BPSK-like Methods for Hybrid-Search Acquisition
of Galileo Signals
Adina Burian, Elena Simona Lohan, Markku Renfors
Institute of Communications Engineering, Tampere University of Technology
P.O.Box 553, FIN-33101, Finland
adina.burian@tut.fi, elena-simona.lohan@tut.fi, markku.renfors@tut.fi
Abstract— The Binary Offset Carrier (BOC) modulation which
has been proposed for future Galileo and GPS M-code signals,
provides a higher spectral separation from BPSK-modulated
signals, such as GPS C/A code. The absolute value of the auto-
correlation function of a BOC signal has a narrower main lobe,
which may increase the resolution of delay estimates, but also
presents deep fades, which may lead to a higher number of timing
hypotheses to acquire the signal. In order to get rid of these
ambiguities, several approaches have been proposed in literature,
which provide an unambiguous BPSK-like shape of correlation
function. In this paper we analyze, compare and develop further
two BPSK-like methods which allow to acquire a BOC-signal
unambiguously. The focus is on hybrid search, where several
time-frequency bins are searched in parallel.
We introduce here a modified version of a BPSK-like method
which decreases the receiver complexity and is valid for both
odd and even BOC orders. We analyze both single-side band
(SSB) processing (i.e., only one band is used) and dual-side band
(DSB) processing (i.e., upper and lower bands are combined
non-coherently). While eliminating the ambiguities in auto-
correlation function, both SSB and DSB processing present some
performance degradation, induced by the band selection and
non-coherent processing. The analysis is done in the presence
of multipath fading channels. As a benchmark, we keep also the
ambiguous BOC processing. We consider parameters specified in
the proposals for Galileo system Open Service (OS), respectively
Publicly Regulated Service (PRS).
I. I NTRODUCTION
The BOC modulation has been selected for both Galileo
and modernized GPS signals [1]. The main target of BOC
modulation has been to provide a better spectral separation
with existing BPSK-modulated GPS signals, while allowing
optimal usage of the available bandwidth for different GNSS
signals [1], [2]. Also, BOC signals present a narrower main
lobe of the absolute value of their autocorrelation function
(ACF), which enhances the tracking accuracy. On the other
hand, the additional fades which appear in ACF within the
two-chip intervals may induce a missed detection due to a
zero (or very low) sampling point and may lead to a longer
acquisition time. In consequence, the necessary step to search
a given time-uncertainty window, ∆tbin , should be small
enough in order to find the main lobe of ACF. Therefore, the
computational complexity in acquisition process is increased,
the computational load being inversely proportional to the
square of step time bin ∆tbin , as reported in [3].
A BOC(m, n) signal (m and n are not necessarily integers)
is created by a square sub-carrier modulation, where the signal
5211
1-4244-0355-3/06/$20.00 (c) 2006 IEEE
This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE ICC 2006 proceedings.
is multiplied by a rectangular sub-carrier (e.g., with +1 and -1
values) at sub-carrier frequency. The modulation parameters
are equal to m = fsc /fref and n = fc /fref where fsc is
the sub-carrier frequency, fc is the code rate and fref =1.023
MHz is the reference frequency. Thus, the power spectrum
is split into two symmetrical components around the carrier
frequency. The common baseline for OS structure (agreed by
US and European negotiation in June 2004) employs the sine
BOC(1,1) modulation, which uses a 1.023 MHz square-wave
sub-carrier modulated by spreading code chips at a chip rate
fc =1.023 MHz [8]. For PRS services, both sine and cosine
BOC(15,2.5) have been proposed [8]. Other BOC modulations
have also been considered, such as BOC(15,10), BOC(10,5)
or BOC(10,4) [5], [6].
In order to eliminate the ambiguities of the ACF envelope,
different methods have been approached in literature [3], [4],
[5], [6], [7]. The main idea behind these ”BPSK-like” methods
(generic name proposed in [5]) is that the BOC-modulated
signal can be obtained as the sum of two BPSK-modulated
signals, located at positive and negative sub-carrier frequen-
cies. The effect of sub-carrier modulation can be removed by
using a pair of single-sideband correlators. We may have a
single-side band (SSB) receiver, where either the negative or
the positive of the sidebands correlators is used, or a dual-side
band (DSB) receiver, when both bands are combined non-
coherently. Due to filtering and correlation losses, the BPSK-
like methods bring some degradation in the signal level.
In [3], [5] it is asserted that a SSB BPSK-like method
induces at least 3 dB degradation in SNR. If DSB processing
is used, this loss can be partially compensated, excepting
anyway the squaring losses in non-coherent integration [5].
Compared to coherent processing of both sidebands, non-
coherent processing looses about 0.5 dB of SNR.
The ’BPSK-like’ methods proposed so far in the literature
fall in of the following two categories: either the main lobes
of the signal and of the reference BOC-modulated PRN code
are selected (via filtering) and then correlated [3], [4], [7],
