Estimation of Multipath Range Error for
Detection of Erroneous Satellites
Tatsuya Iwase, Toyota Central R&D Labs., Japan
Noriyoshi Suzuki, Toyota Central R&D Labs., Japan
Yusuke Watanabe, Denso Corp., Japan
BIOGRAPHIES
Tatsuya Iwase is a Researcher in the ITS laboratory of
Toyota Central R&D Labs. He received his B.E. and M.E.
degrees from the University of Tokyo in 1998 and 2000,
respectively. His current research focuses on precise
GNSS positioning of land vehicles in urban environments
and its safety applications.
Noriyoshi Suzuki is a Senior Researcher in the ITS
laboratory of Toyota Central R&D Labs. He received his
B.E. and M.E. degrees in electronics engineering from
Kyoto University in 1990 and 1992, respectively, and the
D.E. degree from Toyohashi University of Technology in
2003. His research interests include digital mobile
communication systems and integrated GPS/INS systems
for land vehicle positioning.
Yusuke Watanabe is a Researcher in the ITS
Development Dept of Denso Corp. He received his B.E.
degrees from Nagoya Institute of Technology in 2000.
His current research focuses on precise combined
GNSS/INS positioning of land vehicles.
ABSTRACT
In integrated systems for accurate positioning which
consist of GNSS, INS and other sensors, the GNSS
positioning accuracy has a decisive influence on the
performance of the entire system and thus is very
important. However, GNSS usually exhibits poor
positioning results in urban canyon environments due to
pseudorange measurement errors caused by multipath
creation, which leads to performance degradation of the
entire positioning system. For this reason, in order to
maintain the accuracy of an integrated positioning system,
it is necessary to determine when the GNSS positioning is
accurate and which satellites can have their pseudorange
measured accurately without multipath errors.
Thus, the objective of our work is to detect the multipath
errors in the satellite signals and exclude these signals to
improve the positioning accuracy of GNSS and
consequently the integrated positioning system, especially
in an urban canyon environment.
2228
23rd International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of
The Institute of Navigation, Portland, OR, September 21-24, 2010
One of the previous technologies for tackling this problem
is RAIM, which checks the residual of the least square
and identifies the suspicious satellites. However, it
presumes a Gaussian measurement error which is more
common in an open-sky environment than in the urban
canyon environment.
On the other hand, our proposed method tries to estimate
the size of the multipath error directly and use the
estimated error to weight satellite signals and improve the
positioning accuracy.
The proposed method was tested with a low-cost GNSS
receiver mounted on a test vehicle in a test drive in
Nagoya, Japan, which is a typical urban canyon
environment. With this experimental data, the accuracy of
the multipath error estimation and of the improved
positioning are discussed.
1. INTRODUCTION
For land vehicle navigation, several positioning sensors
are used such as GNSS and INS, and their measurements
are integrated to achieve higher accuracy of positioning
by compensating for the shortcomings of each
[1][2][3][4][5][6]. However, the blockage and the
reflection of satellite signals in urban canyons cause
multipath pseudorange errors and degradation of the
GNSS positioning performance. Especially, if the direct
signal is blocked by buildings and only indirect signals
reach the GNSS receiver, the pseudorange error becomes
so large that GNSS lowers the positioning accuracy of the
entire system. Thus, it is important to detect false
multipath satellite signals that cause pseudorange errors
and exclude them from positioning calculations to
maintain positioning accuracy.
One of the previous technologies tackling this problem is
receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM)
[7][8][9][10][11]. RAIM detects signals from GNSS
satellites which are erroneous and subsequently cause
mistaken positioning by statistical reliability tests. RAIM
is a type of robust estimation, which is a technique to
detect errors, namely outliers, based on calculation of the
least square residuals. In epoch-by-epoch GNSS
positioning, the least square method is commonly used, in
which the receiver position which best maintains
consistency with pseudorange measurements of satellites
is estimated. The least square residual of a satellite is the
discrepancy between this estimated position and observed
 pseudoranges of the satellite, and reveals inconsistency of specifically pseudoranges, from the errors in solutions,
this satellite’s signals with others. RAIM regards an specifically vehicle positions.
observation with a large residual as an outlier, and The solution equations of GNSS positioning have four
excludes it from the positioning calculations. variables: vehicle position (x,y,z) and receiver clock bias.
However, if the percentage of outliers among observed This requires four references to compute the errors in the
signals increases, the estimated receiver position solution. However, if the four reference values are
gravitates toward those outliers and away from the true available, that means the positioning problem is already
position. This results in the reduction of the residuals of solved. Usually only some of the four references are
outliers and increase in the residuals of proper available. This insufficiency of references causes this to
observations, and the subsequent failure of the reliability be an underdetermined problem. In this paper, a technique
tests. The threshold percentage of outliers causing the to solve such problems is proposed.
failure of robust estimation is called breakdown point. First, an equation is derived which shows the relation
Generally, the breakdown point is up to 50%. Therefore, between the error in the solution and the error in the
if the percentage of erroneous satellite signals exceeds observation. The GNSS solution is calculated with the
50%, RAIM will fail. Such a situation is likely in urban Newton-Raphson method as follows
environments where high buildings are concentrated and ∆x = x − x 0
signals from satellites are often blocked. In these severe
environments for GNSS, an alternative technology to ∆ri = ri − x 0 − x i
traditional RAIM is necessary to correctly choose from
among observed satellite signals. ∆r = H∆x
In this paper, we study a new approach by which where x is the solution to be estimated, x 0 is the initial
erroneous satellite signals are identified and excluded to
value of the solution, x i is the position of the satellite
improve positioning accuracy in urban environments.
Unlike RAIM which calculates least square residuals, our number i, ri is the pseudorange of the observed satellite
proposed method directly estimates the size of the signal with ionospheric delay, tropospheric delay and
multipath error in the observed signal based on partially
satellite clock bias eliminated, ∆r is the vector
available reference data of vehicle position.
The rest of this paper is as follows. Section 2 describes representation of ∆ri , and H is a geometry matrix. ∆x
the basic concept of our method for estimating the is calculated with the least square method as follows.
multipath errors in observed signals. Section 3 and 4 ∆x = H + ∆r
describe error estimation with an altitude map. Section 5
describes an experiment to evaluate the performance of H + is a pseudo-inverse matrix of H calculated as
the proposed technique and its results. Finally, follows.
conclusions are presented in Section 6. H+ = HTH( )−1
HT
If the pseudorange includes multipath error e , it causes
2. BASIC CONCEPT OF MULTIPATH
ESTIMATION the solution error e x as follows.
∆x + e x = H + (∆r + e)
As described above, RAIM fails in GNSS reliability tests
when more than half of the observed signals are incorrect. ∴e x = H +e
This is because RAIM tests the observations by The elements of this equation are as follows.
calculating least square residuals. Here, we propose a new
approach to reliability testing which uses reference  ex   a1 an 
information of vehicle position instead of least square e   b   e1 
 M 
b
residuals. If the size of observed signal error is known, it  =
y 1
L n

