NGI found that the typical message latency of the original correction message reaching vehicle A via a GSM/GPRS connection is 0.85 seconds. The additional V2X communication to transfer the message to vehicle B should not add a significant delay.
Capturing Network RTK Messages. To demonstrate the potential benefit of sharing network RTK messages between vehicles, network RTK messages were captured on board a vehicle and shared with a second vehicle. Vehicle A is the NGI van, and vehicle B is the NGI electric train. Most off-the-shelf network-RTK-enabled GNSS receivers are designed to communicate directly with the network RTK server using a connected communication device (GSM modem, UHF/VHF radio, cell phone, and so on), which typically provides a stable connection to minimize data loss.
To intercept the network RTK correction message, the GNSS receiver was set up to simply accept the correction message from a smartphone via Bluetooth. In this case, the connection to the network RTK service provider is established between the smartphone and the network RTK server. An application running on the smartphone (as shown in FIGURE 4) requests information from the network RTK server, logs the data, and passes the message directly to the Bluetooth-connected GNSS receiver on vehicle A. By intercepting the correction message, it can also be forwarded on to a second receiver, in this case on vehicle B.
Figure 4. Flowchart showing the capturing and sharing of network RTK correction messages (left), and the NTRIP client program running on an Android smartphone (right).
Sharing Messages with Second Receiver. FIGURE 5 shows the positioning solutions generated by a shared-network-RTK correction message. The original message was captured by the smartphone application operating on board vehicle A (the NGI van), and applied to GNSS observations made by a receiver on vehicle B (the NGI train). The baseline between the two vehicles was less than 100 meters, and the location of the VRS requested from the network RTK server was the NGI building (in geodetic coordinates to three decimal places). As Figure 5 clearly shows, the shared VRS corrections are equally valid for any receiver operating in the vicinity of the VRS. The thick red line is the fixed position of the train track, and the thin blue line represents the positions generated by the GNSS receiver using the shared network RTK corrections.
Figure 5. Sharing the network RTK message from vehicle A to vehicle B.
The VRS message type was chosen because it requires much less bandwidth, takes less processing capacity, and is prevalent among legacy receivers. Network RTK users typically require download speeds of 1.8 kilobits per second (VRS) and 5.6 kilobits per second (MAC). This is well within the typical speeds available from cellular wireless communications, which offer 80 kilobits per second downlink speeds from 2.5G systems to beyond 40 megabits per second for recent 4G systems.
The GNSS receiver on vehicle B is operating in an ideal location, with a clear view of the sky and a high number of visible satellites, which improves the probability of successful RTK ambiguity resolution.
Generating Pseudo-VRS Corrections
The potential benefit to GNSS positioning of using V2X communication between various road vehicles and infrastructure can be expanded by the implementation of pseudo-VRS positioning. This system resembles the children’s fairy tale Hansel and Gretel, where in order to help remember the route through a forest that guides them back to their home, Hansel drops markers along the path (in separate cases small white pebbles, and then breadcrumbs). By using the markers, the children can navigate their way through the forest, but without them they are left lost and disoriented.
The pseudo-VRS system uses a similar principle, where vehicle A marks its path by leaving behind small packets of information that can be used by other nearby vehicles. The small packets of information are VRS-like, and are broadcast using V2X communication devices and technology. Like the breadcrumbs in the fairy tale that are eaten by birds shortly after being dropped by Hansel, these VRS-like packets of information have a short lifespan.
VRS Requirements. It has been long established that a short baseline between reference and rover receivers leads to more accurate and successful relative GNSS positioning. A short baseline can effectively deal with satellite orbit and atmospheric errors, which become difficult to deal with as the baseline length grows, and is the reason why RTK GNSS positioning is typically limited to baselines shorter than 20 kilometers. A typical RTK baseline may be between 1 and 10 kilometers long, but it is still beneficial to reduce the baseline further, particularly if there is a large difference in elevation. This is enabled by the VRS network RTK technique. By using the observation data from several permanent reference stations that surround the rover location, a virtual reference station is created close to the location of the rover, including virtual observation measurements and position. This VRS information is transmitted to the rover, and the rover receiver treats the information like that of a real reference station. This technique can deliver better than 5-centimeter accuracy up to 35 kilometers.