or both the main lobes and secondary lobes between of the
received signal are kept and the reference code is based on
the BPSK-modulated PRN code [5], [6]. We will refer to
the former method as Fishman & al. method [3], [4], [7],
and to the later method as the Martin & al. method [5], [6]
(from the authors’ names). The Martin & al. method, if the
reference code is properly selected, has the advantage of lower
 Received BOC-modulated signal
PSD
f
fcarrier -fsc fcarrier fcarrier +f sc
RX signal
(at sample Upper Side
level) Band Filter
Reference
BOC- Upper Side
Band Filter
modulated
PRN sequence
Similar processing as in right sideband,
but uses Lower Side Band Filters
Fig. 1. Method 1 (Fishman & al.). Selecting the main lobes of the BOC-modulated received signal and reference PRN sequence and correlate them.
complexity, as we will discuss in our paper. On the other
hand, its performance is dependent on the BOC-modulation
order NBOC (defined here as NBOC = 2fsc /fc ) and may be
slightly lower than the performance of Fishman & al. method.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze these non-ambiguous
BPSK-like approaches, which differ through the manner the
received signal and reference code are selected and processed:
the first method is based on Fishman & al. approach, where
two filters are used and only the upper/lower main lobes are
selected, both for the incoming signal and the reference code.
The second method is a modified version of the Martin &
al. method, where only one filter is used, which includes
both the main lobes and secondary lobes between them. Our
proposed method differs from the Martin & al. method in two
aspects: first, the reference sequence here is the pseudorandom
(PRN) code kept at sub-sample level, and not the shifted PRN
code; second, our method is valid for both even and odd
BOC modulation orders, not only for even BOC modulation
orders which was the case in Martin & al. method. Our
proposed method has the advantage of a lower complexity
implementation than Fishman & al. method, as explained in
[9].
In order to evaluate the performance of our method, we
have selected for comparison the Fishman & al. approach
(and not Martin & al.), because this method is patented and
may bring an improvement in results. Also, we have verified
through simulations that Martin & al. technique provides very
similar performance to our method. We compare both SSB
and DSB cases of each method. As a benchmark, we keep
also the ambiguous BOC approach, where all spectrum (of
signal and reference code) is used and the reference code is
the BOC-modulated PRN sequence.
The performance of the studied methods is tested for a hy-
brid search acquisition in multipath-fading channels. We will
show that, for a step of the time bin equal to half chip, there
is always an improvement in performance when DSB method
is used, but the SSB processing does not always improve the
performance compared to ambiguous-BOC processing. Also,
This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE ICC 2006 proceedings.
Right Sideband Processing
single
SB
non-coh
I & D | . |2 statistic
integr. on
on N c ms
Nnc blocks
dual SB
statistic
+
single
SB
statistic
as expected, for smaller time steps, the performances of BPSK-
like methods may be worse than that of the ambiguous BOC
approach. Therefore, as suggested in [5], [6] the ’BPSK-like’
methods can be used in initial energy search, while sweeping
the uncertainty time-domain with a higher time step ∆tbin .
Once the energy is found with enough confidence, the receiver
may return to the BOC processing and use a finer time step.
II. BPSK- LIKE METHODS
A. Method I (Fishman & al. method)
In this method, the receiver selects only the main lobes of
the BOC-modulated received signal and the reference code.
The block diagram of this approach, illustrated in Fig. 1, it
has been proposed in [3] and [4], and later analyzed in [7].
The main lobe of one of the sidebands (upper or lower) of
BOC-modulated received signal is selected (via filtering) and
it is correlated with a filtered PRN BOC-modulated reference
code, having the tentative delay τ
and the tentative Doppler
frequency f
D . The BOC-modulated reference sequence is
obtained in a similar manner with the received signal, filtering
out the main lobe. Hence, the SSB Fishman & al. approach
needs three sideband selection filters (one for the real code
and two for the in-phase and quadrature components of the
received signal). The Integrate & Dump (I&D) block performs
the coherent integration on Nc ms. Further non-coherent
integration on Nnc blocks may be employed to reduce the
noise.
The correlation function between the received signal and
reference code, on each sideband, will be unambiguous and
will resemble the ACF of a BPSK-modulated signal. However,
the shape of resulting ACF is not exactly the one of a BPSK-
modulated signal, since there are information losses due to
selection of main lobes. This method has rather high complex-
ity due to the fact that six complex filters are needed for DSB
processing [4]. A less complex version of this implementation
will be to use just one of sidebands (SSB approach), but in
order to compensate for SNR degradation, a longer dwell time
is needed.
5212
 Filtered BOC-modulated signal (i.e. BOC(10,5))
PSD
Interference from GPS C/A

