1 / 18

180 likes | 208 Views

Statistical evaluation of GPS error. Amalia Doebbert Ninfa Bennington. Problem. Assumed uncertainties in GPS systems: s HH < 10 m s DGPS < 1 m. Big questions: Do uncertainties we observe in real data agree with these estimates? Are the distributions of these data Gaussian?. Data used.

Download Presentation
## Statistical evaluation of GPS error

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.
Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only.
Download presentation by click this link.
While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

**Statistical evaluation of GPS error**Amalia Doebbert Ninfa Bennington**Problem**Assumed uncertainties in GPS systems: • sHH < 10 m • sDGPS < 1 m • Big questions: • Do uncertainties we observe in real data agree with these estimates? • Are the distributions of these data Gaussian?**Data used**Field exercise 26 April, 2008 DGPS: • 3 Trimble rcvrs • 10 sec. epochs HH GPS: • 3 HH rcvrs • ~10 min. tracks • Variable epochs**HH absolute position histograms**m =43.0709º s =3.19 m**DGPS relative position histograms**m =1.1574 m s =.1286 m**Z-distribution (HH)**• Z=(x-m)/s • Hist(Z)**Z-distribution (DGPS)**• Z=(x-m)/s • Hist(Z)**c2 (Goodness of fit)**c2 = S[(O-E)/s]2**Conclusions**• Positions from DGPS better fit to Gaussian distribution than HH • Assuming Gaussian distribution: • sHH between ±0.21 m and ±5.06 m • sDGPS,vert < 0.2839 m & sDGPS,NorE < 0.1822 m • DGPS positioning more precise than HH positioning • Both DGPS and HH have uncertainties w/in estimated uncertainty

More Related