Oceanic Navigation using advanced GPS
A Haider azaidi2@buffalo.edu
A Haider . Scientist State University of New York
ABSTRACT
Reliable and accurate positions are required for general
marine navigation and specialized applications such as
buoy tending. The GPS signals are often masked by
obstructions, which results in degraded geometry and
accuracy at best, and unavailable or unreliable positions at
worst. Once Galileo is implemented by the European
Union, the use of a combined GPS + Galileo receiver will
result in an increase of twice the number of satellites
available above the horizon. The availability and
reliability improvements attained, by augmenting GPS
with Galileo and constraints under isotropic masking
conditions and within a constricted waterway / urban
canyon is illustrated through software simulations. These
results clearly demonstrate the advantage of augmenting
GPS with Galileo for marine navigation, especially under
moderate to extreme masking conditions.
INTRODUCTION
Since the advent of the Global Positioning System (GPS),
marine users have migrated from radiobeacon direction
finding, LORAN-C and Transit as their primary electronic
navigational aids to GPS. This trend was accelerated
when differential GPS (DGPS) services became available,
which improved the positioning accuracy several orders
of magnitude from 100 m (2DRMS with Selective
Availability [SA] On) to several meters (2DRMS). With
the deactivation of SA on May 1, 2000 (Office, 2000),
even more mariners will migrate to GPS and DGPS.
721
However, as the mariner expects and relies more and
more on DGPS, ensuring the reliability of the position
solution becomes paramount. Many previous analysis
(Ryan et al., 1998, Ryan and Lachapelle, 1999, Ryan et
al., 1999a, and Ryan et al., 1999b.) have shown that while
DGPS positions may be available under moderate to
extreme masking conditions, they are often unreliable (the
position may be corrupted by an undetected blunder in the
observations). In order to make the resulting position both
available and reliable, DGPS must be augmented with a
combination of constraints and other satellite navigation
systems.
The previous analysis mentioned above used the Russian
Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) as the
primary additional satellite constellation. While
augmenting DGPS with differential GLONASS did
improve the availability and reliability of the navigation
solution, the reduced number of healthy GLONASS
satellites (24 in 1996 to eight in 2000) reduced the
effectiveness of the augmentation.
In this paper instead of dealing with the currently
available augmentations for DGPS, the European Union’s
future satellite based navigation system (Galileo) will be
examined. While Galileo is still in the planning stage and
many technical details must still be ironed out, the system
will:
1) provide world wide coverage
2) employ multiple L-band frequencies
3) provide an open access service (OAS), as well as
controlled access services (CAS)
4) transmit real time integrity data for the CAS
The European Union will decide in December 2000
whether to implement Galileo, assuming that the decision
is “yes”, Galileo will be operational by 2008. Thus by
2008 the world will have two operational global
navigation satellite systems (GNSS), the modernized GPS
system and Galileo. What will be the availability and
reliability improvements attained by augmenting the
modernized GPS system with Galileo? The answer to this
question is the focus of this paper. Since Galileo is still in
the planning stages, the availability and reliability
improvements will be estimated through software 24 MEO + 9 GEO 30 MEO
simulations. Before the results are presented, the Galileo 180
24
180
30
constellations used for the analysis are described, 150 1 150 1
16 20
followed by a brief discussion of reliability theory. Since 23 29
Galileo will be a world wide system, the simulations are
120
8
120 10
19
conducted for users all over the globe, under benign and 90 15 90 28
22 9
18