f
fcarrier -fsc f carrier fcarrier +f sc

RX signal exp(-j .2. pi. fSC . a. t) single

(at sample SB
I & D non-coh statistic
level) | . |2
on Nc ms integr. on
Nnc blocks
BPSK Reference dual SB
PRN sequence hold statistic
(at chip level) NBOC NS Right Sideband Processing +

single
Similar processing as in right sideband, but shifted at SB
the center frequency of band with exp(+j . 2. pi. fSC . a. t) statistic

Fig. 2. Method 2 (proposed; modified Martin & al.). Select the main lobes of received signal and the secondary lobes between them, shift them close to
the carrier frequency and correlate with a BPSK PRN reference code.

B. Method II (proposed method) Data

symbols
A less complex implementation method is shown in Fig. 2. bn BOC
Doppler
Spreading Ns Channel Code
This method is a modified approach of Martin & al. technique modulation
Acquisition
presented in [5], [6]. Instead of using two filters (one for every PRN
main lobe), only one filter is used, centered at middle of carrier sequence Despreading, data
frequency band fcarrier . This filter has a bandwidth which recovery and position
estimation blocks
includes the two main lobes and the secondary lobes between
them. After the band selection, the main lobes of received
signal (situated at fcarrier -fsc , respectively at fcarrier +fsc ) Fig. 3. Main operations performed at transmitter and receiver
are shifted towards the middle of frequency band (the shifting
factor, afsc , will be discussed later) and correlated with the
BPSK reference signal, held at sub-sample level (in Fig. 2 1/(Ns NBOC ) when no further interpolation is employed).
Ns is the oversampling factor or the number of sub-samples Thus, one chip will consists of NBOC Ns sub-samples. For
per BOC sample). The method originally proposed in [5] example, BOC(1,1) signal has an even modulation order
and [6] was shifting the reference code to fcarrier -fsc and NBOC =2, while BOC(15,10) signal has an odd modulation
fcarrier +fsc , respectively, thus changing the code sequence order NBOC =3.
from a sequence of +1s and −1s to a complex signal. Also, The baseband model of received signal r(t) via an L-path
shifting the signal (or the reference code) with ±fsc is not fading channel can be written as (eq. 1):
working properly for all modulation orders, as it was observed  
n=+∞ 
L
from simulations and as it will be explained in detail in the r(t) = Eb e+j2πfD t bn αn,l (t)sn (t − τl )
next section. n=−∞ l=1
We note that the proposed method is less complex than the +η(t) (1)
previous one, first due to the fact that only one filter is used,
and second, because the reference code is a sequence of +1s Above, sn (t) is the PRN code sequence corresponding to
and −1s, and thus, the complex multiplication between the n-th code bit, Eb the bit energy of signal, bn is the data
received signal and the reference code can be done via simple bit corresponding to the n-th code epoch (the same data bit
additions and sign inversions, as explained in [10]. is usually kept for 20 ms [8]), αn,l (t) is the time-varying
complex fading coefficient of the l-th path during the n-th code
III. T HE SIGNAL MODEL IN THE PRESENCE OF BOC epoch, τl is the corresponding path delay (rounded to integer
MODULATION AND OVERSAMPLING multiples of the sampling interval Ts ), fD is the Doppler shift,
The simplified baseband block diagram of the transmitter and η(·) is the additive white noise added by the channel.
and receiver for a BOC-modulated PRN signal is shown in Fig. The BOC-modulated and spread code sequence, correspond-
3. After spreading and BOC modulation, the data sequence ing to n-th code bit is:
is oversampled with an oversampling factor Ns , representing 
SF −1
NBOC
the number of sub-samples per BOC sub-chip interval. This sn (t) = ck,n (−1)m p(t − nSF NBOC Ns Ts
oversampling determines the desired delay accuracy in the k=1 m=0
delay estimation process (e.g., minimum ∆tbin is equal to − kNBOC Ns Ts − mNs Ts ) (2)