is easy to discriminate the erroneous satellite signals. The  ez   c1 cn   

    e 
size of errors is calculated as the difference between
 eb  d1 dn  n 
observations and true values. Usually the true value is not
available, and the most reliable and precise value is used In this paper, we call this the error equation. With this
as the reference instead. equation, the observed signal error e can be calculated
In GNSS positioning, the solution (the position of the from the solution error e x . Note that the error equation
vehicle) is estimated from the pseudorange observations.
does not make any assumption regarding the error, such
If a reference pseudorange is available, the size of errors
as Gaussian distribution. Accordingly, the error equation
in pseudorange observations can be calculated and the
is useful in analyzing non-Gaussian noise such as
erroneous satellite signals can be detected easily.
multipath errors.
Here is an example of error calculation. Let ( x, y, z , b )
However, it is difficult to obtain such a reference
pseudorange. On the other hand, reference vehicle
positions are sometimes available, and at those times the denote the GNSS solution of the vehicle position and
error in vehicle position can be estimated. The basic idea receiver clock bias. Now let's assume that only the vehicle
of our approach is calculating the errors in observations,

2229
23rd International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of
The Institute of Navigation, Portland, OR, September 21-24, 2010
 position has a reference value, which is ( xr , yr , zr ) . reliable and its signal error is zero. We call this satellite
the reference satellite. This is denoted as follows.
Then the error in positioning is as follows.
 e x   x − xr   e1 
    M
 e y  =  y − yr   
e   z − z  0 = [0 L 1 L 0] ei 
 z  r  M
According to the error equation, the relation between the e 
error in positioning and the error in pseudorange  n
observation is as follows. With this equation added in the simultaneous equation
above, the following new equations are set up.
 ex  a1 an   e1 
e  =  b L b   M   ex   a1 an −1 an 
 y  1 n   e   b L b bn 
 ez   c1 cn  en   y  1 n −1