Augument of Latitude
extreme masking conditions. 60 7 60 27
14 8
GALILEO CONSTELLATIONS 30 21 30 17
6 26
The Galileo system will consist of a constellation of either 13 7
0
20
0 16
medium earth orbiting (MEO) satellites or a combination 25
-3 0 5 -3 0 6
of MEOs and geostationary (GEO) satellites. Both of 12 15
19 24
these constellations are considered baseline -6 0 -6 0 5
4 14
configurations for Galileo (Lucas and Ludwig, 1999, and -9 0 11 -9 0 23
Wolfrum et al., 1999). Within each baseline configuration 18 4
3 13
there are various altitude, orbital plane, and satellite -1 2 0
10
-1 2 0 22
3
spacing possibilities. The following four potential Galileo -1 5 0 17 -1 5 0 12
2 21
constellations were discussed in Lucas and Ludwig 9 2
-1 8 0 -1 8 0 11
(1999) and Wolfrum et al. (1999): -1 8 0 -9 0 0 90 180 -1 8 0 -9 0 0 90 180

1) 24 MEOs in three orbital planes, with an altitude Longitude of the Assending Node
of 24,000 km, inclination of 55º, augmented with Figure 1 Galileo Constellations
three GEOs
2) Same as (1), but at an altitude of 19,500 km o
90 N
3) Same as (1), but at an altitude of 24,126 km,
with nine GEOs for world wide coverage using a
Walker 24/3/2 constellation. o
60 N
4) 30 MEOs in three planes, with an altitude of o
30 N
Latitude

24,000 km
o
Taking these different constellation configurations into 0
o
account, the two constellations given in Table 1 were 30 S
chosen for the simulations. o
60 S
Table 1 Galileo Satellite Constellations
o
# MEOs Altitude i Walker GEOs 90 S o o o o o o o
180 W 120 W 60 W 0 60 E 120 E 180 W
1 24 24,126 km 55º 24/3/2 9 Longitude

2 30 24,126 km 55º 30/3/2 0

Figure 1 shows the locations of the MEO satellites within
their orbital planes for the two Galileo constellations. For
more information on the Walker constellation definitions
see Walker (1978) and Spilker (1994).
Galileo #1 contains nine geostationary satellites equally
spaced around the globe at the following longitudes
-160° E, -120° E, -80° E, -40° E, 0° E, 40° E, 80° E,
120° E, 160° E. Geostationary satellites provide excellent
visibility at low latitudes, however, as the user’s latitude
increases, the elevation angle steadily decreases. Figure 2
shows the elevation angles for a geostationary satellite at
0° longitude using color contours drawn in 5° increments.
At mid to high latitudes the geostationary satellite can be
easily blocked by obstructions.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elevation Angle
Figure 2 Geostationary Satellite Elevation Angle
Figure 3 plots the number of visible geostationary
satellites using Galileo #1, assuming an isotropic mask
angle of 30°. The locations for the nine geostationary
satellites are displayed as red squares on the equator. At
least two satellites are visible within ±45° latitude.
However, at higher latitudes the number of visible
satellites quickly drops to one and then zero. This figure
illustrates the main drawback of geostationary satellite
augmentations, the poor visibility at high latitudes. Thus
Galileo #2 which does not contain any geostationary
satellites should outperform Galileo #1 at high latitudes
under moderate to extreme masking conditions.

722
 90 N
o 1) A Type I error occurs whenever a good
observation is rejected. The probability
associated with a Type I error is denoted α.
o
60 N 2) A Type II error occurs whenever a bad
o observation is accepted. The probability
30 N
Latitude

associated with a Type II error is denoted β.

o
0
o By selecting values for α and β the bias in the
30 S standardized residual called the non centrality parameter
60 S
o δo can be calculated, [Leick, 1995]. Once the reliability
parameters have been specified, the smallest blunder that
can be detected through statistical testing of residual “i” is
o
90 S o o o o o o o computed by substituting equation (1) into (2) and letting
180 W 120 W 60 W 0 60 E 120 E 180 W
Longitude n α = δ0 :
1−
2

