=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3719/104
|storemode=property
|title=Enhancing GNSS Tracking Resilience: An SDR-based Approach with Four-Element Antenna Array
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3719/paper1.pdf
|volume=Vol-3719
|authors=Hamid Kavousi Ghafi,Günther Obertaxer,Michael Schönhuber,Holger Arthaber
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/wiphal/GhafiOSA24
}}
==Enhancing GNSS Tracking Resilience: An SDR-based Approach with Four-Element Antenna Array==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3719/paper1.pdf
Enhancing GNSS Tracking Resilience: An SDR-based
Approach with Four-Element Antenna Array
Hamid Kavousi Ghafi1,* , Günther Obertaxer1 , Michael Schönhuber1 and Holger Arthaber2
1
Institute for Digital Technologies,Joanneum Research Group, Graz, Austria
2
Institute of Electrodynamics, Microwave and Circuit Engineering, TU Wien, Wien, Austria
Abstract
This paper introduces a coherent 2x2 Software-Defined Radio (SDR) based antenna array designed to mitigate
interference within the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). It first proposes an innovative method for
estimating satellite steering vectors. The study integrates Minimum Variance Distortionless Response (MVDR)
and Linearly Constrained Minimum Variance (LCMV) techniques into a GNSS receiver’s tracking system to
counteract interference. Results demonstrate the significant enhancement in tracking loop resilience, preventing
lock loss in the presence of high-power chirp jamming signals, thus advancing receiver performance under
challenging signal conditions.
Keywords
Interference, SDR, Antenna Array, MVDR, LCMV
1. Introduction
The deployment of GNSS technology in services crucial for safety and mission success has given rise to
concerns regarding potential scenarios where GNSS service could be intentionally disrupted. These
concerns stem from GNSS’s susceptibility to interference, which has the potential to undermine the
reliability of essential services, such as power distribution grids and civil aviation systems [1].
Various solutions have been suggested to address the interference challenge. These solutions en-
compass approaches involving the utilization of variation in Carrier-to-Noise Density (𝐶/𝑁0 ) among
a network of receivers, the application of the Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) technique, and the
utilization of Direction of Arrival (DOA) estimation through adaptive antenna array processing [2].
Among the different approaches, array processing has shown promise in suppressing interference
and has been widely explored by researchers in the field. It can be broadly categorized into two main
categories: blind beamforming and adaptive beamforming [3]. In the blind approach, algorithms are
applied without the need for antenna calibration [4]. For example, in [1] an abstract version of MVDR,
where the steering vector is set to [1 0 . . . 0], is used for interference mitigation. This results in
suboptimal performance, including decreased desired signal power alongside interference suppression.
In [5], a different approach is presented, involving the use of the full calibration of the antenna
system. The calibration matrix is derived using the signals from satellites in view. While this method
exhibits improved performance compared to blind beamforming, it also incurs heightened complexity
and computational demands.
Our research focuses on deploying the MVDR and LCMV algorithms without requiring complete
calibration of the antenna array. Initially, we estimate the steering vector towards both the satellite
and the interference source. Subsequently, these estimations are utilized by adaptive beamforming
algorithms within the tracking loop to ensure its robustness. Our approach not only effectively mitigates
interference but also maintains the simplicity of blind beamforming techniques.
WIPHAL 2024: Work-in-Progress in Hardware and Software for Location Computation, June 25-27, 2024, Antwerp, Belgium
*
Corresponding author.
$ hamid.kavousighafi@joanneum.at (H. K. Ghafi); Guenther.Obertaxer@joanneum.at (G. Obertaxer);
michael.schoenhuber@joanneum.at (M. Schönhuber); holger.arthaber@tuwien.ac.at (H. Arthaber)
0000-0002-8920-7512 (H. K. Ghafi); 0000-0003-4193-331X (G. Obertaxer); 0000-0001-5042-853X (M. Schönhuber);
0000-0002-9218-5510 (H. Arthaber)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
2. Hardware
Figure 1 illustrates the block diagram of the implemented hardware. This consists of three main
components: an antenna array, a receiver platform, and a pulse generator.