cn   1 
 ez   c1 e
The element of clock bias is omitted because it does not
cn −1
M  M  M
have a reference. This equation applies to the case where
e n  = a n  
satellites 1 to n are used in positioning. If the number of n an −1 0 en −1 
 xn   1n 
observations is n, which is larger than 4, the solution of
e y  b1 L n bn −1 0  en 
the position can be calculated with different combinations
 n  n 
of the satellites. If we use all the satellites and remove one
ez   c1 n cn −1 0
of the satellites one by one, there are n+1 combinations.
For each combination, the solution can be calculated and
 0   0 L 1 L 0 
As a result, the rank of the right side matrix becomes n,
the error equation can be set up. For example, the error
equation without the first satellite is as follows. making the simultaneous equations solvable. In vector
representation, the equations are expressed as follows.
e  e xyz = B xyz e
 1 ex  0 1 a2 1 an   1 
 e  = 0 L  e2  Using the least square method, the pseudorange error can
1 y   1 b2 1 bn 
M be calculated as follows.
 1 ez  0 1 c2
 
1 cn  
+
e = B xyz e xyz
en 
If the speed of the vehicle has a reference value, the same
Note that the elements in the matrix of the error equation
technique can be adopted to estimate the Doppler
are different for each satellite combination. The suffixes
observation error. As one example, Fig. 1 shows the
at the lower left mean the satellite number which is
pseudorange errors estimated during an experiment in an
excluded in the positioning calculation.
urban environment in Japan. The details of the experiment
With all the n+1 error equations of different satellite
are explained in a later section. Fig. 2 shows the sky plot
combinations combined, the following simultaneous
of satellites at this time. It is clear that the size of
equations are set up.
pseudorange errors becomes large when a satellite is
 ex   a1 an − 1 an  invisible, blocked by buildings.
e  b L b bn   e 
During the error estimation process described above, we
 y   1 n −1
1
made the assumption that the reference satellite has no
 ez   c1 cn −1 cn   M  pseudorange error. If the reference satellite is blocked by
 M = M    eq. 1 a building and its observation includes multipath error,
 n ex   n a1 0 en −1 
the assumption is not true and the estimation fails. To
n an − 1
     prevent this failure, a simple test for multipath error can
 n e y   n b1 L n bn −1 0  en  be conducted by checking the stability of the receiver
 e  c 0
clock bias. By subtracting the estimated error from the
n z n 1 n cn −1  observed pseudorange, a precise observation and the
positioning solution can be obtained without the influence
of multipath. The receiver clock bias in the solution
The observed signal errors can be obtained by solving
should be also out of the multipath influence and then its
these simultaneous equations. However, the rank of the
time series should be smooth. If the reference satellite
matrix on the right side is n-1, and the simultaneous
signal includes multipath error, it distorts the clock bias
equations need one more constraint to be solved. This is
solution and the failure of error estimation can be detected
because the simultaneous equations only have the
as this disturbance of the clock bias. Fig. 3 shows the time
constraints of the spatial position, and information on
series of the second derived clock bias solution. The
clock bias is missing. For this reason, another assumption
disturbance of multipath appears as large jumps in the
needs to be introduced as a constraint. Here, we assume
graph. During this time period, a highway bridge was
that the satellite i with the highest elevation angle is
above the test vehicle and the reference satellite was

2230
23rd International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of
The Institute of Navigation, Portland, OR, September 21-24, 2010
 blocked. Except for this period, it can be said that the In the last section, an error estimation technique is
estimation was correct. proposed using reference information of vehicle position.
However, finding the position of the vehicle is generally
the purpose of the GNSS positioning, and reference
Pseudorange Error [m]

positions are usually unavailable. Meanwhile, the altitude

of land vehicles basically depends on the shape of the
terrain. Reference altitudes are thus relatively easy to
obtain, especially where the slope of the road is not so
steep. Therefore, we used an altitude map as a reference
giving the vehicle altitude. This map is expressed as
values of the following function which takes longitude
and latitude values as inputs and outputs the altitude at
that point.