0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of Visible GEOs
Figure 3 Number of Visible Geostationary Satellites
with a 30°° Isotropic Mask Angle
RELIABILITY THEORY
Reliability refers to the ability to detect blunders in the
measurements and to estimate the effects of undetected
blunders on the navigation solution. Reliability can be
sub-divided into internal and external reliability. Internal
reliability quantifies the smallest blunder that can be
detected in each observation through statistical testing of
the least squares residuals. Once the internal reliability
has been determined, external reliability quantifies the
impact that an undetected blunder can have on the
navigation solution.
In order to detect a blunder using an epoch by epoch least
squares approach, a statistical test must be performed on
the residuals. Hence, redundancy must exist in order to
detect the blunder. An unknown blunder vector, ∇, will
bias the least squares residuals r̂ according to:
r̂ = −C r̂ ∗ C l−1 ∗∇ = −R ∗ ∇ (1)
where C r̂ is the covariance matrix of the residuals
C l is the covariance matrix of the observations
R = C r̂ C l−1 and is the redundancy matrix
Assuming that one blunder can occur at a time, the
blunder vector ∇ contains only one non-zero element.
Using local residual checking, each standardized residual
is tested according to:
r̂i
≥n α (2)
C r̂ ii 1−
2 assumed that the residual testing was performed epoch by
The underlying assumption is that the residuals are
normally distributed, and that a blunder, while biasing the
residual, does not change its variance. Two types of errors
can be made whenever a statistical test is performed.
δ o ∗ C r̂ii δ o ∗ C lii
∇i = = (3)
R ii C r̂ii
This is called the Marginally Detectable Blunder (MDB).
Each observation has a different MDB since each
residual’s covariance matrix ( C r̂ii ) is different. Once all
of the MDBs have been calculated, the impact of each
MDB on the parameters is assessed separately using:
δˆ = − N −1 ∗ A T ∗ C l−1 ∗ ∇ o (4)
where A is the design matrix
N = A T ∗ C -l1 ∗ A is the normal matrix
∇o is a column vector containing all zero’s
except for the MDB in the ith position.
The horizontal position error (HPE) corresponding to
each MDB is calculated using δ̂ from equation (4). The
largest HPE from all of the MDBs represents the external
reliability for that epoch.
For a more detailed treatment of reliability theory see
Vaníček and Krakiwsky (1986), Leick (1995), and Koch
(1999).
SOFTWARE SIMULATION
The reliability and precision improvements obtained by
augmenting DGPS with the two Galileo constellations as
well as with a height and a clock constraint were
evaluated under isotropic masking conditions and in a
constricted waterway / urban canyon.
The simulations were conducted over 24 hours in 60
second increments, using the GPS almanac from June 6,
2000. The following reliability parameters were used: α =
0.1%, β = 10%, and δo = 4.57, the reliability algorithm
epoch using no apriori knowledge of the trajectory. DGPS
(28 satellites available) was augmented with the two
Galileo constellations, a height constraint and a clock
constraint. Taking all of these combinations into account,

723
the following three different satellite constellation The shape of the constricted waterway defines the shape
combinations were simulated: of the resulting masking profile, however, the scale of the
masking profile must still be specified. Figure 6 shows the
1) DGPS
masking profile for the North / South orientation.
2) DGPS + Galileo #1 (MEO + GEO)
3) DGPS + Galileo #2 (MEO)
N
For each satellite constellation combination, the following
four types of constraints were employed:
1) No Constraints – “N”
2) Height Constraint – “H”
3) Clock Constraint – “C” C h a n n el R o tate d
4) Both Height and Clock Constraints – “B” 1 8 0 o in 3 0 o S tep s
Each of these 12 positioning methods were simulated over
24 hours at each of the computation points shown in E
Figure 4. 118 computation points were used to represent
the world.

