Optimization Technique for Pseudorange Multipath Mitigation Using Different Signal Selection Methods

• Published in: Artificial satellites Vol. 55; no. 2; pp. 77 - 86
• Main Authors: Uaratanawong, Valanon, Satirapod, Chalermchon, Tsujii, Toshiaki
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Warsaw Sciendo 01.06.2020; De Gruyter Poland
• Subjects: Accuracy; Autonomous navigation; Global navigation satellite system; Methods; Optimization; Optimization techniques; Pseudorange Multipath; Satellite Selection Method; Signal monitoring; Signal quality; Signal to noise ratio; SPP; Static tests; Tracking systems; Urban areas
• ISSN: 2083-6104; 1509-3859; 2083-6104
• DOI: 10.2478/arsa-2020-0006

Nowadays, the use of multi-Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) has improved positioning accuracy in autonomous driving, navigation and tracking systems utilized by general users. However, signal quality in urban areas is degraded by poor satellite geometry and severe multipath errors, which may disturb up to a hundred-meter-ranging error as a consequence. In this study, the performance of several satellite selection methods in multipath mitigation was evaluated, based on the concept that better quality signals and more accurate solutions will be obtained, the more multipath signals can be excluded. Three methods were performed and compared: 1) azimuth-dependent elevation mask based on fisheye image technique, 2) receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM), and 3) signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) mask in the SPP method. To examine the effect of the satellite selection methods on multipath error, the static test (single-point positioning (SPP) in real-time 1 Hz test) was performed in a multipath environment. The preliminary results showed a possible impact on improving the horizontal positioning accuracy of SPP. Among the three techniques assessed in this study, the results indicated that the SNR mask set at 36 dB-Hz in every elevation showed the most promising result. The SNR mask method could improve positioning accuracy by up to 46.80% compared to the SPP method.