presented to: by: date: federal aviation administration wide area augmentation system (waas)...
TRANSCRIPT
Presented to:
By:
Date:
Federal AviationAdministration
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) Operations Team
AJW-1921
Offline Monitoring
B. J. Potter
Brad Dworak
Chad Sherrell
March 7, 2011
WIPP
Offline Monitoring
2Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Introduction
• This presentation covers the 4th Quarter of 2010– (2010-10-01 – 2010-12-31)
• Next Steps– Analyze data for entire quarter– Transition all OLM analysis to SOS
Offline Monitoring
3Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Clock Runoff
• AssertionThe a priori probability of a GPS satellite failure resulting in a rapid change in the GPS clock correction is less than 1.0x10-4 per satellite.
• Monitoring Approach– Events typically result in a fast correction that exceeds 256
meters– When this occurs, the satellite is set Do Not Use until the
correction reaches a reasonable size– Events where the satellite is set Do Not Use from excessively
large fast corrections while the satellite is healthy are recorded
Offline Monitoring
4Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Clock Runoff
• No Clock Runoff Events between 2010-10-01 – 2010-12-31
Offline Monitoring
5Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Ephemeris
• AssertionThe CDF of GPS ephemeris errors in a Height, Cross-track, and Along-track (HCL) coordinate system is bounded by the CDF of a zero-mean Gaussian distribution along each axis
whose standard deviations are osp-ephh, osp-ephc, and osp-ephl. The probability that a satellite’s position error is not characterized by this a priori ephemeris model is less than 10-4 per hour.
• Monitoring Approach– Compare broadcast vs precise in HCL to ensure sigmas are
less than 1m, 2.5m, 7.5m for Radial, Cross Track, and In Track
Offline Monitoring
6Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Ephemeris – Radial
PRN: 112010-10-15 00:00:00-2.16619174736
PRN: 052010-10-23 23:45:00-1.25456410331
PRN: 312010-11-20 03:45:001.44416876193
PRN: 292010-12-16 02:45:00-1.28223089084
PRN: 252010-12-23 04:45:00-1.40505207557
PRN: 252010-12-24 06:00:00-1.29037947749
Offline Monitoring
7Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Ephemeris – In TrackPRN: 112010-10-15 04:00:0014.0549074655
PRN: 252010-12-24 07:45:00 14.6629813657
PRN: 242010-12-30 01:30:00 -15.7248821707
PRN: 302010-12-30 04:15:00 8.86779042477
PRN: 272010-11-07 20:15:008.39537775327
Offline Monitoring
8Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Ephemeris – Cross Track
PRN: 172010-12-01 06:45:00-2.73555408015
PRN: 212010-12-31 00:00:00-2.57918952043
Offline Monitoring
9Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
RIC OutliersPRN R I C PRN R I C
1 0 0 0 17 0 0 92 0 0 0 18 0 0 03 0 0 0 19 0 0 04 0 0 0 20 0 0 05 1 0 0 21 0 0 16 0 0 0 22 1 0 07 3 0 0 23 0 0 08 2 0 0 24 110 18 09 6 0 0 25 42 56 0
10 8 0 0 26 0 0 011 9 24 0 27 1614 35 012 1 0 0 28 0 0 013 0 0 0 29 1 0 014 0 0 0 30 7 25 015 0 4 0 31 3 1 016 0 0 0 32 0 8 0
Offline Monitoring
10Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Ionospheric Threat Model Monitoring
• AssertionThe values of and iono adequately protect against worst case undersampled ionosphere over the life of any ionospheric correction message, when the storm detectors have not tripped.
• Monitoring Approach– Monitor for Chi^2 values greater than 1 in the four
regions • CONUS > 1%• Alaska > 2%• Caribbean > 10%• Other > 3%
decorrundersamp
Offline Monitoring
11Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Monitoring Regions
Offline Monitoring
12Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Offline Monitoring
13Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Offline Monitoring
14Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Offline Monitoring
15Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Total Chi2 values ≥ 1 from all regions for 2010 at ZLA (35.07% zeros)
Offline Monitoring
16Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
2010 Total Chi2 Values Over 1
Offline Monitoring
17Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Antenna Monitoring
• Assertion
The position error (RSS) for each WAAS reference station antenna is 10cm or less when measured relative to the ITRF datum for any given epoch. (Mexico City is allowed 25cm). The ITRF datum version (realization) is the one consistent with WGS-84 and also used for positions of the GPS Operational Control Segment monitoring stations.
Offline Monitoring
18Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Purpose
• Accurate antenna positions needed to support DGPS applications
• Correct for Time Dependent Process– Tectonic Plate Movement– Subsidence
• Correct for Shift Events– Seismic– Maintenance
• WIPP Review for integrity issues– Greater than 10 cm WIPP should review– Greater than 25 cm WIPP must review– Special case for Mexico City (25 cm for review)
• Project the need for a WAAS Antenna Coordinate Update
Offline Monitoring
19Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Survey Details
• Survey Date– 2011-01-28
– Cross Compared Against– CSRS-PPP– WFO-R2– Coordinates Projected to six months beyond WFO
WFO Release 3– 2012-05-01
Offline Monitoring
20Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Results• Against CSRS-PPP
– All sites less than 5 cm.