90oN

60oN
30oN Figure 5 Constricted Channels / Waterways
L atitu d e

0o
30oS
90
60oS 80
70
M a sk A n g le (D e g)

M ax 5 6.3
90oS o 60
180 W 120oW 60oW 0o 60oE 120oE 180oW
L o n g itud e 50
40
Figure 4 Computation Points
30
A measurement variance of 1 m2 was assumed for all
satellite observations (GPS and Galileo). This can be 20
achieved in two ways: 10
1) differential GPS and differential Galileo 0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
2) single point positioning using dual frequency A z im u th (D e g )
civilian signals with accurate broadcast orbits
and clocks, which may be possible with the Figure 6 Mask Angle Profile
modernized GPS system and Galileo
The maximum mask angle was set to 56.3º. While this is a
Variances of 4 m2 and 1 m2 were used for the height and very realistic simulation for down town urban canyons,
clock constraints respectively. The height constraint general marine navigation in most constricted waterways
variance allows for tidal variations, swells, and waves. will experience much lower masking angles. However,
The clock constraint assumes that a good quality ovenized hydrographic surveys conducted near cliff walls will
quartz oscillator is being used. sometimes encounter these extreme masking conditions.
Thus these simulations are applicable to both marine and
The isotropic mask angle simulations were performed for
land applications.
the following five mask angles 0º, 10º, 20º, 30º, and 40º.
Isotropic Mask Angles Simulations
The constricted waterway / urban canyon simulations
were performed using the channel shown in Figure 5 If all of the isotropic mask angle simulation data were to
oriented in a North / South direction. This channel was be presented, a six dimensional figure would be required
then rotated 180o in 30o increments to simulate various (computation point latitude, computation point longitude,
channel orientations. A total of six different constricted positioning method, isotropic mask angle, time, and
waterways / urban canyons were simulated and analyzed.

724
HDOP / HPE). Instead of presenting any time series, the
95th percentile HDOP / HPE were calculated for:
1) each computation point
2) all 118 computation points batched together to
generate world values
In addition to calculating the 95th percentile values, the
percentage of time that the HDOP ≤ 2 and the
HPE ≤ 10 m were also calculated for the two cases listed
above. These limits were chosen since for many marine
navigation applications the position is only considered
available if the HDOP ≤ 2, and the required positional
accuracy is usually 10 m. The percentage of available /
reliable positions quoted in the following sections are in
the context of these values.
Availability Results
A summary of the isotropic mask angle availability results
for the world are given in Figure 7 and Figure 8. The
results are presented in graphical form with the 12
positioning methods on the x-axis grouped according to
the satellite constellations employed. Within each group
are the four constraints. Figure 7 plots the overall world
satellite navigation system is required to meet the
availability requirements. This is not the case however for
the two higher mask angles.
For the 30º mask case, DGPS + both constraints has a
95% HDOP of 4.8 with a corresponding availability of
71%. DGPS and constraints do not provide available
navigation, Galileo is required. Once DGPS is augmented
with either Galileo constellation the 95% HDOP
decreases to ≤ 1.8 and the availability increases to ≥ 97%.
Adding both constraints increases the availability to
≥ 99%. At the highest isotropic mask case of 40º, the 95%
HDOP is > 10 with an availability is < 21% for DGPS +
both constraints. Augmenting with Galileo and both
constraints reduces the 95% HDOP to < 3.5 and increases
the availability to 80%. Thus Galileo greatly improves the
availability under the worst case masking conditions.
100
90
80

P e rc en ta g e o f H D O P s < 2
95% HDOP, while Figure 8 plots the overall world
70
percentage of HDOPs ≤ 2.
60
10 50
9 40
0 0
8 10 30 10
20 20
7 30 20 30
40 40
6 10
HD OP

5 0
N H C B N H C B N H C B
4 D G PS+ M EO+GEO M EO
3 Figure 8 Percentage of HDOPs ≤ 2, for the World
2 Isotropic Mask

1 When the results for both Galileo constellations are

0 world performance. Galileo #2 (MEO only) produces
N H C B N H C B N H C B
D G PS + MEO+GEO MEO
Figure 7 95% HDOP, for the World, Isotropic Mask
These results show that unaugmented DGPS provides
available navigation for the benign masking conditions of
0º and 10º with 95% HDOPs of 1.0 and 1.4 respectively.
Even for the 20º mask case, the 95% HDOP is 2.8 with an
availability of 87% (percentage of HDOP ≤ 2).
Augmenting DGPS with either a height or clock
constraint improves the 95% HDOP to 2.0 and 1.9
respectively. Thus for the 20º mask case no additional
compared, there is very little difference in the overall
slightly better availability performance over Galileo #1
(MEO + GEO), however, both greatly improved the
navigation availability under the extreme masking
conditions.
The summary results provide a world view of the
availability performance, but mask any regional
differences. The regional differences first become
apparent for the 30º mask case using DGPS + height.
Figure 9 is a contour graph of the 95% HDOP using the
individual computation point values. The overall 95%
HDOP is 5.7 with a 65% availability. However, there are
large variations in the 95% HDOP with locations ranging