Satellite ID
z r = f ( x, y )
In a relatively flat area as found in most big cities, the
Fig. 1 Estimated pseudorange errors error in the output altitude should be relatively small
compared to the error in the input horizontal position.
Accordingly, this altitude map can be an effective
reference in urban area positioning.
By using this altitude map as a reference, the same basic
procedure described in the previous section can be used to
estimate the error of GNSS observations. Since only
altitude reference values are available here, Eq.1 is
changed into equations only dealing with altitude as
follows.
 ez   c1 cn 
 e1   0   e1 
 z =  1 cn   
L M
 M   n −1 c1 n −1 cn
 
 n   en 
ez   n c1 0 
The rank of the right side matrix is n-3 this time, since
this equation has only altitude information as a constraint.
Thus, three reference satellites are necessary to solve the
equation. Once the simultaneous equations are set up with
values from the three reference satellites, the rank of its
matrix becomes full and the equations are solvable as
follows.
Fig. 2 Skyplot of the error estimating situation e = Bz+e z
This estimated error of an observed signal is reliable if
clock bias [m/s2]

the assumption that the observed reference satellite

signals are not erroneous is correct. The truth of this
Second derived

assumption must be verified before we choose satellites

whose signals are used for positioning, based on the
estimated errors of their observed signals.
Fig. 4 gives an overview of the verification process flow.
First, in the assumption generation process, the most
reliable three satellites are provisionally chosen and it is
assumed that signals received from them do not contain
errors. Since satellites at high elevation angles are
Time [s] unlikely be blocked by buildings, they are more reliable
than satellites at lower elevation angles. Thus initially, the
Fig. 3 Time series of clock bias solution four satellites with the highest elevation angles are chosen
and positioning is calculated with signals from those
satellites. The altitude error in the solution is calculated
3. MULTIPATH ESTIMATION WITH with the altitude map as reference. If the altitude error is
INCOMPLETE REFERENCES less than a threshold value, those four satellites are
regarded as reliable, and the three with the highest
elevation angles are chosen as the reference satellites.

2231
23rd International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of
The Institute of Navigation, Portland, OR, September 21-24, 2010
 Then, in the estimation process, the error of an observed
signal is estimated using the altitude map and the three
reference satellites.
In the corrected positioning process, the estimated error is
then used to make a correct positioning calculation. This
can be done in several ways. The simplest way is
deducting the estimated error from the observation to
cancel the influence of multipath. However, this yields the
same result as positioning with altitude map and three
reference satellites. What we want is an optimum solution
with all the satellite signals taken into account except for
the ones with multipath errors. The second simplest way
to do this is to select satellites based on the size of the
estimated errors. Another way is to weight satellites in
positioning according to the estimated error of their
signals. This is done by a weighted least square technique
[12]. For example, the weight is defined as follows.
(e ≥ 1)
 1 / ei
wii =  i
1 − log( ei ) (e i < 1)
eq. 2
where ei is the estimated error of satellite i.
The positioning solution is calculated with the following
equation
(
∆x = H T WH H T W∆r)−1
where W is a weight matrix, the element (i,i) of which
denotes wii .
Finally, in the verification process, the correctness of the
reference satellite signals is tested by checking the
altitude error in the solution with the altitude map. If the
altitude error is less than a threshold, the assumption that
the signals of the three reference satellites are correct is
upheld. Otherwise, the assumption is rejected and the
positioning does not output any solution since there are
not enough reliable satellites. This causes the reduction in
availability of positioning solutions throughout the urban
area.
Assumption Generation:
Three reference satellites
are chosen.
Estimation:
Observation error is
estimated.
Corrected Positioning:
Positioning solution is
calculated with error
taken into account.
Verification:
Solution is tested
with altitude map.
Fig. 4 Flow of verification
2232
23rd International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of
The Institute of Navigation, Portland, OR, September 21-24, 2010
4. ASSUMPTION-VERIFICATION LOOP
In the assumption generation process, the reference
satellites are chosen based on their elevation angles.
However, when vehicle goes under a highway or is
surrounded by high buildings, even satellites with high
elevation angle are not always reliable. In such a situation,
another technique is needed to choose appropriate
reference satellites. On the other hand, the proposed
technique described in the last section calculates an error-
corrected solution and verifies it with the altitude map.
This verified positioning solution is reliable and can be
used as reference information in place of high elevation
satellites. Fig. 5 shows a process flow using a verified
solution as a reference. In the prediction process, a
positioning reference of the current time is calculated
from a verified solution of a past time as follows,
x1* = x 0 + v 0 dt
b1* = b0 + d 0
where x 0 , v 0 , b0 , d 0 are the past verified position,
*
speed, clock bias and clock drift, respectively, and x1 ,
b1* are the predicted reference position and clock bias,
respectively. The speed in the past time is obtained either
by estimating Doppler error or by correcting the speed
solution by pseudorange error weighting. With these
predicted references, the error equation is set up. Now
that there are four references, full rank simultaneous
equations can be set up, and then no reference satellites
are necessary. The observed signal error is estimated by
solving these simultaneous equations. Since the
references are calculated from the past verified
information, this estimated error is also based on the past
information. Thus, this estimated error is used only for the
selection of reference satellites at the current time in the
assumption generation process. The three satellites with
the least estimated error are chosen as reference satellites,
and then the error estimation is conducted again with the
selected reference satellites and the altitude map. Since
the reference satellites supply current information, they
are more reliable than the predicted references based on
the past information. By using the past information, three
reference satellites can be selected properly even when
high elevation angle satellites are blocked.

