| Literature DB >> 28509847 |
Fei Ye1,2, Yunbin Yuan3, Bingfeng Tan4, Jikun Ou5.
Abstract
The failure to detect anomalies and maneuvering of the orbits of navigation satellite sensors will deteriorate the performance of positioning and orbit determination. Motivated by the influence of the frequent maneuvering of BDS GEO and IGSO satellites, this paper analyzes the limitations of existing methods, where BDS orbit maneuvering and anomalies can be detected, and develops a method to solve this problem based on the RMS model of orbit mutual differences proposed in this paper. The performance of this method was assessed by comparison with the health flag of broadcast ephemeris, precise orbit products of GFZ, the O-C values of a GNSS station and a conventional method. The results show that the performance of the method developed in this paper is better than that of the conventional method when the periodicity and trend items are obvious. Meanwhile, three additional verification results show that the method developed in this paper can find error information in the merged broadcast ephemeris provided by iGMAS. Furthermore, from the testing results, it can be seen that the detection of anomaly and maneuvering items do not affect each other based on the robust thresholds constructed in this paper. In addition, the precise orbit of the maneuvering satellites can be determined under the circumstances that the maneuver information detected in this paper is used, and the root mean square (RMS) of orbit overlap comparison for GEO-03/IGSO-03 in Radial, Along, Cross, 1D-RMS are 0.7614/0.4460 m, 1.8901/0.3687 m, 0.3392/0.2069 m, 2.0657/0.6145 m, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: BDS; broadcast ephemeris; detection of anomalies and maneuvering; precise orbit determination (POD); robust threshold
Year: 2017 PMID: 28509847 PMCID: PMC5470805 DOI: 10.3390/s17051129
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The results for and and .
Figure 2The results for and .
Figure 3The results for and .
Figure 4The results for and .
Figure 5The results for and .
Figure 6The results for and .
Figure 7The results for and .
Figure 8The results for method one (/method two () when and , respectively.
Figure 9Results of O-C of GEO-03 at WUH1.
Results of GEO-03 maneuvering detection at 14:00–15:00.
| Method One (New Method) | Method Two (Conventional Method) | The Health Flag of Broadcast Ephemeris | Precise Orbit Products of GFZ | O-C Value at WUH1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maneuvering | Maneuvering | Unhealthy | No GEO-03 | There is a jump |
Figure 10(a1) The results for method one (), (a2) The results for partial enlarged (a1), and (b1) The results for method two ( ), (b2) The results for partial enlarged (b1).
Figure 11Results of O-C of IGSO-03 at BJF1 (The graph on the right is a partial enlarged view of the left).
Results of IGSO-03 maneuvering detection at 10:00–11:00.
| Method One (New Method) | Method Two (Conventional Method) | The Health Flag of Broadcast Ephemeris | Precise Orbit Products of GFZ | O-C Value at BJF1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anomalies | Anomalies | Healthy | No IGSO-03 | There is a jump |
Results of IGSO-03 maneuvering detection at 19:00–20:00.
| Method One (New Method) | Method Two (Conventional Method) | The health flag of Broadcast Ephemeris | Precise Orbit Products of GFZ | O-C Value at BJF1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maneuvering | Maneuvering | Unhealthy | No IGSO-03 | There is a jump |
Figure 12The results for method one(/method two().
Figure 13Results of O-C of GEO-01 at BJF1.
Results of GEO-01 anomalies detection at 18:00–19:00.
| Method One (New Method) | Method Two (Conventional Method) | The Health Flag of Broadcast Ephemeris | Precise Orbit Products of GFZ | O-C Value at BJF1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anomalies | Anomalies | Healthy | Have GEO-01 | There is a jump |
Figure 14Comparison Strategy of GEO-03.
RMS of orbit overlap comparison at 5 January (unit: m).
| Satellite | PRN | Radial | Along | Cross | 1D-RMS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GEO-01 | 1 | 0.1389 | 0.2016 | 0.1695 | 0.2634 |
| GEO-02 | 2 | 1.4875 | 1.7481 | 0.2402 | 2.3079 |
| GEO-04 | 4 | 0.1435 | 0.3520 | 0.0743 | 0.3873 |
| GEO-05 | 5 | 0.1576 | 0.4225 | 0.2662 | 0.5236 |
| IGSO-01 | 6 | 0.0828 | 0.1644 | 0.1258 | 0.2230 |
| IGSO-02 | 7 | 0.1170 | 0.2529 | 0.7386 | 0.7894 |
| IGSO-03 | 8 | 0.1570 | 0.4986 | 0.4792 | 0.7091 |
| IGSO-04 | 9 | 0.0787 | 0.0916 | 0.1428 | 0.1870 |
| IGSO-05 | 10 | 0.0722 | 0.2861 | 0.6542 | 0.7177 |
Figure 15Comparison Strategy of IGSO-03.
RMS of orbit overlap comparison at 9 January (unit: m).
| Satellite | PRN | Radial | Along | Cross | 1D-RMS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GEO-01 | 1 | 0.0554 | 0.0783 | 0.0458 | 0.1063 |
| GEO-02 | 2 | 0.0686 | 0.1772 | 0.1112 | 0.2202 |
| GEO-03 | 3 | 0.0940 | 0.1030 | 0.0776 | 0.1596 |
| GEO-04 | 4 | 0.0288 | 0.1301 | 0.0370 | 0.1383 |
| GEO-05 | 5 | 0.0565 | 0.0530 | 0.1104 | 0.1349 |
| IGSO-01 | 6 | 0.0328 | 0.1201 | 0.3887 | 0.4082 |
| IGSO-02 | 7 | 0.1074 | 0.1651 | 0.5064 | 0.5434 |
| IGSO-04 | 9 | 0.0775 | 0.1115 | 0.5155 | 0.5331 |
| IGSO-05 | 10 | 0.0935 | 0.0888 | 0.0943 | 0.1598 |