5213

This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE ICC 2006 proceedings.
 SinBOC(1,1), DSB
where ck,n is the k-th chip value corresponding to the n-th 1
data symbol, SF is the spreading factor or the code epoch
length (e.g., for GPS C/A signal, SF = 1023), p(·) is a train 0.8
of rectangular pulses, and Ts is the sampling interval (Ts =
1/(Ns fc )). 0.6

ACF
Depending on the method, at the receiver part either only
0.4
the main lobes of the incoming BOC signal are filtered (using
two complex filters per each band, upper or lower) or the 0.2
whole bandwidth of signal containing the main lobes and the
secondary lobes between them is selected (by using only one 0
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
filter per band, since the reference signal remains unfiltered). Delay error [chips]
For the second method, after filtering, the signal is shifted SinBOC(10,4), SSB
1
down or up around the center frequency by multiplication
with exp(−j2πfsc at) and exp(+j2πfsc at), for upper and 0.8
the lower side-bands, respectively. The shifting parameter a
depends on the order of BOC modulation used and has been 0.6

ACF
found to be equal to:
 0.4
 1 if NBOC even, Sin- and CosBOC
NBOC −1
a= if NBOC odd, SinBOC (3)
 NN BOC
BOC +1
0.2

NBOC if N BOC odd, CosBOC

We have remarked that, if we use a = 1 for odd BOC
modulation orders, we loose the peak after the correlation, and
therefore, the ’BPSK-like’ method becomes invalid. In [5] and
[6] no discussion about the impact of odd BOC modulation
orders on the algorithm performance was done.
The signal is then correlated with a reference signal
sref (t, τ
, f
D , n1 ), which can include either the PRN code
and BOC modulation or only the PRN code. For example,
in the ambiguous BOC case, the reference signal is the BOC-
modulated PRN code:

S F N 
BOC
−j2π f
D t
sref,ambig. BOC (t, τ
, f D , n1 ) = e ck,n1
k=1 m=0
(−1)m × p(t − n1 SF NBOC Ns Ts − kNBOC Ns Ts
−mNs Ts − τ
)
For Method I, the reference code is the filtered BOC- BOC(10,4) (NBOC = 5) respectively, in the absence of noise.
modulated PRN code, as shown in Fig. 1. For Method II, the The signal before sideband processing was assumed to have
reference code is the PRN BPSK sequence, held at sub-sample infinite bandwidth, hence the sharp peaks in the ambiguous-
level:
−1

S F N 
BOC
 −j2π f
D t
sref,proposed (t, τ
, fD , n1 ) = e ck,n1
k=1 m=0
p(t − n1 SF NBOC Ns Ts − kNBOC Ns Ts
−mNs Ts − τ
)
The correlation output is coherently averaged over N ms
(as seen in Figs. 1 and 2) and, next, it is non-coherently av-
eraged over Nnc blocks. The maximum coherence integration
length Nc is dictated by the coherence time of the channel and
by the stability of the oscillator clock. The decision statistic
is formed in a hybrid manner, by splitting the code-Doppler
search space into several code-Doppler windows. Each correla-
tor output corresponds to a time-frequency bin and several bins
0
−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Delay error [chips]
Fig. 4. Shapes of ACF envelopes for even modulation order (Upper
plot: NBOC = 2, e.g.BOC(1,1)) and odd modulation order (Lower plot:
NBOC = 5, SinBOC(10,4)); continuous black: ambiguous BOC, dashed
.red: Fishman & al. method, dash-point blue: proposed method
are grouped together in order to form a decision window. The
decision variable is further compared to a variable threshold
γ, which is set such that we have a sufficiently small false
−1 alarm probability Pf a . If the decision variable is greater than
the threshold, the acquisition is declared, otherwise the search
process is continued.
The normalized ACF envelopes after single and dual side-
band processing, together with the ambiguous-BOC waveform
(4)
are presented in Fig. 4, for SinBOC(1,1) (NBOC = 2) and Sin-
BOC waveform. We remark that the proposed BPSK-like
method does not eliminate completely the ambiguities of the
ACF for odd BOC modulation orders. We also remark that
the ACF after DSB processing with Fishman & al. method
has a wider main lobe than the DSB processing of proposed
method, which helps the acquisition process.
(5)
IV. S IMULATIONS RESULTS
c
For the simulations from this paper we have selected
different modulation types which have been proposed in
various papers as candidates for Galileo signals [1], [8] (i.e.
SinBOC(1,1), SinBOC(10,5), SinBOC(15,2.5) for even orders
and SinBOC(15,10) for odd NBOC orders). As performance
measures we have used the root mean square error (RMSE)
and the detection probability Pd . The RMSE in chips was