Figure 1: The block diagram of the hardware.
The antenna array comprises four commercial elements, specifically the Tallysman TW3202 model
antennas. These antennas are arranged in a rectangular configuration with a spacing of 9.5 cm between
adjacent elements. This space corresponds to approximately half of the wavelength at the center
frequency of the L1 band, which is the primary focus of our analysis. It is important to note that the
analysis can be easily extended to other frequency bands. Figure 2 illustrates the implemented 2x2
antenna elements.
Figure 2: Photograph of the antenna elements
The receiver platform is designed to capture and process the received signals. The platform consists
of four HackRF One SDRs functioning as RF front-ends. An extra SDR is also integrated into the
platform to generate interference signals. This additional SDR (Tx) is necessary due to legal restrictions
that prohibit signal transmission into space within the GNSS bands. The clock signals of the SDRs
are shared via the clock in and out ports, ensuring precise frequency synchronization among them. A
Temperature-Compensated Crystal Oscillator (TCXO) circuit generates the clock for the first SDR. To
facilitate signal transmission from the antenna array to the receiver platform, four equal-length cables
with a length of 10 meters are utilized. Before reaching the receivers, the signals are combined with the
interference signal path. The generated interference signal is initially split into four paths, and each
path is then merged with the respective GNSS signal before being fed to the receivers. It’s important to
highlight that although the interference is fed to receivers with the same phase, the received signals
exhibit random phase differences. As the LO frequency is derived from a non-integer multiple of the 10
MHz clock, the SDR’s PLL will result in unknown phase-offsets between all SDRs after initialization.
Figure 3 illustrates the receiver platform of the setup.
Figure 3: Photograph of the receiver platform
To achieve time domain synchronization, a 1 PPS (Pulse Per Second) signal is generated by a u-blox
ZED-F9P module. The synchronization approach for the HackRF One SDRs is fully explained in [6],
where the implementation allows precise synchronization of multiple SDRs with an error of less than 1
sample.
3. Software
The software consists of two primary sections: recording and processing. The implementation is carried
out using the Python programming language.
3.1. Recording
The recording involves capturing raw IQ data from four antennas simultaneously. To achieve this, four
parallel threads are defined for the four receiving SDRs. These threads are initiated through a keyboard
event. Additionally, another thread specifically for the Tx SDR is triggered by a separate keyboard
event. Two different keyboard events are defined to stop both transmitting and receiving. Importantly,
users have the flexibility to intentionally turn on and off transmitting while recording.
3.2. Processing
In our study, we have implemented the acquisition and tracking components of a GPS system to evaluate
the performance of our algorithm. The acquisition is conducted like the conventional single-antenna
approach. During this stage, we derive initial estimates of the carrier frequency and code delay, which
are subsequently used to initialize the tracking loop. Our approach for acquisition is based on FFT
cyclic correlation. A detailed explanation of this method can be found in [7].
In our work, we have employed a classical tracking implementation using loop filters [8], with one
notable difference – instead of using a single antenna, we combine input signals from multiple antennas.
The algorithm to determine the adaptive beamforming coefficients for this combination is explained
in the following subsection. The beamforming is executed independently for each individual satellite
channel. The processing diagram, illustrated in Figure 4, provides an overview of the entire process.
Figure 4: The block diagram of the new tracking process.
Within this diagram, two critical blocks require special attention: adaptive beamforming and steering
vector estimation. These blocks are pivotal in enhancing the received signal when utilizing an antenna
array, ultimately leading to improved tracking performance.
3.3. Adaptive Beamforming
In our study, we employ the MVDR and LCMV techniques to counteract the deleterious effects of
interference in GNSS receivers. The fundamental principle underlying both methods involves the
attenuation of received signal power within specified constraints. The MVDR technique operates by
preserving signal power at the desired angle through constraint imposition, while the LCMV method
introduces an additional constraint aimed at establishing a null in the direction of the interfering source.