The principle builds on the transfer of measurements made at the real reference stations to the VRS. The carrier-phase measurement at the real reference station ( ), shown in Equation 1, is made up of the geometric distance between the receiver and satellite (), the integer ambiguity ( ), and the receiver and satellite clock bias (). The key to the VRS technique is that the integer ambiguity and the receiver and satellite clock bias are not location dependent, so they can be transferred directly to the virtual reference station from the real reference station.
(1)
By differencing the carrier-phase equation of the real and virtual reference stations ( and , respectively), the ambiguity and clock errors are canceled. The result is shown in Equation 2.
(2)
By combining the carrier-phase measurement equations at the real and virtual reference stations, only two unknown terms remain. The first includes the position of the VRS ( ), which is, in principle, arbitrary and is typically the approximate location of the rover receiver. The second is the observable of the VRS ( ), which can now be obtained without actually measuring it. (In practice, the technique is a little more complex, as satellite orbit and atmospheric errors and biases need to be modeled for the VRS position). The VRS information can then be packaged using the RTCM standards and delivered to the rover receiver to enable network RTK VRS positioning.
Pseudo-VRS. Using the established VRS techniques and standards described above, we propose to use the GNSS observations and subsequent position information to simulate the existence of a VRS (see FIGURE 6). Imagine vehicle A carries a GNSS receiver together with the means to calculate its position accurately (for instance, it is also receiving differential corrections or has other positioning devices on board). So long as the receiver can successfully resolve the integer ambiguity, it can also produce each component required to describe a VRS. Clearly in this case, the receiver on vehicle A is a “real” reference station, but the existing VRS standards can be exploited to transfer this information to other local GNSS receivers. For instance, a receiver operating on vehicle B can use the information as a local real-time differential correction service.
Figure 6. The flow of data during the generation and sharing of pseudo-VRS data.
Because the VRS technique is well established (the most popular form of network RTK positioning), legacy receivers are able to take advantage of this pseudo-VRS information. RTCM standards are also well defined for the transfer of GNSS information in this form.
The pseudo-VRS information is valid for several seconds, so the delays introduced in transferring the information from one vehicle to a second can easily be accommodated. Like any communication device based on radio waves, V2X communication devices are likely to be subject to a level of delay and message loss that requires redundancy in the system. It is important that during one epoch the whole pseudo-VRS message is delivered, as there is little similarity between one epoch and the next. The original reference receiver is likely to be on a moving vehicle.
Effectively, the pseudo-VRS imitates the VRS in Equation 2 by providing the virtual reference station coordinates and carrier-phase observable. The information is also delivered to the second receiver in the same format RTCM message. A slight difference here is that only one-way communication is needed — the original coordinates of the VRS do not need to be supplied by the second receiver.
The pseudo-VRS processing is carried out using the RTKLIB open source software. RTKLIB has limited options to vary the position of the base station during RTK positioning, so the program is seeded with customized configuration files and run independently for each epoch. This creates an additional feature: The processing of each epoch has no effect on any other.
Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication. As we just consider the exploitation of V2X devices in this article, the nature of the communication medium is not under test. For this reason, off-the-shelf wireless routers (2.4 GHz) were used to communicate between vehicles, using fixed local IP addresses. However, the performance of the routers under cooperative driving tests is limited by range, multipath, and signal obstruction.
Real-World Tests
To generate significant test results, some of the following tests use recorded and replayed data.
Test Setup. To test the performance of a pseudo-VRS positioning system, and the success of different configurations, real-world tests were carried out at the Nottingham Geospatial Institute. Two vehicles were used. Vehicle A was the NGI’s road vehicle, and vehicle B was the NGI’s electric locomotive. As the position of the locomotive test track is very accurately known, this can be used to measure the performance of the pseudo-VRS system.
Vehicle A was equipped with six GNSS receivers, a tactical-grade INS system, and a wheel odometer, and tracked using a total station and 360º prism. This provided multiple position solutions to ensure significant results.
Vehicle B was equipped with a GNSS receiver, and tracked using a proprietary UWB system for related V2X tests.
Also, on the roof of the NGB, and lying inside the track perimeter, is the NGB continuously operating reference
station. This hyper-local reference station allows local RTK solutions, and acts as a barometer of GNSS activity when tests are episodically carried out.
