ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24-26 January 2011 1/13

Analysis of IRNSS over Indian Subcontinent

Vyasaraj Guru Rao
1
, Grard Lachapelle
1
, Vijay Kumar S B
2

1
Position, Location And Navigation (PLAN) Group
http://plan.geomatics.ucalgary.ca
Department of Geomatics Engineering
University of Calgary

2
Accord Software & Systems Pvt. Ltd
Bangalore, India

BIOGRAPHIES
Vyasaraj Guru Rao is a PhD student in the Plan Group,
Geomatics Engineering, University of Calgary. He has
been working in the area of GNSS navigation systems for
the past fourteen years with Accord Software & Systems
Pvt Ltd, Bangalore, India. His research areas are Multi
constellation GNSS Receiver design, Algorithm
development, High Dynamics Receiver development and
Pseudolite based applications. He holds a Masters Degree
in Software and Systems from BITS Pilani, India and a
Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Electronics and
Communications from Bangalore University, India.

Prof. Grard Lachapelle is a professor of Geomatics
Engineering at the University of Calgary where he is
responsible for teaching and research related to location,
positioning and navigation. He has been involved with
GPS developments and applications since 1980. More
information is available on
http://PLAN.geomatics.ucalgary.ca

Vijaykumar S.B. is a senior project leader at Accord
software and systems Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, India. He has
been working in the area of GNSS navigation systems for
the past eight years. His area of work includes multi
constellation GNSS receiver design (GPS and
GLONASS), High dynamics receiver development and
pseudolite-based applications. He holds a Bachelor degree
in Electronics & Communications from Gulbarga
University, India.
ABSTRACT
India is planning to deploy an autonomous regional
satellite based navigation system to cover its territorial
footprint and surrounding areas. The purpose of this
system as any other existing GNSS is to cater to the needs
of both specific users (Precision Service (PS)) and civilian
users (Standard Positioning Service (SPS)) (Kibe &
Gowrishankar 2008). The overall constellation consists of
seven satellites, of which three will be in GEO stationary
and four in GEO synchronous orbits. This system will be
used for surveying, telecommunication,


transport, identifying disaster locations and public safety,
along with host of other applications.

In this research work a deeper understanding on
parameters specifically of interest to the receiver
community such as availability, accuracy and reliability
from IRNSS are explored. The impact of augmenting
IRNSS with other GNSS such as GPS and GLONASS is
also investigated. Finally, a discussion on how the
proposed system lends itself to carrier phase positioning
applications is detailed.
1 INTRODUCTION
With the advent of any new constellation brings the
curiosity as to what it might offer to the users under
various conditions. The Indian Regional Satellite
Navigation System (IRNSS) (Kibe & Gowrishankar
2008), still being in its nascent stages of design gives
ample opportunities for various research and algorithm
developmental activities. With the announcement of any
new constellation, an initial assessment of the signal
characteristics, standalone availability and achievable
accuracies is of main interest. This research attempts to
focus on some of the key aspects like availability,
accuracy and reliability, understand and bring out its
characteristics to users within and around India.

Availability is a measure of the number and geometry of
satellites available for computing navigation solutions. In
the case of IRNSS, assuming clear sky conditions,
satellites in the GEO stationary orbit will always be
visible to users on Indian subcontinent (Kibe &
Gowrishankar 2008). An advantage of GEO stationary
satellites is that a larger signal coverage footprint is
achieved with a minimum number of satellites. However,
one needs to estimate the visibility of the satellites in
GEO synchronous orbit to access the overall availability.

Following availability, a thorough investigation is then
performed on accuracy, which gives a measure of how
close a computed navigation solution is w.r.t users truth
(Alves et al 2001). This is further decomposed into two
ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24-26 January 2011 2/13


components: user equivalent range error (UERE) and
geometric dilution of precision (GDOP). UERE is
obtained by mapping all the system errors as one lumped
parameter in measured range (OKeefe 2001). DOP is a
satellite geometry dependent (based on availability)
parameter, which along with UERE determines user
accuracy (in position domain). GDOP can further be
decomposed into PDOP, HDOP, VDOP and TDOP
representing position, horizontal position, vertical
position and time dilution of precision respectively
(Langley 1999). The DOP values provide a measure of
systems availability as they represent the geometric
strength of solutions. It can also be used to represent
system accuracy under the assumption that all range
measurements have a similar UERE (Alves et al 2001).

