Odziv geodetskih instrumentov GNSS na motenje z oddajnikom preletnega signala L1 (= Operation of geodetic GNSS instruments under chirp signal L1 jamming)

This paper presents the results of a vulnerability test of several geodetic Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers in case of intentional signal interference in the frequency L1 for GPS (Global Positioning System). Nine instruments from different manufacturers (i.e., Leica Geosystems AG...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inGeodetski vestnik Vol. 65; no. 2; pp. 189 - 204
Main Authors Franc Dimc, Polona Pavlovčič Prešeren, Matej Bažec
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Association of Surveyors of Slovenia (Zveza geodetov Slovenije) 01.06.2021
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:This paper presents the results of a vulnerability test of several geodetic Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers in case of intentional signal interference in the frequency L1 for GPS (Global Positioning System). Nine instruments from different manufacturers (i.e., Leica Geosystems AG, Trimble Inc., Javad GNSS) were tested. The test was based on static and kinematic jamming. A static scenario with three-minute interruptions was followed by experiments with a stationary jammer located at distances from 10 m to 160 m from the receivers. For short-term kinematic interference, the jammer was installed in the vehicle, which passed the GNSS instruments at different speeds. An analysis of different scenarios showed that the jammer interrupted GPS but not GLONASS signals in certain situations. Since Galileo was not nominally operational at the time of the July 2019 measurements, only GPS and GLONASS were eligible for the study. The geodetic GNSS instruments reacted to the interruptions with a decreased signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) and either with a complete inability to determine the code/phase position or with an incorrect calculation of phase ambiguities (initialization), which also affected the quality of the positioning. The proximity of the jammer played the most significant role in the complete inability to receive the signal; however, for the incorrect positioning longer duration of jamming was also a reason.
ISSN:0351-0271
1581-1328
DOI:10.15292/geodetski-vestnik.2021.02.189-204