FIGURE 7 shows an aerial image of the test scenario. The Google background shows the NGB to the west, and surrounding roads to the south and west (still under construction during the image acquisition). The thin yellow line is a ground distance of 100 meters. The red dots signify the position of vehicle A (in the east), and the purple dots show the position of vehicle B (on the roof of the NGB building). The accuracy of the Google image is unknown, and is used here purely for illustrative purposes.
Figure 7. Aerial image of the test.
Test Results. These tests are designed to show the performance of a pseudo-VRS system using a V2X communication system. However, the results shown here were created using recorded raw data. The test results will help to design the correct RTCM message to share between vehicles in future tests.
To simulate the operation of a pseudo-VRS system, vehicle A must share its known absolute position and some raw RINEX information for each epoch with vehicle B. Vehicle B can then use this information, together with its own observed RINEX data, for the same epoch to calculate its known absolute position. In practice, there will be a slight delay in the delivery of the information from vehicle A (much like in a traditional RTK system), so that information from concurrent epochs are unlikely to be used.
The RTKLIB software cannot directly handle the variation of a base station’s coordinates (and output an absolute solution), so a small separate script was designed to utilize the processing capability of the software in a pseudo-VRS system.
FIGURE 8 shows the results of pseudo-VRS positioning. During dual-frequency tests, 99.67 percent of observations achieved fixed ambiguity (1197/1201). During single-frequency (broadcast ionosphere) RTK, 61.45 percent (738/1201) observations achieved fixed ambiguity. The ratio test threshold was 2.0. Around the area of 454930E 339708N, the number of common visible satellites dropped from eight to seven, and then again from seven to six three seconds later. This caused each of the three solutions to degrade slightly. The dual-frequency RTK solution briefly lost its fixed ambiguity solution (for two epochs, or 0.1 seconds), before regaining the fixed solution. The single-frequency RTK solution could not achieve a fixed ambiguity solution again until the number of common visible satellites returned to seven (five seconds after the initial satellite was lost). The DGNSS solution saw a similar degradation in its solution during this period.
Figure 8. Results from pseudo-VRS positioning.
The mean coordinate errors for the three solutions are 0.054, 0.707, and 0.323 meters (1 standard deviation, 3D), as shown in Table 1. This is compared to a solution calculated using the local CORS base station. The error in horizontal and vertical follows the typical ratio of 1:2. Test results were also completed using a lower pseudo-VRS update rate. At 1 Hz, the results prove even better. Although the latency of the correction is up to 1 second (positioning is calculated epoch by epoch), the results were better than updates at 20 Hz. The dual-frequency RTK solution achieved a fixed ambiguity at every epoch (100 percent), and when compared to the known track position appeared correctly fixed. The single-frequency RTK solution achieved a fixed ambiguity for 70.02 percent (897/1201) of the observations; a slight improvement over the 20-Hz results.
Table 1. Results from pseudo-VRS positioning.
Table 2 shows the performance of the pseudo-VRS system under different latency scenarios. This is important because a message transmitted by vehicle A may be delayed or newer messages may be disrupted. Once the latency of the correction message reaches 8 seconds, the performance of the positioning solution begins to drop. The number of fixed ambiguity solutions falls, and the resulting positioning accuracy also decreases. However, the solution can still deliver 20- to 30-centimeter accuracy with a message latency of up to 30 seconds.
Table 2. Effect of message latency on positioning quality.
Conclusions
This article has outlined the potential benefit of V2X technology to cooperative vehicle positioning. A vehicle that knows its absolute position accurately can assist a second vehicle to position itself using established GNSS techniques.
The pseudo-VRS base-station location must have reasonably accurate coordinates. Without this, the correct integer ambiguity cannot be resolved, and there is the risk of an incorrect resolution giving false success. This requires good reliability and integrity of the position of vehicle A, a characteristic that can be provided by network RTK positioning but likely needs further support from alternative positioning solutions.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Leica Geosystems for the provision of an academic license for the SmartNet network RTK service. We thank Yang Gao and Qiuzhao Zhang of the University of Nottingham for their assistance and detailed discussion during the experimental tests. The work was supported by the U.K.’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. This article is based on the paper “A Fairy Tale Approach to Cooperative Vehicle Positioning” presented at the 2014 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation held in San Diego, California, January 27–29, 2014.