Assumption Generation:
Three reference satellites
are chosen.
Estimation:
Observation error is
estimated. Prediction:
Reference positions
are calculated.
Corrected Positioning:
Positioning solution is
calculated with error
taken into account.
Verification:
Solution is tested
with altitude map.
Fig. 5 Flow of assumption-verification loop
5. EXPERIMENT AND RESULTS
An experiment was conducted with a test vehicle to
evaluate the performance of the proposed error estimation
technique described in the previous section. The
experiment was conducted on September 2, 2009 in the
Nagoya area in Japan. (The approximate location is
35.17N, 136.88E.) It is a dense urban area with buildings
over one hundred meters high. The test vehicle used in
this experiment was equipped with a u-blox Antaris 4
GPS receiver and POS LV, a high-end, precise
positioning system.[13]
Fig. 6 shows the process flow of the experiment. In the
beginning, data of POS LV is used as the reference
vehicle positions ( xr , yr , zr ) . With this reference data,
error in GPS observation is estimated using the technique
proposed in Section 2. This estimated error is used as a
reference to verify the accuracy of error estimation using
the altitude map, as described in section 3 and 4. This
time, the altitude zr measured by POS LV is used for the
output of the altitude map. As shown in Fig. 3, the
reference error is not calculated correctly in some places.
In those places, the performance evaluation was not
conducted due to the lack of reference data. The
parameters in error estimations were as follows.
• Threshold of altitude error in verification process:
40 meters
• Threshold of pseudorange error in assumption
generation process: 5 meters
• Sampling frequency in prediction process: 1
second
The result of the error estimation is shown in Fig. 7. The
x-axis shows the error estimated with altitude map, while
the y-axis shows the reference error. The estimated error
matched the reference error well. The RMSE was 27.5m.
Then, the estimated error was used to correct positioning.
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 show comparisons between positioning
2233
23rd International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of
The Institute of Navigation, Portland, OR, September 21-24, 2010
with and without correction using the estimated error
information. In the positioning without correction, an
elevation mask of 10 degrees and S/N mask of 25dB were
applied. In the positioning with correction, the estimated
error is used to weight satellites as in Eq.2. Compared to
the positioning without correction, the corrected
positioning exhibited improved positioning accuracy. The
availability of positioning solutions in the urban area was
decreased after the corrected positioning since some of
the corrected positions were rejected in the verification
process. As seen in the pictures, the positioning solutions
with large error were correctly excluded.
Another experiment was conducted with Gaussian noise
( )
N 0,10 2 added to the altitude map to see the influence
of the accuracy of the altitude map. Fig. 10 shows the
results. Results were not much different from Fig. 7, and
RMSE was 27.6m. These results indicate that the
proposed technique has robustness against the noise in an
altitude map. One of the possible reasons is that the noise
in altitude map is relatively small compared to the
pseudorange error, small enough to be ignored. The order
of the pseudorange error in an urban area is over 100m as
shown in Fig. 7.
The positioning accuracy shown in Fig. 9 can be
improved if severe threshold parameters of multipath
detection are applied. In such case, the availability of
positioning solutions decreases in return for increase in
accuracy. Fig. 11 shows a result when the threshold of
pseudorange error is changed. The more stringent the
multipath detection standards get, the greater the accuracy
and the lower the availability of positioning solutions. For
comparison, the results of traditional RAIM are shown in
the same graph. It is clear that the proposed technique can
make the accuracy of positioning solutions better than
RAIM while keeping their availability as high as RAIM.
With more severe parameters, accuracy up to 11m can be
attained even in urban areas.
GPS Observation
(Pseudorange,Doppler)
Altitude Map POSLV Data
Error Estimation Error Estimation
as in section 3&4 as in section 2
Estimated Reference
Comparison1
Error Error
Corrected Positioning
Comparison2
Positioning Solution
Fig. 6 Flow of experiment
 Reference Error [m]
Reference Error [m]

