GPS Integrity Parameter Determination Using Lookup Tables

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current algorithms for determining integrity risk in global positioning systems, such as the Galileo system, provide conservative estimates that can lead to unnecessary reduction in system availability, as they fail to accurately reflect the actual integrity due to neglecting probabilities of missed detection and requiring high computational efforts.

Innovation Solution

A method and apparatus that use a look-up table-based approach to determine integrity indicating parameters, such as integrity risk and protection level, by considering probabilities of single failure events and missed detection, reducing computational burdens and providing more accurate estimates.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If conservative algorithms are used to determine integrity risk, then safety is improved, but system availability deteriorates due to unnecessary reduction

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveintegrity risk determination accuracyVSAvoidsystem availability
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent changes the parameters used in integrity risk determination by incorporating detection probability into the calculation model. This transforms the conservative estimate approach into a more accurate probabilistic model that considers the actual detection capabilities of the monitoring system, thereby improving accuracy without unnecessarily reducing availability

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements feedback by using the detected failure information and detection probabilities to continuously refine the integrity risk assessment. The system feeds back the actual detection performance into the risk calculation, allowing for more accurate real-time assessment rather than relying on conservative static estimates

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Measurement precision

If accurate integrity determination considering missed detection probability is implemented, then integrity assessment accuracy is improved, but computational complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveintegrity parameter determination accuracyVSAvoidcomputational complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by pre-calculating and storing detection probabilities and failure event characteristics in lookup tables before actual integrity assessment. This pre-processing step eliminates the need for complex real-time calculations during operation, achieving accurate integrity determination with reduced computational complexity

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent uses partial action by implementing a simplified calculation model that focuses on the most critical factors (single failure events and detection probabilities) while neglecting less significant contributions. This partial approach achieves sufficient accuracy for practical applications without the full computational burden of a complete model

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS8902105B2Method and apparatus for determining an integrity indicating parameter indicating the integrity of positioning information determined in a gobal positioning system
Publication Date: 2014.12.02 EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY
  • US8902105B2 patent drawing
  • US8902105B2 patent drawing
  • US8902105B2 patent drawing

AI summary

The present invention relates to a method and an apparatus for determining an integrity indicating parameter (e.g. an integrity risk IR or a protection level PL) indicating the integrity of positioning information determined from positioning information signals disseminated from a plurality of space vehicles SAT1, SAT2, SAT3 of a global positioning system. An input parameter (e.g. an alert limit AL or an integrity risk IR) is provided, a plurality of integrity information parameters (σSISA, σSISMA or equivalent, σX, kX) are received, and the integrity indicating parameter (IR; PL) is determined on the basis of the input parameter (AL; IR) and on the basis of a first relation between the integrity indicating parameter (IR; PL) and the input parameter (AL; IR) and the plurality of integrity information parameters (σSISA, σSISMA or equivalent, σX, kX).