Manufacturers
For our tests, vehicle A (NGI’s road vehicle) was equipped with six Leica Geosystems AGGS10 GNSS receivers with individual AS10 antennas, an Applanix Corp.POS RS with Honeywell International Inc.CIMU tactical grade INS system, and was tracked using a Leica Nova TS50 total station. Vehicle B (NGI’s electric locomotive) was equipped with a Leica GS10 GNSS receiver and AS10 antenna.
SCOTT STEPHENSON is a postgraduate student at the Nottingham Geospatial Institute (NGI) within the University of Nottingham, Nottingham, U.K.
XIAOLIN MENG is an associate professor, theme leader for positioning and navigation technologies, and an M.Sc. course director at NGI.
TERRY MOORE is the director of NGI at UoN, where he is the professor of satellite navigation and an associate dean within the Faculty of Engineering.
ANTHONY BAXENDALE is head of Advanced Technologies & Research at MIRA Ltd. (formerly the Motor Industry Research Association), an automotive consultancy company headquartered near Nuneaton in Warwickshire, U.K.
TIM EDWARDS is a principal engineer responsible for intelligent mobility research activities within the Future Transport Technologies Group at MIRA Ltd.
FURTHER READING
• Authors’ Conference Paper
“A Fairy Tale Approach to Cooperative Vehicle Positioning” by S. Stephenson, X. Meng, T. Moore, A. Baxendale, and T. Edwards in Proceedings of ION ITM 2014, the 2014 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, San Diego, California, January 27–29, 2014, pp. 431–440.
• Intelligent Transportation Systems
Proceedings of IEEE ITSC 2013, the 16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, “Intelligent Transportation Systems for All Modes,” The Hague, The Netherlands, October 6–9, 2013.
“Driverless Cars” by R. Murray in Computing and Control Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 3, June-July 2007, pp. 14–17.
• GNSS and Inertial Navigation Systems
“GPS and Inertial Systems for High Precision Positioning on Motorways” by J.E. Naranjo, F. Jiménez, F. Aparicio, and J. Zato in Journal of Navigation, Vol. 62, No. 2, April 2009, pp. 351–363, doi: 10.1017/S0373463308005249.
• Vehicle-to-Vehicle and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Technologies
“Implementation of V2X with the Integration of Network RTK: Challenges and Solutions” inProceedings of ION GNSS 2012, the 25th International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation, Nashville, Tennessee, September 17–21, 2012, pp. 1556–1567.
“Relative Positioning for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication-enabled Vehicle Safety Applications” by C. Basnayake, G. Lachapelle, and J. Bancroft in Proceedings of the 18th ITS World Congress, Orlando, October 16–20, 2011.
“Can GNSS Drive V2X” by P. Alves, T. Williams, C. Basnayake, and G. Lachapelle in GPS World, Vol. 21, No. 10, October 2010, pp. 35–43.
• Network RTK
“Network RTK for Intelligent Vehicles” by S. Stephenson, X. Meng, T. Moore, A. Baxendale, and T. Edwards in GPS World, Vol. 24, No. 2, February 2013, pp. 61–67.
“A Comparison of the VRS and MAC Principles for Network RTK” by V. Janssen in Proceedings of IGNSS2009, the 2009 Symposium of the International Global Navigation Satellite Systems Society, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, December 1–3, 2009.
“Introduction to Network RTK” by L. Wanninger, IAG Working Group 4.1: Network RTK (2003–2007). Online article. Last modified June 16, 2008.
RTCM Standard 10403.1 for Differential GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite Systems) Services – Version 3, developed by RTCM Special Committee No. 104, Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services, Arlington, Virginia, October 27, 2006.
“Accuracy Performance of Virtual Reference Station (VRS) Networks” by G. Retscher in Journal of Global Positioning Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2002, pp. 40–47.
“An Overview of Multi-Reference Station Methods for cm-Level Positioning” by G. Fotopoulos and M.E. Cannon in GPS Solutions, Vol. 4, No. 3, January 2001, pp. 1–10, doi: 10.1007/PL00012849.
The Galileo Masters competition deadline has been extended a week, until July 7. The European Satellite Navigation Competition (ESNC) is looking for services, products, and business innovations that use satellite navigation in everyday life.