• Against WFO-R2– All sites less than 5 cm.
Offline Monitoring
21Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Code Carrier Coherence
• AssertionThe a priori probability of a CCC failure is less than 1x10-4 per set of satellites in view per hour for GPS satellites and 1.14x10-4 for GEO satellites.
Offline Monitoring
22Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
CCC monitoring approach Anik, Galaxy 15 and all GPS satellites are monitored for CCC trips for Q4
2010 (last data for CCC data for Galaxy 15 was on 2010-12-15). AMR is not currently monitored (not used as ranging source, UDRE
floor=50m) All CCC monitor trips are investigated whenever a trip occurs to determine
source of trip Minimum data sources used in correlation and analysis:
• CCC test statistic
• UDRE threshold value
• CMCI measurements from NETS SQA
• WAAS Iono calculation
• L1/L5 Iono GUST calculation
• published planetary Kp and Ap values
• Chi2 values
Offline Monitoring
23Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Reported CCC trips for Q4 2010
Date GEO PRN C&V2010-10-24 06:38:25 138 ZLA 2010-10-24 06:38:30 138 ZDC 2010-10-25 19:23:54 138 ZTL2010-10-25 19:24:05 138 ZLA 2010-12-08 11:55:40 138 ZDC ZTL2010-12-08 14:03:56 138 ZDC ZLA 2010-12-11 22:55:44 138 ZDC ZTL2010-12-12 02:45:52 138 ZDC ZTL2010-12-12 15:24:27 138 ZDC ZTL
Offline Monitoring
24Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
CCC plots
Offline Monitoring
25Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
CCC plots
Offline Monitoring
26Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Signal Quality Monitor
• AssertionThe a priori probability of a signal deformation (SD) failure is less than 2.4x10-5 per set of satellites in view per hour for GPS or GEO satellites.The worst-case range errors due to nominal signal deformations are more than 25cm on any satellite signal relative to the other satellites in view.
• Monitoring Approach– All SQM Trips will be monitored for and investigated– Max and Median data for each metric will be plotted by Requested
UDRE• Monitoring for discrepancies between satellite• Plots are for the first 4 days of every week for the entire quarter• Plots were made using the tools from HMI Build 299
Offline Monitoring
27Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
SQM max plot
Offline Monitoring
28Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
GEO Signal Quality
• AssertionThe WAAS SIS satisfies the requirements for code-carrier coherence and fractional coherence stated in sections 3.1.4.2 and 3.1.4.3 of the [draft] system specification FAA-E-2892c
• Monitoring Approach– Collect WAAS SIS data from each GEO using GUST receivers
connected to dish antennas– Compute and plot the metrics outlined in sections 3.1.4.2 and
3.1.4.3 of FAA-E-2892c– Examine plots, tabulate max metric values and pass/fail states,
analyze failures in further detail to identify possible causes
Offline Monitoring
29Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
29
Performance Summary
L1 CCC L5 CCC CC
short-term
long-term
short-term
long-term
short-term
long-term
PRN 135
CRW
max
mean
PRN 138 CRE
max
mean
regularly below spec limit
near spec limitregularly above
spec limit
Offline Monitoring
30Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
SummaryOnly issue: fly-by of CRW apparently affected measurements of both
CRE and CRW
Twice-daily elevated noise on some days
When CRW most N and S; bigger effect as CRE, CRW got close
Different sites saw effects of different magnitude
Additional periods of noise on Nov 12 (closest approach)
PR oscillation correction now included in processing
Mitigates systematic error in GUST receiver
L1 and L5 PR corrections mapped using GUST receiver and prototype SIGGEN in Zeta lab
Applicable to any WAAS GUST/G-II receiver
Dependent on PRN code, PR(t) and PR(t-1)
Allows more accurate evaluation of received signal
30
Offline Monitoring
31Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
31
Example of Elevated Noise: 19 Nov 2010
• Elevated noise at approx. 2:21 and 14:19 UTC (N and S extremes of CRW orbit) -- close to but not at zero Doppler at either OKC or LTN (or APC Primary, which showed little to no effect at either time this day) caused higher than normal max CCC values
• Effect worse when CRW was close to CRE (effect also seen on CRE)
• Since different sites show different effects, probably not on SIS; will monitor as CRW returns to nominal orbit slot
OKC PRN 135 LTN PRN 135
Offline Monitoring
32Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
32
Example of PR Correction Effect: 19 Nov 2010
• PR oscillation correction generally benefits L1 more than L5 and PRN 138 more than PRN 135 (oscillation signatures have different magnitudes)
• CRE performance marginal without correction but well below spec limits with correction (nominally; not including CRW fly-by effects)
• Since oscillations are a systematic receiver effect, mitigation allows better evaluation of received signal
OKC PRN 138 before correction OKC PRN 138 after correction
Offline Monitoring
33Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
33
PRN 135 Short-term CCC
Note: missing values indicate days with switchovers or incomplete data