Estimated Error [m] Estimated Error [m]

Fig. 7 Estimated pseudorange error Fig. 10 Estimated pseudorange error with noise in altitude
map

Reference Position
Proposed Method
GPS Solution 120 RAIM

2drms Error[m]
100
80
60
40
20
11m
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Availability[%]
2drms Error：105.3m
Availability：100% Fig. 11 Relation between accuracy and availability

Fig. 8 Positioning error and availability

6. CONCLUSIONS

Reference Position A new approach to identify erroneous satellite signals and

exclude them for precise GNSS positioning was described.
GPS Solution The technique uses an altitude map as partial reference
information to test the reliability of satellite signals and
estimate the errors in the observed satellite signals,
including those due to multipath. The proposed method
was examined in an urban canyon where large multipath
error occurs. By this method, the size of pseudorange
error in observed signals was estimated for each satellite.
The estimation of the error was accurate enough that the
multipath satellite signals could be excluded correctly,
and the accuracy of the consequent positioning was
improved. It was also shown that the positioning accuracy
2drms Error：31.7m based on the proposed method was better than that based
Availability：75.1% on traditional RAIM with the same positioning solution
availability. The remaining problem of this technique is
that it assumes the reliability of the signals of three high
Fig. 9 Positioning error and availability (corrected) elevation angle satellites at the beginning of its algorithm.
The algorithm thus is faulty if the high elevation satellites
are blocked as when the vehicle is under a highway
overpass. This problem may be solved if S/N information
is used in a future system.

2234
23rd International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of
The Institute of Navigation, Portland, OR, September 21-24, 2010
 [13] http://www.applanix.com/products/land/pos-lv.html
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study has been partially funded by Denso

Corporation. The authors are grateful for the advice of
project team members: Mr. Katsuhiko Mutoh, Mr.
Tadashi Kamada, Mr. Hiroyuki Kitagawa, and Mr. Kei
Uemura from Denso Corporation, and Ms. Yoshiko
Kojima, Mr. Junichi Meguro, and Mr. Kojiro Takeyama
from Toyota Central R&D Labs., Inc.

REFERENCES

[1] I Skog, P Handel, In-Car Positioning and Navigation

Technologies - A Survey, IEEE Transactions on
Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol.10, No.1,
pp.4-21, 2009
[2] I Skog, P Handel, A low-cost GPS aided inertial
navigation system for vehicle applications, Proc.
EUSIPCO 2005, 2005
[3] F Caron, M Davy, E Duflos, P Vanheeghe, Particle
Filtering for Multisensor Data Fusion With
Switching Observation Models: Application to Land
Vehicle Positioning, IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, Vol.55, No.6, pp.2703-2719, 2007
[4] I Miller, B Schimpf, M Campbell, J Leyssens,
Tightly-coupled GPS / INS system design for
autonomous urban navigation, IEEE/ION Position,
Location and Navigation Symposium, pp.1297-1310,
2008
[5] A Soloviev, Tight coupling of GPS, laser scanner,
and inertial measurements for navigation in urban
environments, IEEE/ION Position, Location and
Navigation Symposium, pp.511-525, 2008
[6] M Jabbour, P Bonnifait, Backing up GPS in urban
areas using a scanning laser, IEEE/ION Position,
Location and Navigation Symposium, pp.505-510,
2008
[7] H Kuusniemi, G Lachapelle, JH Takala, Position and
velocity reliability testing in degraded GPS signal
environments, GPS Solutions, Vol.8, No.4, pp.226-
237, 2004
[8] CL Young, GO Daniel, A Performance Analysis of a
Tightly Coupled GPS/Inertial System for Two
Integrity Monitoring Methods, Navigation, 2000
[9] MG Petovello, ME Cannon, G Lachapelle, Kalman
filter reliability analysis using different update
strategies, Proceedings of the CASI Annual General
Meeting, 2003
[10] H Leppakoski, H Kuusniemi, J Takala, RAIM and
Complementary Kalman Filtering for GNSS
Reliability Enhancement, IEEE/ION Position,
Location, And Navigation Symposium, pp.948-956,
2006
[11] J Wang, C Xu, & J Wang, Applications of robust
Kalman filtering schemes in GNSS navigation, Int.
Symp. on GPS/GNSS, pp.308-316, 2008
[12] Pratap Misra and Per Enge, Global Positioning
System: Signals, Measurements and Performance,
Ganga-Jamuna Pr, 2006

2235
23rd International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of
The Institute of Navigation, Portland, OR, September 21-24, 2010