“The ESNC submission database was originally scheduled to close this Monday at midnight (CET). As the ESNC has met with considerable interest and plenty of new registrations in the last couple of days, we decided to give participants one week of added time until 11:59 p.m. (CET) on Monday, 7 July 2014 at www.esnc.eu,” said Kathrin Sturm, Project Management (ESNC / Galileo Masters) Anwendungszentrum GmbH Oberpfaffenhofen.
“Don’t miss your chance to win your share of the EUR 1 million prize pool, including cash, business incubation, coaching, patent consulting, prototyping and marketing support, access to customers, and user communities. All winners will be in the running for the grand prize of EUR 20,000 and six months of incubation at a regional centre of their choice.”
Prizes will be awarded by some of the most relevant institutional GNSS stakeholders, such as the European GNSS Agency (GSA) and the European Space Agency (ESA). In addition, partner regions from all over the world are hosting regional challenges.
In 2013, 25 partner regions offered prizes, and seven special prizes were provided by leading European industry and research partners. Entries will be assessed by the expert panels of the regions and special prize partners.
The overall winner — the Galileo Master — will be selected from among all regional and special prize winners by an international panel of high-ranking experts. The Galileo Master will be revealed at an awards ceremony in Munich, Germany, in October.
Flying for GPS, a chronicle of Len Jacobson’s role in the development and promotion of the Global Positioning System, has just been published.
The book spans a 50-year career, during which Jacobson flew 2.5 million miles as a missionary for GPS and as a developer of user equipment. He kept an extensive log of all of his flights, and it enabled him to recreate in his book much of what happened with GPS during his career, and his impressions of why these events occurred.
Flying for GPS covers the user-equipment evolution from expensive, complex, and voluminous military sets to today’s low-cost chips buried in our cell phones. It traces a system designed primarily for military and civilian aircraft, ships, and land vehicles to an essential utility of everyday life, enabling new businesses, more safety, and the ability to track everything that moves. It is also a memoir written for the GPS community.
The book draws from Jacobson’s GPS experience while working for Hughes Aircraft, Magnavox, Interstate Electronics (IEC), and his own company, Global Systems and Marketing, Inc.
He worked on various assignments from most of the major GPS companies and several small businesses that were trying to find a position in the GPS market. He also participated as an expert witness in many legal cases involving GPS, from patent disputes to accident reconstruction to parolee tracking.
In parallel with the evolution of GPS, the book chronicles the changes in commercial air travel as Jacobson experienced it, from flying on a PanAm 707 in 1963 to an Air France A380 today. The book is available now from www.xlibris.com, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and soon from ebook outlets.
Len Jacobson.
Excerpt from Flying with GPS
By Len Jacobson
A man in a trench coat borrowed one of our civil GPS Z-sets in late 1979. He couldn’t or wouldn’t say what it would be used for. He suggested that I call over to the Joint Program Office (JPO), and they would verify the validity of the request. A year later I found out what it was all about.
The Z-set had two boxes, a receiver and a panel mounted control/display unit (CDU). We got the receiver back but we never got the CDU. I learned later that the Z-set had been installed in one of the helicopters used in operation Eagle Claw, the failed April 1980 raid to rescue the U.S. Embassy hostages in Iran. I guess the Special Forces were able to recover the Z-set receiver but not the CDU, as the helicopters were all destroyed.
I ran a coverage plot for the day of the raid over Iran, and found four satellites were in view at that time. I also received a copy of an Iranian newspaper that had a big article on GPS in Farsi. I couldn’t read it and I don’t think it mentioned the raid, but there was a diagram of the GPS constellation, so I know the Iranians were very aware of GPS. That mission may have been the very first operational military use of GPS.
Another Covert Role. In September of that same year, a Vela reconnaissance satellite detected a “double flash” that was deemed by many to be evidence of a atmospheric nuclear explosion off of South Africa in the South India Ocean. While many of the details are classified, there is quite a write up about it in Wikipedia, under “Vela Incident.”
This came at a time when the GPS program was in even greater budget peril than normal. The Secretary of the Air Force at that time was trying to zero out the GPS budget, and it looked very likely he would succeed. But along came a procurement for a Nuclear Detonation Detection System payload package to be placed on all future GPS satellites. I believe that saved the GPS program from a premature demise.
I also suspect, as do many others, but cannot prove, that the flash was created by an Israeli nuclear test. If so, one might infer that Israel actually, albeit unwittingly, saved the GPS program from extinction.