CRW passes CRE Nov 12
Offline Monitoring
34Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
34
PRN 135 Long-term CCC
Note: missing values indicate days with switchovers or incomplete data
Offline Monitoring
35Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
35
PRN 135 Short-term CC
Note: missing values indicate days with switchovers or incomplete data
Offline Monitoring
36Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
36
PRN 135 Long-term CC
Note: missing values indicate days with switchovers or incomplete data
Offline Monitoring
37Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
37
PRN 138 Short-term CCC
Note: missing values indicate days with switchovers or incomplete data
Offline Monitoring
38Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
38
PRN 138 Long-term CCC
Note: missing values indicate days with switchovers or incomplete data
Offline Monitoring
39Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
39
PRN 138 Short-term CC
Note: missing values indicate days with switchovers or incomplete data
Offline Monitoring
40Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
40
PRN 138 Long-term CC
Note: missing values indicate days with switchovers or incomplete data
Offline Monitoring
41Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Code Noise and Multipath (CNMP) OverboundingAssertion
The Code Noise and Multipath (CNMP) error bound is sufficiently conservative such that the error in linear combinations of L1 and L2 measurements is overbounded by a Gaussian distribution with a sigma described by the Root Sum Square (RSS) of L1 and L2 CNMP error bounds except for biases, which are handled separately.3
Monitoring Approach Bounding for L1, IFPR, DelayAggregate and WRE SlicesAll bounding failures analyzed in further detail
Offline Monitoring
42Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Equations Used•Cumulative distribution function (CDF):
•For examining the behavior at larger values of x:
•Pass is Δx > 0 for all |x|>0.25
x
tR dtex 22
2
1)(
0
)(1
)(1)(1
0)(
)()(
)(
xx
xx
xx
xx
x
Rtheory
Rdata
Rtheory
Rtheory
Rdata
Rtheory
Offline Monitoring
43Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Aggregate Plot of CNMP Delay
Offline Monitoring
44Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Aggregate Plot of CNMP IFPR
Offline Monitoring
45Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Aggregate Plot of CNMP RDL1
Offline Monitoring
46Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
CNMP Tabular Results from Poor Performing WRE Slices
Sliced by WRE Legend:
- = passed
X = did not pass
WRE #, WRE Name
L1 IFPR Delay
μ σ |max|
pass/ fail
μ σ |max|pass/ fail
μ σ |max|
pass/ fail
29, Houston C 0.032 0.46 3.09 - 0.058 0.42 3.31 - -0.064 0.40 3.10 -
44, Salt Lake C -0.071 0.27 1.69 - -0.026 0.99 2.15 - 0.002 0.26 2.20 -
07, Anchorage B -0.096 0.33 2.39 - -0.038 0.33 2.03 - 0.012 0.33 2.18 -
99, Goose Bay A 0.029 0.21 1.81 - 0.040 0.17 1.34 - -0.041 0.15 1.01 -
79, Bethel B -0.014 0.18 1.27 - -0.033 0.22 1.83 - 0.021 0.21 1.53 -
*This is a subset of sites as an example
Offline Monitoring
47Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-07
Summary• Quarterly monitoring results continue to support
specific assertions called for in the HMI document.
• All antenna positions are within 5 cm.
• The CCC Test Statistic for the GEOs is ????
Offline Monitoring
48Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-0748
Offline Monitoring DocumentReport format is separated into 3 hierarchical reading levels:
Level 1: Executive summary2-3 page overview of the events
Level 2: Main body~30 pages of technical briefings, limited number of graphs
Level 3: Materials and MethodsSupplemental information, including:
Additional Figures
Details of the tool configuration (build no, flag settings, etc.)
Data filenames and location (to possibly re-run in the future)
OLM coding standards and guidelines
First draft is scheduled to be released on March 31st
Offline Monitoring
49Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-0749
Offline MonitoringData Types and Standards
Standards:
Slicing requirements – data from different sources are examined separately and not aggregated
UDRE index
PRN
Binning requirements – different bin sizes are used for different analyses (0.01, 0.001, etc.)
4 File Formats:
(1) Histogram files – histogram of raw counts of the metric (not probabilities), can be compiled together
Offline Monitoring
50Federal AviationAdministration
2011-03-0750
Offline MonitoringData Types and Standards
(2) Statistics files – each column in histogram file has a list (rows) of 15 descriptive statistics associated with it:
Counts
Mean
Standard deviation
Minimum, Maximum, Absolute maximum
Sigma over-bound (zero centered), Sigma over-bound (mean centered)
1st quartile, Median, 3rd quartile
Mean and standard deviation of absolute value
RMS
Variance
(3) Time series files: variable data over time
Time represented in WAAS time, UTC time (HHMMSS) and seconds into the day
Files can be concatenated together to form multi-day sets
(4) Quantity files: two-dimensional slices of any particular quantity (ex. UDREI/GPS PRN of |CCC metric|)