Reliability is the next important parameter of interest,
which is a measure of systems ability to detect faults and
to estimate the effect of an undetected fault on overall
solution (Ryan & Lachapelle 2000). Reliability can
further be subdivided into internal reliability and external
reliability (Alves et al 2001). Internal Reliability refers to
systems ability to detect a blunder through statistical
testing of residuals on an epoch-by-epoch basis. The
smallest such blunder is called marginally detectable
blunder (MDB). The external reliability of a system is
quantified by the magnitude of error in navigation
solution caused by MDB (Ryan & Lachapelle 1999).

Further, analysis with user defined elevation angle is
performed. The availability under reduced coverage and
corresponding accuracies are analyzed. Simulations for
open sky conditions (base station receivers) and urban
canyon scenarios reveal the satellite distribution and their
accuracies.

An analysis to evaluate the benefits of combining IRNSS
with GPS and GLONASS was conducted. The fact that
IRNSS is a regional system can use other GNSS such as
GPS and GLONASS as leverage. Thus, performance
parameters such as availability, accuracy and reliability
are analyzed by augmenting IRNSS with GPS and
GLONASS.

Finally, the paper touches upon some of the existing
methods of carrier phase positioning and how the
proposed IRNSS signal structure (Kibe & Gowrishankar
2008) lends itself to this application. Three of the seven
satellites are in GEO stationary orbits. The potential
challenges of ambiguity fixing are detailed. The L5 and
S1 bands are separated by more than 1.2 GHz. Related
challenges on carrier phase positioning are discussed.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: IRNSS
signal characteristics are provided in Section 2 and the
simulation methodology followed by various analyses is
detailed in Section 3. Section 4 provides the analysis
results for a standalone IRNSS system and Section 5
provides results of IRNSS augmented with GPS and
GLONASS systems. Section 6 covers a discussion on
carrier phase positioning with IRNSS and finally
conclusions and future work are enumerated in Section 7.
2 IRNSS SIGNAL CHARCTERISTICS
The proposed IRNSS system operation will be in two
frequency bands, namely L5 and S1. On each of these
frequencies, two services are available, one for civilian
and the other exclusively for specific users. The SPS will
have BPSK modulation and is available for the civilian
community. Table 1 summarizes the IRNSS signal
frequencies (Kibe & Gowrishankar 2008).

Service Frequency of Operation Modulation
L5
(1176.45
MHz)
S
(2492.08
MHz)
Standard
Positioning
Service
(SPS)
YES YES BPSK
Restricted
Service
(RS)
YES YES BOC(5,2)

IRNSS will consist of seven satellites, with 3 in GEO and
4 in GSO orbits. Figure 1 gives the sky plot of the IRNSS
satellites. The three GEO stationary satellites will be
stationed at 34, 83 and 132 longitudes, respectively.
The four GSOs are expected to be in orbits of 24,000 km
apogee and 250 km perigee inclined at 29. Two of the
GSOs will cross the equator at 55 and the other two at
111.5 longitude respectively (Kibe & Gowrishankar
2008).


For simulation and subsequent analysis, parameters like
time, user position and the approximate satellite positions
are required. The mission planning or pre-analysis can be
Table 1: IRNSS services and frequency of operation
Figure 1: IRNSS Satellite Ground Trace
ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24-26 January 2011 3/13


carried out with these parameters. The following section
details the simulation analysis tool and its modules.
3 SIMULATION METHODOLOGY
This section highlights major modules of the software
analysis tool. The functionalities of each module and
interconnects amongst various software components are
explained in detail. Finally, values of some of the
parameters considered for simulation along with rationale
behind their selection are explained.

In order to carry out the analysis, a software tool was
developed in Matlab. This tool can generate the IRNSS,
GPS and GLONASS constellations. A high level design
abstraction of various modules of the simulation software
is given in Figure 2. The simulations can be performed at
two different user levels. First, single user input mode, in
which the analysis corresponds to a particular user
position (fixed latitude and longitude). Second mode of
operation is designated as Sweep mode. Here, the analysis
is performed on an extended area of latitude and
longitude, i.e. as a grid.