Len Jacobson is a retired GPS consultant, having worked in the field since 1968. He is a charter member of the Editorial Advisory Board of GPS World magazine and is also still active in the Institute of Navigation, for which he served as western regional vice president twice and held leadership roles in several of its conferences. He lives in Long Beach, California. Visit his site at www.lenjacobson.com.
I attended the China Satellite Navigation Conference in Nanjing in May, the fifth year of CSNC and my third time attending. Tremendous progress was evident this year in terms of BeiDou (BDS) deployment and China’s general openness and willingness to collaborate over those years. I have also seen a slowly growing international presence at the show and expect that to continue to increase as well. You may recall my column last year about Little Tigers. Well, they aren’t so little any more. As for the tycoons, you will have to read to the end.
The conference opened with the usual provider updates. Chenqi Ran, who runs the China Satellite Navigation Office, the lead government agency for BDS, started off. It’s always good to hear his update delivered in China, where the is a little more freedom to provide information beyond the standard pitch. China continues on pace to its plan for the third step of BDS with five geosynchronous-orbit, three inclined geosynchronous-orbit, and 27 mid-Earth orbit satellites for a worldwide system by 2020. They are meeting their stated goal of 10-meter accuracy regionally today, and as good as 5-meter near the Equator. Ran also provided interesting numbers for the fast-growing Chinese domestic market:
More than 2 million BDS chips sold in China in Q1
More than 300,000 vehicles equipped with BDS
20 domestic brands offering car navigation systems
First consumer tablet (Samsung Galaxy Note 3) with BDS.
First consumer smartphone (Huawei B199) with BDS
The updates from other providers (GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo) were relatively standard and did not contain much new information. I had hoped that maybe the Russian presentation would provide more information about the April outages, but nothing was forthcoming and I was not overly surprised.
The conference itself is very well organized and runs nine parallel technical tracks over two full days, with additional special-interest sessions. All of the presentations are in Chinese, however the conference provides headsets for simultaneous translation, and many presenters have dual slide sets in Chinese and English, so it is easy to attend anything that seems interesting.
I came as an invited speaker on the Institute of Navigation (ION) panel organized by Professor Jade Morton from Miami University, Ohio, and Professor Lu of the National Timing Service Center near Xian. The ION panel was well attended and included a short panel discussion at the end.
One of the most interesting outcomes was that both Broadcom and Trimble showed approximately 25 percent accuracy improvement by adding Beidou to their existing GPS/GLONASS solutions. It was interesting not just because they reached the same number, but because Broadcomm was talking in meters about urban-canyon performance and Trimble was talking in centimeters about precise positioning.
It became clear that everyone sees BDS as an important part of their roadmap at L1, regardless of how many frequencies they currently support. I must also note that both Professor Morton and Professor Lu were outstanding hosts and showed us some of the wonderful local sites.
Exhibit Hall
The biggest change from last year was in the exhibit hall. I would estimate the overall floor space grew by 50 percent, with 106 companies in specially designed booths (up from 56 last year) and another 44 in standard booths.
The content change was even more dramatic. Last year there were a lot of small booths with pretty basic displays, mostly of prototypes and slideshows. This year, there were many more extremely large booths that were very professionally created. They had evolved into displaying very polished-looking finished products with nicely edited videos. It was clear that this was all targeted at domestic buyers, as it was difficult to find anyone on the show floor who spoke English (except in the Spirent booth). These are no longer little tigers. These are now real companies, out hunting for new business.
Policy and Intellectual Property
My other favorite topic to listen to at this conference is on policy and intellectual property (IP). That is where I spent most of my time and was not disappointed. There was in fact an entire session dedicated to intellectual property, and several presentations on the global state of affairs of patents in GNSS.
Interestingly, most of the speakers were either lawyers or from government, but there were some corporate ones as well. Several speakers highlighted the recent disagreement and settlement of the patent dispute between the United States and the United Kingdom over complex modulation patents. There was a large element of underlying concern that although the U.S. had been able to settle the dispute, it might be very hard for China if either the U.S. or the UK came after them. They had several charts showing how far behind they were in GNSS patents, in an effort to encourage local companies to create more IP and patent it. They also showed they have made significant progress in recent years in domestic Chinese patents, though they still have a long way to go in international patents.