Supposing a limited frequency range analysis where both interference signals and satellite signals
are considered to be narrowband, the discrete-time representations of received signals from the antenna
array, with arbitrary configuration, can be written as follows:
r = a𝑠 + b𝑡 + n. (1)
Where r represents the 𝑀 by 1 vector of received signals from 𝑀 antenna elements. The n is the
AWGN noise vector, s is the desired signal at the input of the first element, t is the interference signal,
a and b are the steering vector of the desired and interference signals. The steering vector can be
presented as:
a = [1, 𝑒𝑗𝜃2 , 𝑒𝑗𝜃3 , . . . , 𝑒𝑗𝜃𝑀 ]𝑇 , (2)
The 𝜃𝑖 denotes the phase difference between the first element and the 𝑖th element of the array when
a signal is incident to the array from a spatial angle. The correlation matrix of the received signals from
the antennas can be defined as:
R = 𝐸[rr𝐻 ] = aRss a𝐻 + bRtt b𝐻 + 𝜎 2 𝐼𝑀 . (3)
where in this equation, Rss is the correlation matrix of the satellite signal, Rtt is the correlation matrix
of the interference signal, and 𝜎 2 is the noise variance. In practice, the exact value of the correlation
matrix is not available, and instead, an estimation is used:
𝑁
1 ∑︁ 𝐻
R̂ = r𝑖 r𝑖 , (4)
𝑁
𝑖=1
The 𝑁 is the number of snapshots used for estimation, and r𝑖 represents the 𝑖 snapshot of received
signals.
The output signal is calculated using a weight vector as follows:
y = w𝐻 r, (5)
The power spectrum is calculated as below:
1 ∑︁ 2 ∑︁ 𝐻 𝐻
𝑃 (w) = |y| = ^w
(w rr w) = w𝐻 R (6)
𝑁
In a scenario where the desired signal’s power is significantly weaker than that of the interference
signal, the expressions for MVDR manifest as follows:
min 𝑃 (w) subject to w𝐻 a(𝜃) = 1 (7)
w
The expression for wMVDR can be given by [9]:
a
wMVDR = −1 . (8)
a𝐻 R̂ a
The formula indicates that for effective utilization of the MVDR approach, having the steering vector
pointing towards the satellite is essential. In the subsequent subsection, we derive the steering vector
without performing a full array calibration.
The LCMV formulation resembles that of MVDR but incorporates additional constraints.
min 𝑃 (w) subject to w𝐻 a(𝜃) = 𝑔1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 w𝐻 b(𝜃) = 𝑔2 (9)
w
The expression for wLCMV can be given by [10]:
−1 −1
wLCMV = R̂ A(A𝐻 R̂ A)−1 g (10)
The matrix A comprises two rows, including the steering vectors for both the desired and interfering
signals. The vector g corresponds to the constraint gains, g = [𝑔1 , 𝑔2 ]. A reasonable choice for g
would be to set its corresponding element to one in the desired direction and to zero for the undesired
direction. Given our assumption that the interference signal has greater power compared to the desired
signal, deriving the steering vector b associated with the interference signal becomes straightforward
by extracting it from the first row of the covariance matrix.
3.4. Steering Vector Estimation
The process of deriving the steering vector of a satellite involves running a tracking loop for each
individual antenna separately, but only for a short period. During this time, we extract the carrier
phase for each antenna. By considering antenna one as the reference, we can then average the phase
differences to obtain an estimation for the steering vector. The averaging is carried out once the tracking
loop has converged. It is worth noting our algorithm targets a startup in low-interference and supports
tracking during high-interference scenarios.
Due to the use of a Costas loop in the Phase-locked loop (PLL), there is a possibility that the phase
of some antennas might be rotated by an additional 180 degrees. To address this, we can examine the
in-phase component of the output signal 𝐼𝑝 . With this information, we can now apply the MVDR and
LCMV approaches in each iteration to determine the tracking loop’s adaptive weighting vector (w).