Based on functionalities, the simulation software at a top
level can be divided into two major blocks as simulator
and receiver modules. The simulator and receiver
modules together provide flexibility to generate different
satellite profiles and a platform to conduct analysis of
various performance parameters. Functionalities of each
of these modules are explained in the following section.

The three basic parameters required for simulation
purpose are time and approximate user and satellite
positions (GPS ICD 200C). Effectively these three
become the sub functions of the simulator module. The
output parameters are visible satellites and their
corresponding position. The true range to each satellite is
computed using user and satellite positions. The default
mask angle for simulation is set to 5. However, user
mask angle can be configured in the range of 5 to 90.
Finally, in order to bring in the effect of errors, i.e.
pseudoranges, errors corresponding to each of these
satellites are computed separately.

2
2
2
sin ( )
z
i
i
E

= (1)
For simulation purpose, a lumped error corresponding to
each satellite is formulated based on Eq. (1), where
z
is
the apriori error estimate (UERE),
i
is the standard
deviation of measurement of
th
i satellite and E is the
elevation angle (Petovello 2010). Table 2 gives the
simulation parameters and the corresponding default
values considered as part of the analysis.

Following are sub-tasks of the receiver module: DOP
computation, user position computation in constraint
modes, reliability performance and the analysis with
configured mask angles. The subtasks work on data
output from the simulator module, processes and
generates the corresponding results. Constraint mode and
reliability analysis are user configurable as shown in
Figure 2. The functionalities of the receiver form the core
of any pre-analysis or mission planning.

The rationale behind choosing the simulation parameters
are as follows: To get a deeper insight on satellite
distribution, wider grid spacing was used. However, for
the analysis of specific parameters such as availability,
accuracy and reliability, smaller grid spacing is
configured. The system error budget is assumed to be
similar to GPS. The standard deviations of errors assumed
for analysis are in Table 3 (Kaplan & Hegarty 2006).

Parameter Description
Grid Spacing
(Latitude x Longitude)
For Visibility: 10 x 10
Others: 5 x 5
UERE 6 m
Elevation Mask Angle Default: 5
User Configured: 25
Sample rate, duration 30 min, 24 h
Initial clock error for
clock constraints
3 m
Reliability Analysis Indian sub continent region,
where all the satellites are
visible

For optimal performance, the receiver is configured with
a default elevation mask angle of 5 (Alves et al 2001).
The reason behind this is to reduce errors due to multipath
and high ionosphere errors associated with low elevation
satellites (Kaplan & Hegarty (2006), Alves et al (2001)).
As such, a 5 mask angle is used for all the analysis.
IRNSS satellites are in GEO and GSO orbits and the
system design is such that their visibility is always
ensured over India (Kibe & Gowrishankar 2008). With
this design input, thirty minutes is a reasonable
approximation. In most hand held receiver designs,
10PPM TCXO or even a crystal is used as the frequency
source. An initial clock estimate of 3 m is a reasonable
value, which is used as initial value of clock in constraint
mode. The UERE is:
Description Error (m)
Satellite Clock 1
Satellite ephemeris 1
Ionosphere 5
Troposphere 1
Multipath 2
Receiver noise 1
Table 2: Simulation parameters
Table 3: 1-sigma error assumed in UERE calculation
ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24




2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 5 1 2 1 UERE = + + + + +
Thus a UERE of 6 m has been used for the simul
purpose as in Eq. (2). With the above information and the
analysis tool, the following section presents the result
various individual analyses.
4 STANDALONE IRNSS ANALYSIS
This section details the analysis carried out using only the
IRNSS satellites.
4.1 Availability
This section discusses the satellite visibility over a given
region. Availability is the period of time system is usable
or alternatively it is the ability of the system to provide
solution over a specified region (Alves et al 2001)

The intended region of operation of IRNSS
over the Indian subcontinent (Kibe &
2008). However, to get a deeper insight on
distribution of satellites, visibility has been computed
the region of -40 to 60 latitude and 0 to 140 longitude.
Accordingly, the IRNSS satellite distribution is as in
Figure 3.

