|
|
Acquisition sensitivity limits
of new civil GNSS signals SEPPO TURUNEN |
|
The importance of sensitivity for consumer GNSS receivers is discussed in view
of location based services and emergency call positioning |
|
Location based services (LBS)
are a rapidly growing field of
wireless data services that can
be accessed through a mobile
phone equipped with a GNSS receiver.
Some of the services are intended for
outdoor use while others are suited
for use in urban and indoor areas. It is
therefore likely that subscribers will
expect these services to be available
throughout the coverage area of the
mobile telephone network. Regulators,
who are mainly interested in the
positioning of emergency calls, have
likewise established requirements
for mobile phones that have a builtin
GNSS receiver. According to the
requirements, the GNSS receiver
must successfully acquire and track
satellite signals under measurement
scenarios that simulate heavy signal
attenuation. Since the processing load
for signal acquisition has a strong
inverse dependency on signal power,
acquisition is rapidly becoming the
most demanding task computationally
of modern consumer GNSS receivers.
The challenge of signal acquisition
does not depend only on the received
signal power but also on the availability
of reference time, reference frequency,
satellite ephemeris information, and
an initial location estimate. When
available, they allow the receiver
to calculate estimates for Doppler
shifts and, if sufficiently accurate, for
code phases. The estimates allow the
receiver to reduce search ambiguity
and the time and effort needed for
acquisition. The reference time
and reference frequency could, in
principle, be obtained from a good
crystal oscillator. However, the crystal
oscillator of a consumer grade receiver
is often prone to temperature drift and other instabilities. GNSS receivers
that are integrated into a mobile
phone have a high-quality frequency
reference available from the cellular
network. If the so-called assisted
GNSS (A-GNSS) functionality is
enabled, the receiver can also obtain
time, location and satellite ephemeris
information from the network. The
required transactions are specified in
all mobile telephone standards but the
functionality has not, unfortunately,
been implemented in all networks. The
accuracy and content of the information
is also dependent on the network. |
| Trends in receiver architecture |
To successfully search and detect a
GNSS satellite signal in an area of
heavy fading it is often necessary to
use an integration time of one second
or more. This is true in particular
when oscillator instability, signal
modulation or receiver movement
limits coherent integration time. Under
such circumstances, a serial search
would proceed extremely slowly except
when accurate prior information about
the code phases and
Doppler frequencies
is available. Modern
consumer GNSS
receivers are therefore
more and more often
equipped with a means
of efficient parallel
acquisition. A typical
acquisition processor
consists of a bank of
time-domain matched
filters for code phase
searching and a digital
Fourier transformer for
frequency searching.
A recent trend is to use softwarebased
acquisition and to perform the
matched filtering in the frequency
domain, which is computationally
efficient. This kind of software
acquisition is typically carried out
off-line and the required transforms
between the time and frequency
domain are performed with FFT.
The processing of a delay-frequency
bin for satellite acquisition is
conceptually shown in Fig. 1. A
stream of complex-valued baseband
samples from the receiver RF
section is multiplied with a locally
generated replica signal to eliminate – or wipe off – the Doppler frequency
and ranging code, leaving a complexvalued
DC signal. The DC signal is
then integrated coherently, squared,
and added to a memory location
dedicated to the specific combination
of Doppler frequency and code delay.
This sequence of operations, which
constitutes one non-coherent processing
step, is performed for each delayfrequency
bin in parallel and repeated
one or several times. Finally, a decision
strategy is applied to the contents of the memory and a conclusion made about
the existence of a satellite signal in one
of the bins. If there is a known data
modulation on the signal, it can also be
wiped off. The wipe-off operations are
linear so that their order of execution
can be freely changed without effecting
the end result, which is useful when
optimising the HW implementation.
Practical considerations, such as the
availability of special signal processing
elements, have resulted in widely
different implementation architectures.
|
 |
Numerous studies have been published
about sequential acquisition strategies
where the same hardware is allocated
on different search bins at different
times. An element frequently
present in sequential strategies is
multiple dwelling, where some bins
are processed repeatedly to verify
the acquisition results. Sequential
strategies implicitly assume that
acquisition performance is limited by
the processing capacity. However, the
rapid evolution of digital hardware
is making the assumption less
relevant. In fact, commercial receivers
already contain real-time acquisition
processors that can handle tens of
thousands of delay-frequency bins in
parallel, and SW receivers operating
off-line with sample streams stored
in memory do not even have strict
hardware limitations. It is therefore
interesting to know how acquisition
performance is bounded when
processing restrictions are removed
and only physical limitations apply. It
turns out that acquisition sensitivity
then becomes heavily dependent on the
length of the ranging code and on the
availability of assistance information,
a fact that has not been fully
appreciated in the GNSS literature. |
| New civil GNSS signals and
their acquisition strategies |
The short C/A code was dedicated
for acquisition and the longer P(Y)
code for tracking in the original GPS
specification. There is no similar
division in the newer L1C [IS-GPS-
800], L2C [Fontana] and L5 [ISGPS-
705] civil signal specifications or in the Galileo OS [GJU] signal
specification. Instead, all component
signals have fairly long ranging codes
and some of them also have high bit
rates. These characteristics are likely
to make acquisition difficult due to the
resulting expansion of the search space
and reduction of bit energy. The new
specifications also include pilot signals
that take up a significant fraction of the
transmitted power. While it is thinkable
that the unmodulated pilots are useful
for tracking, it is questionable whether
they can be used in acquisition due to
their extremely long cycle lengths.
Table 1. shows the code lengths and
other parameters of some present and
future civil GNSS signals. The shortest
ranging code belongs to the GPS
L1 C/A signal and the longest to the
GPS L2C pilot signal, the difference
being approximately three orders of
magnitude. Both codes are shift-register
generated sequences that do not have
a discernible substructure. As another
example, the proposed Galileo L1 OS
pilot signal has a concatenated ranging
code consisting of a primary code
with 4092 elements and a secondary
code with 25 elements. Its cycle length
is the product of the lengths of the
component codes, i.e. 102300 elements.
The size of the acquisition search
space is the product of four factors: the
code length of the ranging code, the
number of frequency search bands, the
time domain over-sampling ratio, and
the frequency domain over-sampling
ratio. The number of frequency search
bands is proportional to the coherent
integration time since the latter is
inversely related to the receiver
bandwidth. In order to avoid code self-noise, the coherent integration
time should normally be an integer
multiple of code cycles. In the case of
the GPS L2C pilot signal, this means
that the shortest possible coherent
integration time is 1.5 seconds. The
coherent integration time for the
GPS C/A signal is limited by data
modulation to about 20 ms. It follows
that the number of frequency search
bands needed for the GPS L2C pilot
signal is about 100 times larger than
that needed for the GPS C/A signal,
and further, that the size of the search
space for the GPS L2C pilot signal
exceeds that for the GPS L1 C/A
signal by five orders of magnitude. |
 |
| Next... 1 of 3 >>> |
| |
|
|
|