725
from a low of 1.6 to a high of > 10. Unavailability bands The following statistics were generated for the 95%
are found in the 30º-75º latitudes. Although on the world HDOP values for the 118 computation points (30º mask
scale DGPS + height for the 30º mask case does not case) for each positioning method:
provide available navigation, some locations still have
1) minimum value (0%)
acceptable availabilities.
2) median value (50%)
3) 95% value (95%)
90oN 4) maximum value (100%)
Figure 11 shows the results of this analysis, the maximum
o
60 N and minimum values are the red lines with red triangle
markers. The median value is the dark green line with
30oN
Latitude

dark green “o” markers. The 95% value is the light green
0o shaded area. When DGPS is only augmented with
30oS
constraints, there are large variations between the
minimum and maximum values. Even when Galileo #1 is
60oS added, there are still variations (1.1 to 3.7). Galileo #2
tends to moderate the results reducing the maximum
values while slightly increasing the median values over
90oS o
180 W 120oW 60oW 0o 60o E 120o E 180oW Galileo #1.
Longitude
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 9
95% HDOP
8
Figure 9 HDOP 95%, DGPS + Height
30°° Mask Angle 7
Unfortunately the converse is also true, methods with 6
good world availabilities will have availability holes. For
HDOP

example the overall world performance for DGPS + 5

Galileo #1 (30º mask case) is extremely good with a 95%
HDOP of 1.7 and 97.2% availability. However, as shown 4
in Figure 10 the minimum and maximum 95% HDOP 3
over the world are 1.1 and 3.7 respectively. These
availability holes are again found around ±60º latitude. 2 M ax
These variations are not as problematic as in Figure 9, M ed ia n
1 M in
however there are variations based on the user’s locations.
0
o
N H C B N H C B N H C B
90 N D G P S+ MEO+GEO MEO
o
60 N Figure 11 Statistics for Computation Points’
o 95% HDOP, 30°° Mask Angle
30 N
Latitude

o
0 Reliability Results
o
30 S The reliability results will be presented in a similar
o
60 S manner to the availability results. A summary of the
isotropic mask angle reliability results for the world are
o given in Figure 12 and Figure 13, for the 95% HPE and
90 S o
the percentage of HPEs ≤ 10 respectively. DGPS with
o o o o o o
180 W 120 W 60 W 0 60 E 120 E 180 W
Longitude
constraints showed available positioning for the 0º, 10º,
and 20º masking cases. However, reliable navigation is
0 2 4 6 8 10 only possible for the 0º and 10º masking cases. For the
95% HD OP 20º mask case, unaugmented DGPS has a 95% HPE of
> 100 m with a corresponding reliability of 54%
Figure 10 HDOP 95%, DGPS + Galileo #1, (percentage of HPE ≤ 10 m). Augmenting DGPS with
30°° Mask Angle both constraints improves the 95% HPE to 21.1 m and