From Figure 3, it is evident that all seven IRNSS satellites
are assured to be visible over Indian subcontinent a
Figure 2: Flowchart of Simulation Software Modules
ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24-26 January 2011

6 m (2)
used for the simulation
With the above information and the
analysis tool, the following section presents the results of
LYSIS
section details the analysis carried out using only the
visibility over a given
the period of time system is usable
it is the ability of the system to provide
(Alves et al 2001).
of IRNSS is primarily
Gowrishankar
2008). However, to get a deeper insight on the
isibility has been computed in
40 to 60 latitude and 0 to 140 longitude.
Accordingly, the IRNSS satellite distribution is as in
IRNSS satellites
over Indian subcontinent and
slightly beyond (Kibe & Gowrishankar (2008),
Bhaskarayana (2008)).

However, based on local phenomena
building) and antenna characteristics
satellites may be different. Figure
positioning is achievable with IRNSS satellites
Indian subcontinent. Unlike existi
or GLONASS or the proposed GALILEO and COMPASS
which are global, IRNSS is a regional system. As such the
visibility gradually decreases away from
subcontinent region and thus
positioning. For the latter areas,
Flowchart of Simulation Software Modules
Figure 3: IRNSS satellites availability
4/13

(Kibe & Gowrishankar (2008),

phenomenas (in-between tall
and antenna characteristics, the effective visible
Figure 3 shows that standalone
with IRNSS satellites over the
. Unlike existing systems such as GPS
or GLONASS or the proposed GALILEO and COMPASS
which are global, IRNSS is a regional system. As such the
visibility gradually decreases away from the Indian
subcontinent region and thus has an impact on
eas, positioning can be
: IRNSS satellites availability
ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24-26 January 2011 5/13


accomplished by augmenting (IRNSS) with existing
systems, which is explained in Section 5.
4.2 Accuracy
Dilution of precision (DOP) can be computed with
satellite and user positions (Langley 1999). DOP maps the
UERE into the position domain (Alves et al 2001). Figure
4 gives the position accuracy achievable with IRNSS
satellites, which is of the order of 20 m over the Indian
subcontinent (Kibe & Gowrishankar 2008). An
assumption made here is that the users antenna has an
unobstructed view to all visible satellites.

As with other operational systems, the IRNSS satellites
are evenly spread in the azimuth plane over the Indian sub
continent. Thus the geometry is relatively better in the
horizontal than the vertical dimension (Figure 4). Further,
position accuracy is computed using (Langley 1999)


2 2
*
( ) *
a c c u r a c y P D O P U E R E
H D O P V D O P U E R E
=
= +
(3)
4.3 Reliability
Statistical reliability is a method of identifying blunders
or outliers. Broadly, it is categorized as internal and
external reliability. Internal reliability gives a measure of
error magnitude which can be detected by the system
whereas external reliability gives the measure of such an
error on the overall solution (Ryan & Lachapelle 2000).

IRNSS has three GEO and four GSO satellites. For the
purpose of analysis, a representative of each orbit (GEO-1
and GSO-4) is chosen. The assumption here is that at any
given instant only one satellite has blunder. The impact of
blunder, Marginally Detectable Blunder (MDB), (O'Keefe
2001) on the horizontal and vertical positions is analyzed.

The analysis was carried out using least squares residuals
and the main equations used for computation are
(Petovello 2010)

1
r
r C R z

= (4)

where
r
C is the covariance of residuals, R is the
covariance matrix of measurements and z is the vector of
measurements.
Figure 4: IRNSS DOP and Position accuracy over and around Indian subcontinent
ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24-26 January 2011


With blunder on either a GSO or a GEO satellite, the
measurement vector can be written as

Z Hx M v = + +

Where H is the design matrix, M is vector representing
the satellite with blunder (i.e. either GEO or GSO) and
is that of measurement errors (with zero mean and
Gaussian distribution).

The residual on the
th
i satellite (with error) is
( )
,1
r ii
i i
ii
C
r N
R
| |
=
|
\

Or,
( )
,1
( )
i r ii
i
ii r ii
r C
N
R C
| |
=
|
\

Here
( )
r ii
ii
C
R
is referred to as the non
parameter. This for the analysis is assumed to be 3
which represents a shift in the normal distribution of
standardized residuals. The regions of incorrectly
accepting (Type 2) or wrongly rejecting (Type
hypothesis are as shown in Figure 6. The probability
associated with Type1 and Type2 errors is denoted by
and , respectively. The non-centrality parameter is
given as
0 1 / 2 1
N N

= +
Figure 5: External Reliability
26 January 2011
GEO satellite, the
(5)
is vector representing
the satellite with blunder (i.e. either GEO or GSO) and v
measurement errors (with zero mean and
satellite (with error) is
(6)
(7)
is referred to as the non-centrality
parameter. This for the analysis is assumed to be 3.24,
the normal distribution of
The regions of incorrectly
accepting (Type 2) or wrongly rejecting (Type-1) null
. The probability
associated with Type1 and Type2 errors is denoted by
ntrality parameter is
(8)
0
( )
( )
i
ii
MDB
r ii
R
C
=
.