They were also very concerned about the largest holders of GNSS patents in China — Qualcomm and Broadcom — as a threat to domestic industry. They cited the GlobalLocate/Broadcom versus SiRF/CSR lawsuit as a cautionary tale. Several presenters showed the dominance of Broadcomm and Qualcomm in terms of domestic Chinese patent holdings and referred to them as the “Tycoons.” I envisioned Rich Uncle Moneybags, the guy from the Monopoly game wearing the top hat, walking around with patents instead of dollar bills hanging out of his hat.
Conclusion
The little tigers have definitely grown up. They are much bigger, have real teeth, and are definitely trying to stake out territory in the fast-growing domestic market. But the Tycoons still have the upper hand in the mass-market battle for consumer devices. For the moment, anyway.
The Tycoons are going to have to start spending some of their bounty in China if they want to maintain that market share against rapidly evolving domestic competition. I won’t be surprised if next year we see the Tycoons exhibiting at CSNC, and soon after that, the tigers looking to expand their hunting ground into nearby markets in Korea, India, and Japan.
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 the author may be associated with.
Sometimes the patient has to get sick in order to get better. The eruption of a malady leads to identification of an underlying condition; appropriate treatment can then be devised to cure the body of its ills. Sound like House, M.D.?
As a variant on this plot line, the patient can know full well what is wrong deep down inside, but refuses to acknowledge or deal with it. As in, “I’ll stop smoking when I start coughing,” or “My drinking hasn’t gotten to the problem stage . . . yet.”
Let us examine the patient GNSS. The April signal outage, system-wide on the GLONASS constellation, lasted less than 12 hours. That was long enough to cause consternation for end users around the world, and for several voices to renew their calls for multi-constellation GNSS and alternative PNT. The interruption was also short enough that it has now vanished from most rear-view mirrors. Everything is back to normal and everyone can go about their business.
But the patient is still unhealthy, and vulnerable.
It is easy enough to fault the system operators, who after all are only human, and to say, “That can’t happen here. We have enough safeguards in place. And our guys and gals are just that good.” In other words, we take enough antibiotics and are generally, you know, well, healthy. As healthy as anyone else.
We have yet to see a full-scale jamming or spoofing attack on the order of cyber-security breaches in other targeted areas that have made off with millions or billions of dollars.
We have yet to experience a truly major-league Sun event, when global circumstances would be in dire need of PNT help just when GNSS was least helpful.
We have yet to encounter some other unknown, unexpected event or environment that will reveal in painful detail the vulnerabilities of GNSS.
Which are well known to us at this writing.
This month’s cover story on a new enhanced differential Loran technique represents one arm of geospatial-medical research. Notably, it evinces little concern for GLONASS, the area where the latest malady erupted. No, the Dutch harbor pilots are concerned about over-reliance on GPS, the Gold Standard. The Gold Standard! What could possibly be wrong with the Gold Standard? After all, it’s golden.
GPS III Misses Delivery Date. The U.S. Air Force is shopping for alternative companies to make future GPS III satellites after the first eight birds come through. Current contractor Lockheed Martin Space Systems missed a 2014 delivery date because, although it has three satellites in the production barn and a satellite test-bed vehicle that has successfully passed system tests, it has received no payload from subcontractor Exelis to put aboard same.
Delivery of the first GPS III satellite is now expected to slip from fiscal 2014 as far as fiscal 2016. Then there’s launch to consider, which brings to mind the launch budget and schedule, annually trimmed back by Congress. Then there’s OCX, needed to operate GPS III, also struggling to stand up.
Even once established, GPS III will share the same vulnerabilities of current GNSS.
Berg Insight estimates that revenues for remote patient monitoring (RPM) solutions reached € 4.3 billion in 2013, including revenues from medical monitoring devices, mHealth connectivity solutions, care delivery software platforms and monitoring services. RPM revenues are expected to grow at a CAGR of 35.0 percent between 2013 and 2018, reaching € 19.4 billion at the end of the forecast period.
The findings are discussed in the report “mHealth and Home Monitoring” (PDF brochure).
Savings attributable to payers and care providers will by far exceed this amount as connected care solutions can allow better health outcomes to be achieved more cost efficiently. The new care models enabled by these technologies are furthermore often consistent with patients’ preferences of living more healthy, active and independent lives.