(a) (b)
Figure 5: The performance of interference mitigation algorithms: a) PRN code 14 b) PRN code 24.
4. Results
We conducted a measurement campaign in an open-sky environment to validate the algorithms. In
our tests, we utilized an interference signal exhibiting characteristics of a linear chirp with a chirp rate
of 3 MHz/𝜇s, utilizing a 10 MHz bandwidth. In commercial GNSS receivers, strategies for handling
CW signals differ from relying on spatial filtering. The algorithm performance is evaluated using the
tracking 𝐶/𝑁0 estimator, regardless of whether the noise source is additive white Gaussian noise or
the interference signal. In this paper, the interference power is quantified within a 1 kHz bandwidth at
the output of each combiner in the experimental setup (see Figure 1). The 1 kHz bandwidth aligns with
the loop filter’s bandwidth in the tracking loop, given that the integration time remains set at 1 ms.
In the first test, we introduced interference to the array at a power level of -102 dBm. During
this measurement campaign, three satellites with PRN numbers 14, 23, and 24 were detected in the
acquisition process. When there was no interference, PRN number 14 exhibited the lowest 𝐶/𝑁0 of
around 44 dB-Hz, while PRN number 24 displayed the highest 𝐶/𝑁0 at approximately 50 dB-Hz. We
applied the algorithms to both satellites and compared their performance. Figure 5 illustrates the
outcomes of the algorithms for these two satellites.
As depicted in Figure 5a, the PLL loses lock on satellite 14 due to the interference signal. This figure
reveals that while MVDR fails to enhance the PLL performance under these conditions, the LCMV
significantly aids the PLL in retaining synchronization and executing subsequent processing steps.
On the other hand, Figure5b portrays a scenario where the 𝐶/𝑁0 is sufficiently high, maintaining
phase lock even during single-element analysis. The MVDR and LCMV techniques exhibit a relative
performance enhancement of approximately 3 dB and 5 dB, respectively.
In interference-free conditions, MVDR exhibits superior performance compared to LCMV. In MVDR,
the constraint primarily focuses on amplifying the desired signal. Consequently, in such scenarios,
the coefficient vector of the array aligns with the principles of classical beamforming approaches,
optimizing the combination of desired signals in the most constructive manner. When comparing the
MVDR outputs between satellites 14 and 24, it becomes evident that it yields a greater amplification for
satellite 24. This discrepancy arises due to the higher 𝐶/𝑁0 associated with satellite 24, resulting in a
more precise estimation of the steering vector specific to this satellite.
Another crucial analysis is to assess the influence of interference angles on mitigation algorithms.
Achieving varied angles of incidence for interference equals a test rerun. This is attributed to the
inherent nature of SDRs operating in a free-run phase, where each recording initiation results in
randomized phase discrepancies among individual elements, effectively simulating diverse incident
angles of interference. Figure 6 illustrates the efficacy of the mitigation algorithm employed during
the second test, which emulates another angle of interference. When comparing Figure 6 to Figure 5b,
it becomes evident that the efficacy of both approaches significantly depends on the angle at which
Figure 6: The performance of the mitigation algorithms for another angle of interference for satellite PRN code
24.
the interference occurs. In the second test, the performance of both methods surpasses that of the
previous test, where the interference occurred at a different angle. This arises from the act of imposing
a constraint to optimize power towards the specific satellite direction, which implicitly influences the
interference signal in a stochastic manner. In other words, this constraint leads to a random variation in
the interference power, either increasing or decreasing it. The second constraint in the LCMV method
aimed at reducing interference power will decrease the interference signal atop this randomness. In the
second test, the LCMV method operates akin to an environment devoid of interference.