With the above equation, the external reliability is given
as
1 1 1
( )
T T
i i MDB
x H R H H R M

=
More specifically,
2 2
( ( ,1) ( , 2) )
i i i
HPE sqrt x i x i = +
( , 3)
i i
VPE x i =

Eq. (11) & (12) are used in
horizontal position error (HPE) and
error (VPE) respectively.
From Figure
difference is the analysis window on longitudinal axis,
which runs from 50 to 90. A common
GEO-1 and GSO-4 are visible is
External Reliability of IRNSS, GEO-1 and GSO-4 satellites
Figure 6: Type 1/2 errors and Non Centrality
parameter
6/13

(9)
external reliability is given
i
i i MDB
x H R H H R M = (10)
2 2
( ( ,1) ( , 2) )
i i i
HPE sqrt x i x i (11)
(12)
n the computation of the
horizontal position error (HPE) and the vertical position

Figure 5, an observable
indow on longitudinal axis,
from 50 to 90. A common region where both
4 are visible is the criterion considered
Type 1/2 errors and Non Centrality
ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24-26 January 2011 7/13


for this analysis. This region happened to be the best fit
for blunder analysis on a representative GSO and GEO
satellite. Figure 5 gives
position errors obtained independently with blunders on
GEO-1 and GSO-4 respectively. From Figure 5, it is
obvious that the position error with a blunder on GEO-1 is
smaller compared to a blunder on GSO-4. The reason
behind this is in the simulator module, errors are
introduced on channels (satellites) in accordance with Eq.
(1). In this region, the elevation of GEO-1 is better than
that of GSO-4. This implies that a relatively higher
magnitude of error is introduced on GSO-4 as compared
to GEO-1. The geometry (DOP) being the same, the
relative error magnitude dictates the overall position error
(Eq. 3), which is higher in the case of GSO-4.
4.4 Constraint Mode
In any GNSS, satellites are distributed around the azimuth
plane w.r.t. the users antenna. However, in the vertical
dimension, satellites are available only above the antenna
plane. Added to this is the strong correlation that exists
between vertical component and clock, making it difficult
to resolve their individual contributions (Ryan &
Lachapelle (2000), Langley (1999)). The result is the
VDOP being relatively poor compared to HDOP, which
in turn affects overall position accuracy (Langley 1999).
If either the height or clock estimate is available, then the
correlation between VDOP and TDOP states is reduced.
This results in an improved position solution.

The benefits in case of IRNSS having either or both
estimates towards the final solution are described herein.
The observation model with measurement errors is
(Petovello 2010)

z Hx v = +
.
(13)

With apriori information (i.e. either height or clock or
both), the augmented measurement vector is given as

0
Z H
Z x v
x I
+
( (
= = +
( (

(14)

The corresponding least squares solution is obtained as

1 1 1 1
( )
T T
x H R H P H R z

= + (15)

where P is the covariance matrix of the states.

Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, gives the position errors
obtained with height and clock constraints separately and
as a combination thereof, respectively. It is evident that an
appreciable improvement in position accuracy is achieved
in comparison with the constraint-free approach (Figure
4). With apriori information, strong correlation between
clock and height states are decoupled resulting in
improved position accuracy. Given that IRNSS satellites
are in GEO and GSO orbits and at a high elevation, the
VDOP will be relatively inferior compared with other
existing GNSS. As expected, the position accuracy of the
combined constraint approach is better than height, which
is better than the clock constraint mode.

Figure 7: IRNSS DOP and Position accuracy with Height Constraint
ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24-26 January 2011 8/13




4.5 Elevation Angle
In this section, analysis focuses on availability and
accuracy achievable with reduced coverage due to higher
mask angles. This analysis gives a good insight of the
proposed system for applications such as indoors or urban
canyon environments. The mask angle is changed to 25
for this particular analysis. Figure 10 and Figure 11
give the plots of availability and position accuracy
respectively. An immediate inference is that there is a
drop in number of satellites over the Indian subcontinent
in comparison to Figure 3.