726
increases the reliability to 85%. This still does not meet
the desired reliability of ≥ 95%. However, augmenting
DGPS with either Galileo constellation decreases the 95%
HPE to 4.1 m and increases the reliability to 100%.
At the higher masking angles of 30º and 40º, DGPS with
both constraints have 95% HPE > 100 m, with reliabilities
of 38% and 5% respectively. This is well below the
desired reliability level of ≥ 95%. For the 30º mask case
augmenting DGPS with either Galileo constellation and
one constraint produces 95% HPE < 8 m and reliabilities
> 97%. In this case reliable navigation is achieved.
100
90
80
70
60
H P E (m )
Even the most augmented case for the 40º mask case has a
maximum reliability of 70%. While this is a dramatic
improvement over the DGPS and constraints value of 5%,
it falls short of the 95% reliability goal.
Overall the two Galileo constellations perform almost
identically for all of the mask cases. Only at the 40º mask
case is there a noticeable difference in the 95% HPE
(Figure 12) performance, with Galileo #2 outperforming
Galileo #1. However the reliability results (Figure 13) are
again almost identical. This indicates that Galileo #1 has
larger outliers than Galileo #2.
The regional differences first become apparent for the 20º
mask case using DGPS + height. Figure 14 is a contour
0 graph of the 95% HPE using the individual computation
10 point values. The overall 95% HPE is 30.9 m with a 79%
20
reliability. However, there are large variations in the 95%
30
HPE with locations ranging from a low of 5.9 m to a high
40
of > 100 m. Regions of poor reliability are found at ±60º
latitudes. Although on the world scale DGPS + height for

the 20º mask case does not provide reliable navigation,

50 some locations still have acceptable reliabilities.
40 o
90 N
30
o
20 60 N
o
30 N
Latitude

10
o
0
0 o
N H C B N H C B N H C B 30 S
D G PS+ MEO+GEO MEO
o
60 S
Figure 12 95% HPE, for the World, Isotropic Mask
o
90 S o o o o o o o
100 180 W 120 W 60 W 0 60 E 120 E 180 W
Longitude
90
P e rc en ta g e o fH P E s < 1 0 m

80
0 20 40 60 80 100
70 95% HPE (m)

60 Figure 14 HPE 95%, DGPS + Height

20°° Mask Angle
50
The results from analyzing the 95% HPE values for the
40 118 computation points (20º mask case) for each
positioning method is shown in Figure 15. The maximum
30 0 and minimum values are the red lines with red triangle
20 10 markers. The median value is the dark green line with
20 dark green “o” markers. The 95% value is the light green
10 30 shaded area. When DGPS is augmented with constraints
40 there are large reliability variations between computation
0 points. The minimum and maximum 95% HPEs are 5.7 m
N H C B N H C B N H C B
D G PS+ MEO+GEO MEO and 57.8 m respectively for DGPS + both constraints.
However, all of the Galileo augmentations have
Figure 13 Percentage of HPEs ≤ 10 m, for the World maximum 95% HPEs < 10 m. Thus when DGPS is
Isotropic Mask

727
 Constricted Waterway / Urban Canyon Simulation
100

90
The results for the constricted waterway / urban canyon
simulations are presented using the same format as the
80 isotropic mask angle results. For each orientation of the
70 constricted waterway / urban canyon (six orientations)
and for all of the orientations batched together the 95th
H P E (m )

60
percentile HDOP / HPE were calculated:
50
1) for each computation point
40 2) all 118 computation points batched together to
30 generate world values
20 In addition the percentage of time that the HDOP ≤ 2 and
10
the HPE ≤ 10 m were also calculated for the cases listed
M ax
M ed ia n above.
0 M in
N H C B N H C B N H C B Availability Results
D G PS + M EO+GEO MEO
A summary of the constricted waterway / urban canyon
Figure 15 Statistics for Computation Points’ availability results for the world are given in Figure 17
95% HPE, 20°° Mask Angle and Figure 18. For each positioning method the 95th
percentile / percentage is plotted for each orientation of
augmented with Galileo for this masking case there are no the constricted waterway, resulting in six data points. The
regions of poor reliability. overall result for all of the orientations is plotted as the
The regional reliability performance differences between solid magenta line through all of the positioning methods.
the two Galileo constellations become apparent at the 30º When six data points are not identifiable for a specific
mask case as shown in Figure 16. Galileo #1 has lower case, it is because several points overlap. Figure 17 plots
minimum and higher maximum 95% HPE values the overall world 95% HDOP, while Figure 18 plots the
compared with Galileo #2 (MEO only). This matches overall world percentage of HDOPs ≤ 2.
with the overall world reliability trends seen in Figure 12.
Thus Galileo #2 tends to moderate the results. 10
9
100 8
90 7
80 6
HDOP