In the third test, we varied the interference power to assess the performance of the satellite PRN 23
tracking loop. Initially, we set the front-end gain to the minimum possible value. For the gains below
this value, the single-element analysis fails to track the satellite in the absence of interference, thereby
impeding the estimation of the steering vector. At this set gain, we could raise the interference power
up to -70 dBm, as exceeding this level would lead to saturation of the SDR’s ADC. For interference
power levels below -70 dBm, the 𝐶/𝑁0 of each algorithm is depicted in Figure 7.
Notably, while the single-element antenna maintained tracking until the interference power reached
-100 dBm, the LCMV method sustained tracking up to the maximum attainable power of -70 dBm.
The inability to capture higher power interference constrains our ability to accurately estimate the
maximum power level at which the proposed LCMV method maintains signal synchronization without
experiencing a loss of lock. The results show that while the MVDR technique provides a modest
enhancement to the resilience of the tracking system, the LCMV method substantially improves tracking
performance.
5. Conclusion
This study embarked on the initial implementation of SDR-based hardware, successfully establishing a
coherent four-element antenna array. The central objective was to harness the array’s potential for
mitigating and suppressing interference effects during the tracking stage of a GNSS receiver. A chirp
wideband signal was generated and introduced into the antenna path to emulate interference scenarios.
In the processing phase, we introduced an innovative methodology to estimate the steering vector of
the target satellite. Subsequently, the MVDR and LCMV techniques were incorporated. The efficiency
Figure 7: The 𝐶/𝑁0 of the satellite PRN code 23 versus interference power.
of our proposed algorithm was examined through an executed measurement campaign. This campaign
demonstrated the pronounced capabilities of our approach in safeguarding the tracking loop from losing
lock under conditions of severe interference, thereby enabling the successive recovery of the in-phase
component of the signal.
References
[1] Arribas, Javier, Pau Closas, and Carles Fernández-Prades. "Interference mitigation in GNSS re-
ceivers by array signal processing: A software radio approach." 2014 IEEE 8th Sensor Array and
Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop (SAM). IEEE, 2014.
[2] Xu, Zili, Matthew Trinkle, and Douglas A. Gray. "Weak interference direction of arrival estimation
in the GPS L1 frequency band." 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and
Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2015.
[3] Broumandan, Ali, et al. "Overview of spatial processing approaches for GNSS structural interference
detection and mitigation." Proceedings of the IEEE 104.6 (2016): 1246-1257.
[4] Daneshmand, Saeed, Thyagaraja Marathe, and Gérard Lachapelle. "Millimetre level accuracy GNSS
positioning with the blind adaptive beamforming method in interference environments." Sensors
16.11 (2016): 1824.
[5] Anantharamu, Pratibha B., Daniele Borio, and Gérard Lachapelle. "Self-Contained Antenna Array
Calibration using GNSS Signals." Navigation: Journal of The Institute of Navigation 59.3 (2012):
209-220.
[6] Bartolucci, Marco, et al. "Synchronisation of low-cost open source SDRs for navigation applications."
2016 8th ESA Workshop on Satellite Navigation Technologies and European Workshop on GNSS
Signals and Signal Processing (NAVITEC). IEEE, 2016.
[7] Cui, Hao, Zhigang Li, and Zheng Dou. "Fast acquisition method of GPS signal based on FFT cyclic
correlation." International Journal of Communications, Network and System Sciences 10.8 (2017):
246-254.
[8] Borre, Kai, et al. A software-defined GPS and Galileo receiver: a single-frequency approach.
Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.
[9] Applebaum, S., and Dean Chapman. "Adaptive arrays with main beam constraints." IEEE Transac-
tions on Antennas and propagation 24.5 (1976): 650-662.
[10] Chen, Hao and Zhang, Renli and Sheng, Weixing and Han, Yubing and Ma, Xiaofeng. "Fast
implementation of LCMV anti-jamming algorithm for GPS navigation." 2016 IEEE International
Workshop on Electromagnetics: Applications and Student Innovation Competition (iWEM)