Additionally, the satellite count is more biased. This is
attributed to the four satellites located beyond 80
longitude. As such the area under this region will have
visibility to all four satellites and few of those on the
other side of 80 longitude (30 to 80 longitude, 2 GSO
Figure 8: IRNSS DOP and Position accuracy with clock constraints
Figure 9: IRNSS DOP and position accuracy with height and clock constraints
ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24-26 January 2011 9/13


and 1 GEO). Figure 10, when analyzed in conjunction
with Figure 1, results in another interesting finding.
IRNSS has a dedicated service for specific users in
Restricted service, which will have vehicles with attitude
maneuvers. The distribution of three satellites on either
side (for vehicular applications assuming three on each
side (Figure 10)) may necessitate additional antenna
(Vyasaraj & Vijay 2007) or augmentation with other
systems in order to obtain positioning with IRNSS.

Figure 11 gives the position error during reduced
visibility. With an increase in DOP (inferior geometry due
to availability), a proportional increase in error is
observed.

5 ANALYSIS OF IRNSS+GPS+GLONASS
As explained in sections 4.1 and 4.5, combining IRNSS
with existing GNSS systems has some potential benefits.
This section highlights the improvement in availability,
accuracy and reliability due to a combined
IRNSS+GPS+GLONASS constellation. The last part of
this section presents the relative benefits during reduced
coverage. The methodology and explanations as in
Section 4 applies here as well. Only the major differences
are presented.
5.1 Availability
Several works in the past have demonstrated the benefits
of combining GPS and GLONASS (e.g., Ryan &
Lachapelle 2000). Availability over the Indian
subcontinent has drastically improved by combining
IRNSS with GPS and GLONASS, which is as depicted in
Figure 12.

Figure 10: IRNSS satellite visibility with a 25 mask
angle


Figure 11: IRNSS DOP and Position accuracy with a 25 mask angle
Figure 12: IRNSS+GPS+GLONASS satellite visibility
ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24-26 January 2011 10/13


5.2 Accuracy
IRNSS satellites which are in GEO stationary and GSO
orbits will benefit from combining with GPS and
GLONASS satellites from a low elevation point of view.
The drawback highlighted in Section 4.5 can be
circumvented with this augmentation. Figure 13 shows
the improvement achievable in position accuracy. The
relative geometry has improved with increased
observations (satellites), and thus the overall position
accuracy.
5.3 Reliability
The number of satellites and thus observations has
increased with augmentation. Due to this, the relative
geometry has improved as compared to the standalone
case. Bracketed terms of Eq.(10), gives the measure of
DOP. The improvement in DOP has resulted in a
relatively lower overall external reliability as depicted in
Figure 14. The HPE and VPE show one order
improvement in the combined scenario.





Figure 13: IRNSS+GPS+GLONASS DOP and Position accuracy
Figure 14: HPE, VPE for GEO-1 and GSO-4 with combined IRNSS+GPS+GLONASS
ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24-26 January 2011 11/13




Figure16: IRNSS+GPS+GLONASS DOP and Position accuracy with 25 mask angle

5.4 Elevation Mask Angle
The number of satellites is reduced in standalone IRNSS
positioning with a mask angle of 25 (Figure 10).
Combining with GPS and GLONASS, a favorable
scenario is observed. The satellite availability increases as
shown in Figure 15. The corresponding DOP and position
accuracy are given in Figure16.
6 CARRIER PHASE POSITIONING
Carrier phase positioning has been one of the major
successes of the GPS program though it was not
visualized at the system design phase. Several techniques
have evolved over the years in the receiver architecture
enabling sub-cm accuracy (e.g. Liu et al 2003).
GLONASS, being an FDMA system has few limitations
when it comes to carrier phase positioning (Walsh et al
1996). One of the major tasks involved in the carrier
phase positioning is ambiguity resolution. In case of GPS,
Figure 15: IRNSS+GPS+GLONASS satellites with 25 mask angle

ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24-26 January 2011 12/13


one of the methods of achieving reliable ambiguity fixing
is by means of linear combination of observations. It also
makes ambiguity resolution easier than stand alone L1 or
L2 fixing. Linear combinations are formed in several
ways with relative merits and demerits. A detailed study
and analysis of this is available in the literature.