While the healthcare industry is advancing towards an age where connected care solutions will be part of standard practices, this progress is still far from uniform. “The growth in the remote patient monitoring market is today centred on very specific market verticals and regions. Most of the market growth in the sleep therapy segment has for instance occurred in the US and France, where frequent compliance audits are becoming more common,” said Lars Kurkinen, Senior Analyst, Berg Insight.
He added that the telehealth market benefits from local and regional project financing in several European countries, whereas remotely monitored medication dispensers gain traction among home care providers in the Benelux and Nordic countries in particular.
In addition to this, the first pharmaceutical companies have recently initiated rollouts of connected adherence monitoring solutions that are bundled together with specific drugs. “Another high-level development that will have a major impact on the use of connected care solutions in several countries during the coming years is the shift from fee-for-service reimbursement systems to pay-for-performance structures that emphasize cost-effective delivery of quality care,” said Mr Kurkinen. In the U.S., one example of this development is the large number of RFPs for telehealth solutions that are being issued due to the hospital readmission reduction programs.
Also, registration is now open for the 54th Meeting of the Civil GPS Service Interface Committee (CGSIC), to be held September 8-9, 2014, at the Tampa Convention Center in Tampa, Florida, in conjunction with the Institute of Navigation’s Global Navigation Satellite System conference (ION GNSS 2014).
All CGSIC meetings are free and open at no charge to the public, but attendees pay their own travel, hotel and meal expenses. At the ION link, select “Register Online.” Once you create an ION account, necessary to gather information for badging, choose “I am Registering Myself.” Choose “Registration Type” from the blue banner across the top and then scroll down to the bottom of the next page to “View Other Options.” At the bottom of the next page you will find “Select” for “CGSIC Only” and then complete the registration. If you are registering and paying to attend the ION Conference, CGSIC registration will be included and nothing else is required.
The meeting will contain important updates from GPS program officials and give attendees an opportunity to learn about the broad array of GPS-based applications that are available, according to Rick Hamilton, CGSIC Executive Secretariat.
The draft agenda can be seen on the GPS.gov website. If you have any new suggestions for the agenda, would like to present a topic, or if you found certain information in past meetings useful and would like to hear more, contact the Navigation Center. Please be sure to select “Civil GPS Service Interface Committee (CGSIC)” from the pull-down menu. Or, send comments directly to the Executive Secretariat by e-mail at [email protected].
Dr. Bruce Aylward from the World Health Organization (WHO) and Dr. Vincent Seaman from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will share their stories with an audience of more than 16,000 attendees at the Opening Session of the 2014 Esri User Conference (Esri UC) on July 14. As experts in the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, they will describe the challenges and opportunities involved in bringing fundamental healthcare to impoverished regions. They’ll also talk about the importance maps have in pinpointing where help is needed most around the world.
“Polio, a terrible disease, is almost completely eradicated, but ‘almost’ isn’t good enough with a disease slated for complete eradication,” said Aylward.
Most of the world hardly remembers polio, which has been reduced by over 99 percent in the past generation by vaccination. However, the disease survives in parts of just a few countries, and has repeatedly spread back from these places to polio-free areas worldwide. The urgency of preventing such spread and protecting the polio-free world led the WHO Director-General to declare a public health emergency of international concern on May 5, 2014.
“The polio eradication program is an international effort to reach the most vulnerable people in the world, irrespective of geography, poverty, culture, and conflict,” said Aylward.
The Esri UC, to be held July 14–18, will bring together thousands of people from more than 90 countries, all unified by their use of Esri’s geographic information system (GIS) technology. Of particular interest to Esri UC attendees will be the use of GIS in the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. Aylward will explain how the people working at WHO identify where there are new outbreaks in the world, how the disease spreads, and where it has been eradicated. Seaman will share how the polio program uses GIS-based maps and analyses in high-risk areas to plan vaccination campaigns targeting every child under the age of five and to provide better tools to assess the effectiveness of these efforts.
“At the Esri UC Plenary Session, we like to feature innovative people doing important work around the world,” said Esri president Jack Dangermond. “Dr. Aylward and Dr. Seaman certainly qualify. We are honored to welcome them and excited that GIS can help fulfill the mission of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative as the teams of humanitarians use maps to understand and solve problems.”