70 5
60
HPE (m)

4
50 3
40 2
30 1
20 0
Max N H C B N H C B N H C B
10 Median D G PS+ MEO+GEO MEO
Min
0 Figure 17 95% HDOP, for the World
N H C B N H C B N H C B
DGPS+ MEO+GEO MEO Constricted Waterway / Urban Canyon
The overall results are similar to the 40º isotropic mask
Figure 16 Statistics for Computation Points’
angle case. DGPS + both constraints has a 95% HDOP
95% HPE, 30°° Mask Angle > 10 with a corresponding availability < 12%. Once
Galileo is added, the results improve to a 95% HDOP of
≤ 5.9 with an availability ≥ 53%. However, if the channel

728
is oriented in the north / south direction the 95% HDOP
10
increases to 9.6 and the availability decreases to 43%. If
one constraint is also added to the DGPS + Galileo system 9
all of the channel orientations have similar availability
results. 8
7
100
6
90

HDOP
Max
5
80
P e rc en ta g e o f H D O P < 2

4
70 Median
3 Min
60
2
50
1
40
0
30 N H C B N H C B N H C B
DGPS+ MEO+GEO MEO
20
Figure 19 Statistics for Computation Points’
10 95% HDOP, Constricted Waterway / Urban Canyon
0
N H C B N H C B N H C B
D G PS+ MEO+GEO MEO 100
Figure 18 Percentage of HDOPs ≤ 2, for the World 90
Constricted Waterway / Urban Canyon
80
In order to examine how the availability results varied
with user location, the 95% HDOP statistics for the 118 70
computation points with all of the orientations batched
60
H P E (m )

together were analyzed as shown in Figure 19. When

DGPS is augmented with Galileo #1 and constraints the 50
95% HDOPs ranged from a low of 1.8 to a high of 7.2
with 95% of the locations being ≤ 5.5. When DGPS is 40
augmented with Galileo #2 and constraints the 95% 30
HDOPs ranged from a low of 3.0, to a high of 5.5 with
95% of the locations being ≤ 5.0. Again Galileo #2 (MEO 20
only) produces much more balanced results as compared
with Galileo #1. 10

Reliability Results
A summary of the constricted waterway / urban canyon
reliability results for the world are given in Figure 20 and
Figure 21. Figure 20 plots the overall world 95% HPE,
while Figure 21 plots the overall world percentage of
HPEs < 10 m.
The reliability results are very similar to the 40º isotropic
mask case. DGPS with both constraints has a reliability of
only 4%. By augmenting with Galileo, the reliability can
be increased to 68% and 60% for Galileo #1 and Galileo
#2 respectively. While Galileo #1 + both constraints has
the higher overall reliability there is a 10% reliability
variations between channels, while with Galileo #2 + both
constraints there is only a 3% reliability difference
between channels.
0
N H C B N H C B N H C B
D G PS+ M EO+GEO MEO
Figure 20 95% HPE, for the World
Constricted Waterway / Urban Canyon
In order to examine how the reliability results varied with
user location, the 95% HPE statistics for the
118computation points with all of the orientations batched
together were analyzed as shown in Figure 22. When
DGPS is augmented with Galileo #1 and constraints the
95% HPEs ranged from a low of 10.9 m to a high of
> 100 m with 95% of the locations being ≤ 97.4 m. When
DGPS is augmented with Galileo #2 and constraints the
95% HPEs ranged from a low of 25.1 m, to a high of

729
68.6 m with 95% of the locations being ≤ 56.5 m. Again is poor for the higher isotropic mask angles. While DGPS
Galileo #2 (MEO only) produces much more balanced and constraints do not provide reliable navigation for
results. masking angles ≥ 20°, once Galileo is added most of the
availability and reliability requirements can be met for
100 isotropic masking angles ≤ 30°. When extreme mask
90 angles are encountered (≥ 40° isotropic and severe
constricted waterways and urban canyons), DGPS must
P e rc en ta g e o f H P E < 1 0 m

80 be augmented with Galileo as well as the two constraints.