Table 4 gives the wavelengths corresponding to different
modes of operation in GPS, with a widelane phase
observable wavelength of 86.2 cm. From a carrier phase
ambiguity resolution stand point, a higher dynamic range
is achieved, which aids in reliable ambiguity fixing
compared to standalone L1 or L2.

Mode of Operation Wavelength (cm)
L1 19.04
L2 24.06
Wide-lane (L1-L2) 86.25

Table 5 gives the wavelengths corresponding to IRNSS.
The widelane wavelength of IRNSS is approximately
equal to that of standalone L5. The advantage cited with
GPS is no longer applicable in case of IRNSS. Also, the
wavelength of S1 is approximately 12 cm, which is
almost half of L5. With the increase in frequency, though
the ionosphere errors are reduced (Kaplan & Hegarty
2006), the margins for carrier phase errors are relatively
small on S1. This might pose an issue on the stand alone
S1 carrier phase positioning.

Mode of Operation Wavelength (cm)
L5 25.52
S1 12.03
Wide-lane (S1-L5) 22.80

Table 1 gives the proposed IRNSS frequencies and
services offered. The L5 band is located within the
Distance Measuring equipment (DME) frequency of
operation. DME frequency band spans from 960 MHz to
1215 MHz (Rohde & Schwarz 2009). The working
principle of DME is by exchange of pulses between DME
station and aircrafts. The power level of these pulses can
be as high as 1 kW with a coverage range of 400 km. The
ON period of these pulses is of the order of 3.5 s. With
multiple DMEs, the effective number of pulses will be
higher with an overall reduction in received signal energy.
This may have an adverse impact on phase tracking
unless some advanced pulse mitigation techniques are
adopted in the receiver (Hearty et al 2000). Thus,
standalone carrier phase positioning with L5 and
widelaning with S1 may pose some challenges.

In addition, for GEO satellites and static user, Doppler
will be mainly due to receiver clock (Mishra & Enge
2006). Thus the observability of ambiguities is reduced
for these GEO satellites. With only 4 GSO satellites,
observations during the ambiguity resolution process are
inadequate (Lachapelle 2010).

7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
In this paper, a standalone IRNSS analysis w.r.t
availability, accuracy, reliability and reduced coverage
was presented. The main result from the analysis is that
the seven satellites are always assured over India (for 5
mask angle). The advantages of augmenting IRNSS
receivers with apriori information be it either clock or
height information were presented.

The paper also discussed the advantages of combining
IRNSS receivers with the existing GPS or GLONASS
system. As expected, significant improvements were
observed in the case of availability, accuracy and
reliability.

A discussion on IRNSS signal w.r.t carrier phase
positioning was also presented. An additional frequency
close to either of the proposed frequencies in addition to
an additional satellite in GSO orbit would enhance IRNSS
carrier phase positioning. Adding Galileo and GAGAN is
left for future work.

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to thank Accord Software &
Systems Pvt. Ltd for the partial financial assistance
towards his Doctoral studies. The assistance of
Sashidharan MAA, Systems Engineer, Accord Software
Pvt Ltd. is highly appreciated towards the analysis and
software development. Shashank Satyanarayana and
Pratiba B Anatharamu, PhD candidates in the PLAN
Group of the University of Calgary are appreciated for the
useful discussions during the paper writing.


Disclaimer

The analysis and results are sole findings of work carried
out by primary author. The work is purely based on open
source literature, is subjective to changes w.r.t ICD and
the constellation itself. The results are in no way final and
binding. However, with the final ICD and the almanac of
IRNSS, it would be a minimal change to regenerate the
above results.





Table 4: Carrier phase wavelengths in different modes
of operation - GPS
Table 5: Carrier phase wavelengths in different modes
of operation - IRNSS
ION ITM 2011, Session B5, San Diego, CA, 24-26 January 2011 13/13


REFERENCES

Ryan, S. and G. Lachapelle (2000) Impact of
GPS/GALILEO Integration on Marine Navigation, IAIN
World Congress ION Annual Meeting 2000. 721-731

Lachapelle, G., M.E.Cannon, K.OKeefe, and P. Alves
(2001) Technical Benefit Analysis of Galileo for Canada,
Contract Report Prepared for Canadian Space Agency,
Ottawa, (http://plan.geomatics.ucalgary.ca/project_info.
php?pid=24)

Ryan, S. and G. Lachapelle (1999) Augmentation of
DGNSS With Dynamic Constraints For Marine
Navigation Proceedings of ION GPS99 Conference,
Nashville, September 14-17, 1999.

