Analysis and Mitigation of Crosstalk Effect on Coastal GNSS-R Code-Level Altimetry Using L5 Signals from QZSS GEO

Coastal Global Navigation Satellite System Reflectometry (GNSS-R) can be used as a valuable supplement for conventional tide gauges, which can be applied for marine environment monitoring and disaster warning. Incidentally, an important problem in dual-antenna GNSS-R altimetry is the crosstalk effect, which means that the direct signal leaks into the down-looking antenna dedicated to the reflected signals. When the path delay between the direct and reflected signals is less than one chip length, the delay waveform of the reflected signal is distorted, and the code-level altimetry precision decreases consequently. To solve this problem, the author deduced the influence of signal crosstalk on the reflected signal structure as the same as the multipath effect. Then, a simulation and a coastal experiment are performed to analyze the crosstalk effect on code delay measurements. The L5 signal transmitted by the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) from a geosynchronous equatorial orbit (GEO) satellite is used to avoid the signal power variations with the elevation, so that high-precision GNSS-R code altimetry measurements are achieved in the experiment. Theoretically and experimentally, we found there exists a bias in proportion to the power of the crosstalk signals and a high-frequency term related to the phase delay between the direct and reflected signals. After weakening the crosstalk by correcting the delay waveform, the results show that the RMSE between 23-h sea level height (SSH) measurements and the in-situ observations is about 9.5 cm.

Estimating the Fractional Cycle Biases for GPS Triple-Frequency Precise Point Positioning with Ambiguity Resolution Based on IGS Ultra-Rapid Predicted Orbits

We investigate the estimation of the fractional cycle biases (FCBs) for GPS triple-frequency uncombined precise point positioning (PPP) with ambiguity resolution (AR) based on the IGS ultra-rapid predicted (IGU) orbits. The impact of the IGU orbit errors on the performance of GPS triple-frequency PPP AR is also assessed. The extra-wide-lane (EWL), wide-lane (WL) and narrow-lane (NL) FCBs are generated with the single difference (SD) between satellites model using the global reference stations based on the IGU orbits. For comparison purposes, the EWL, WL and NL FCBs based on the IGS final precise (IGF) orbits are estimated. Each of the EWL, WL and NL FCBs based on IGF and IGU orbits are converted to the uncombined FCBs to implement the static and kinematic triple-frequency PPP AR. Due to the short wavelengths of NL ambiguities, the IGU orbit errors significantly impact the precision and stability of NL FCBs. An average STD of 0.033 cycles is achieved for the NL FCBs based on IGF orbits, while the value of the NL FCBs based on IGU orbits is 0.133 cycles. In contrast, the EWL and WL FCBs generated based on IGU orbits have comparable precision and stability to those generated based on IGF orbits. The use of IGU orbits results in an increased time-to-first-fix (TTFF) and lower fixing rates compared to the use of IGF orbits. Average TTFFs of 23.3 min (static) and 31.1 min (kinematic) and fixing rates of 98.1% (static) and 97.4% (kinematic) are achieved for the triple-frequency PPP AR based on IGF orbits. The average TTFFs increase to 27.0 min (static) and 37.9 min (kinematic) with fixing rates of 97.0% (static) and 96.3% (kinematic) based on the IGU orbits. The convergence times and positioning accuracy of PPP and PPP AR based on IGU orbits are slightly worse than those based on IGF orbits. Additionally, limited by the number of satellites transmitting three frequency signals, the introduction of the third frequency, L5, has a marginal impact on the performance of PPP and PPP AR. The GPS triple-frequency PPP AR performance is expected to improve with the deployment of new-generation satellites capable of transmitting the L5 signal.

Galileo E5 Signal Acquisition using Intermediate Coherent Integration Time

The acquisition of modern Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals may be difficult due to the presence of a secondary code. Indeed, short coherent integration times should be used without non-coherent integration, which implies a low sensitivity; or long coherent integration times should be used, requiring synchronisation with the secondary code and thus a full correlation, which implies a significant computational burden, especially for signals with long secondary codes such as the Galileo E5 signal. A third option that lies between the previous two is to perform a partial correlation using less than one secondary code period as input, however this is less efficient in terms of complexity than using an entire secondary code period, and the code's autocorrelation properties are completely changed. The authors recently proposed a method based on combining secondary code correlations, allowing the use of intermediate coherent integration times with the possibility to do non-coherent integrations, and the method was successfully applied to the Global Positioning System (GPS) L5 signal. This paper studies the application of the method to the Galileo E5 signal, compares it with the partial correlation method, and discusses the case where less than one secondary code period is used as an input

Comparison of L1 and L5 Bands GNSS Signals Acquisition

Nowadays, civil Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals are available in both L1 and L5 bands. A receiver does not need to acquire independently the signals in both bands coming from a same satellite, since their carrier Doppler and code delay are closely related. Therefore, the question of which one to acquire first rises naturally. Although the common thought would tell the L1 band signals which are narrowband, an accurate comparison has never been done, and the decision is not as easy as it seems. Indeed, L5 band signals have several advantages such as stronger power, lower carrier Doppler, or a pilot channel, unlike the Global Positioning System (GPS) L1 C/A signal. The goal of this paper is therefore to compare the acquisition of L1 and L5 bands signals (GPS L1 C/A and L5, Galileo E1 and E5a/b) to determine which one is more complex and by which factor, in terms of processing time and memory, considering hardware receivers and the parallel code search. The results show that overall the L5 band signals are more complex to acquire, but it depends strongly on the conditions. The E5 signal is always more complex to acquire than E1, while the L5 signal can have a complexity close to the L1 C/A in some cases. Moreover, precise assistance providing accurate Doppler could significantly reduce the L5 complexity below the L1 complexity.