Even then the 95% HPE is in the 30-40 m range. In order
70 to reliable work under these masking conditions planning
60 must be performed.
The two Galileo constellations produced very similar
50
world results for all but the extreme mask conditions.
40 Under extreme mask conditions Galileo #2 (MEOs only)
moderates the results by reducing the maximum HDOPs
30 and HPEs and increasing the minimum and median values
20 as compared with Galileo #1 (MEOs and GEOs).

10 REFERENCES
0 Leick, A., 1995, GPS Satellite Surveying, 2nd Edition,
N H C B N H C B N H C B
D G PS+ MEO+GEO MEO John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1995.

Figure 21 Percentage of HPEs ≤ 10 m, for the World Lucas, R. and D. Ludwig, 1999, Galileo: System
Constricted Waterway / Urban Canyon Requirements and Architectures, Proceedings of
the ION GPS 99 Conference, Nashville,
Tennessee, September 14-17, 1999.
100 Office of the US President’s Press Secretary, 2000,
90 Statement by the President Regarding the United
States' Decision to Stop Degrading Global
80 Positioning System Accuracy, May 1, 2000.
70 M ax Koch, K.R,. 1999, Parameter Estimation and Hypothesis
Testing in Linear Models (2nd Edition),
60 Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999.
H P E (m )

50 Ryan S., and G. Lachapelle, 1999, Augmentation of

DGNSS With Dynamic Constraints for Marine
40
Navigation. Proceedings of ION GPS 99,
M ed ia n
30 Nashville, TN, September 1999.
M in
20 Ryan S., M. Petovello, and G. Lachapelle, 1998,
Augmentation of GPS for Ship Navigation in
10 Constricted Water Ways. Proceedings of ION
NTM 98, Long Beach CA, January, 1998.
0
N H C B N H C B N H C B Ryan S., J. Stephen, J.H. Keong, G. Lachapelle, and R.
D G PS+ M EO+GEO M EO Hare, 1999a, Augmentation of GPS for
Hydrographic Application under Signal
Figure 22 Statistics for Computation Points’
Masking. International Hydrographic Review,
95% HDOP, Constricted Waterway / Urban Canyon
LXXVI, 1, pp 105-122, March 1999.
CONCLUSIONS Ryan S., J. Stephen, and G. Lachapelle, 1999b, Testing
and Analysis of Reliability Measures for GNSS
Standalone DGPS (28 SVs) will meet the availability and
Receivers in the Marine Environment.
reliability requirements for most applications under
Proceedings of ION NTM 99, San Diego CA,
benign masking conditions (≤ 10°). Augmenting DGPS January, 1999.
with constraints improves the availability for the 20°
mask case, however even with constraints the availability

730
Spilker, J. J. Jr., 1994, Satellite Constellation and
Geometric Dilution of Precision, Chapter 5 in
Global Positioning System: Theory and
Applications Volume I, ed. B. W. Parkinson and
J. J. Spilker Jr., Volume 163 Progress in
Astronautics and Aeronautics, American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Washington,
DC, 1996.
Vaníček, P., and E.J. Krakiwsky, 1986, Geodesy: The
Concepts (2nd Edition), North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 1986.
Walker, J. G., 1978, Satellite Patterns for Continuous
Multiple Whole-Earth Coverage, IEE
Conference Publication No.: 160, pp 119-122,
1978.
Wolfrum, J., M. Healy, J.P. Provenzano, and T.
Sassorossi, 1999, Galileo - Europe’s
Contribution to the Next Generation of GNSS,
Proceedings of the ION GPS 99 Conference,
Nashville, Tennessee, September 14-17, 1999.

731