O'Keefe, K. (2001) Availability and Reliability
Advantages of GPS/Galileo Integration. (Session C4),
Salt Lake City, 11-14 September), The Institute of
Navigation, Alexandria, VA.,

O'Keefe, K., S. Ryan and G. Lachapelle (2002) Global
Availability and Reliability Assessment of the GPS and
Galileo Global Navigation Satellite Systems. Canadian
Aeronautics and Space Journal, Canadian Aeronautics
and Space Institute, 48, 2, 123-132

Langley, R.B. (1999) Dilution of Precision GPS World,
vol. May, pp. 52-59

Lachapelle, G. (2010) Advanced GNSS Theory and
Applications, ENGO625Course Notes Department of
Geomatics Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada

Petovello, M. (2010) Estimation for Navigation, ENGO
699.36 Course Notes Department of Geomatics
Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada

Hegarty, C.J, A.J Van Dierendonck, D. Bobyn, M.Tran,
and T.Kim, J, Suppressing of Pulsed Interference
through Blanking Proceedings of the IAIN World
Congress, San Diego, CA, June 2000

KAPLAN, E. D. and C.J Hegarty (2006), Understanding
GPS: Principles and Applications, Second edition Artech
House

ARINC, Navstar GPS Space Segment / Navigation User
Interfaces Interface Control Document (ICD), Revision
200C, prepared and published for GPS JPO, revised
September 1997, ION, Salt Lake City, USA

Liu, J., M.E.Cannon, P.Alves, M.Petovello, G.Lachapelle,
G. MacGougan, and L. deGroot, A performance
comparison of single and dual frequency GPS ambiguity
resolution strategies Springer-verlag, 28
th
June2003.

Mishra, P. and P. Enge (2006), Global Positioning
System: Signals, Measurements, and Performance,
Second Edition, Ganga Jamuna Press

Leick, A. (1995), GPS Satellite Surveying Second
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Walsh, David, Daly and Peter (1996) GPS and
GLONASS Carrier Phase Ambiguity Resolution
Proceedings of the 9th International Technical Meeting of
the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION
GPS 1996), Kansas City, MO, September 1996, pp. 899-
907.

Fenton, P., Falkenberg, B., Ford, T., Ng, K., and Van
Dierendonck, A. J., NovAtels GPS Receiver-The High
Performance OEM Sensor of the Future, Proceedings of
ION GPS-91, Fourth International Technical Meeting of
the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation,
Albuquerque, NM, 11-13 September 1991, pp. 49-58.

Kibe, S, V and Gowrishankar. D, APRSAF -15: Space for
Sustainable Development, December 10
th
2008, Vietnam

Bhaskaranarayana, A. (July 15
th
2008) Indian IRNSS &
GAGAN, Presentation to COSPAR Meeting, Montreal.

Abidin. H, Z. (1994), On the fly Ambiguity Resolution,
GPS World

Direndonck, A.J.V, P Fenton, B Falkenberg, T Ford, and
N G Keith (1991) The High Performance OEM Sensor
of the future Proceedings of ION GPS-91, Fourth
International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division
of The Institute of Navigation, Albuquerque, NM, 11-13
September 1991, pp. 49-58

Direndonck, A.J.V, P Fenton and T Ford (1992) Theory
and performance of narrow correlator spacing in a GPS
receiver Journal of Institute of Navigation, Volume 39,
No 3, U.S.A

Rohde & Schwarz (2009) DME Transponder Testing,
Application Hand Out

G. X. Gao (2007), DME/TACAN Interference and its
Mitigation in L5/E5 Bands in ION Institute of
Navigation Global Navigation Satellite Systems
Conference, 2007

Vyasaraj, G. and Vijay, S.B. (2007), An Innovative
Approach To Overcome GPS Signal Masking During
Maneuvers in Aircraft or Satellite, Proceedings of the
20th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite
Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS
2007), Fort Worth, TX, September 2007, pp. 2999-3007