5214

This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE ICC 2006 proceedings.
computed as: test statistic was built over time-frequency windows of size 12
 chips × 1 kHz (i.e. hybrid search [11]). The maximum fre-
RM SE[chips] = E(|τ − τ
|) (6)
quency incertitude range in the searching space is considered
where E(·) is the expectation operator, τ is the true first 9 kHz.
path delay, τ
is the estimated delay of the first path, in
Rayleigh fading channel, 2 paths, SinBOC(15,10), Nc=10, Nnc=4
case of acquisition. The RMSE in meters was computed as 300
RM SE[m] =RM SE[chips] ∗ c, where c is the speed of light. ambigous BOC
Fishman met. SSB
250 Fishman met. DSB
Nakagami fading channel, 2 paths, SinBOC(1,1), Nc=30, Nnc=3 Proposed met. SSB
Proposed met. DSB
500 200

RMSE [meters]
ambigous BOC
450 Fishman met. SSB
Fishman met. DSB 150
400
Proposed met. SSB
350 Proposed met. DSB
100
RMSE [meters]

300

250 50
200

150 0
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
CNR [dBHz]
100

50

0 Fig. 7. RM SE vs CN R for a Rayleigh fading channel, SinBOC(15,10)

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
CNR [dBHz] (odd BOC order), ∆tbin =0.5 chips.

In Figs. 5 and 6 we present the obtained results in terms

Fig. 5. RM SE vs CN R for a Nagakami fading channel, SinBOC(1,1)
(even BOC order), ∆tbin =0.5 chips of RM SE for an even BOC modulation orders (NBOC =2,
.
SinBOC(1,1), respectively NBOC =4, SinBOC(10,5)). In Fig. 5
the channel is Nagakami-m distributed with 2-paths decaying
Rayleigh fading channel, 2 paths, SinBOC(10,5), Nc=20, Nnc=2 power delay profile, with the maximum separation between
200
ambigous BOC successive paths xmax set to 1 chip. The mobile speed is
180 Fishman met. SSB 65 km/h, the coherent integration Nc was done over 30 ms
Fishman met. DSB
160
Proposed met. SSB and non-coherent integration over Nnc =3 blocks. In Fig. 6 the
Proposed met. DSB
140 channel is a 2-paths Rayleigh distributed fading channel with
RMSE [meters]

120 xmax =2 chips, Nc =20 ms, Nnc =2 blocks and mobile speed 45
100 km/h. Similar curves (both RM SE and P d) were obtained
80 for other channel profiles and other BOC modulation orders
60 as well, but are not reproduced here due to lack of space.
40 From both figures it can be observed that the best results are
20 provided by the Dual Side Band processing, with an improve-
0 ment of about 2 dB when comparing with SSB processing.
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
CNR [dBHz] Also, it can be observed that for DSB processing, our method
approximates the performance of Fishman & al. method and
there is a small degradation in the SSB case, for the proposed
Fig. 6. RM SE vs CN R for a Rayleigh fading channel, SinBOC(10,5)
(even BOC order), ∆tbin =0.5 chips. method. This degradation can be compensated by employing
a longer integration time and it may be worthy considering
The detection probability Pd is the probability to have the the lower computational complexity of proposed method. We
decision variable higher than a decision threshold γ, provided also note that the ambiguous BOC may be outperformed by
that we are in correct bin. The false alarm probability Pf a is SSB processing.
the probability that decision variable is higher than γ, if we are Comparing with even BOC orders, for odd orders (i.e.
in an incorrect bin. In order to have a fair comparison between SinBOC(15,10)) the performance of proposed method is de-
different decision variables, the false alarm probability Pf a teriorating, as can be observed from Fig. 7. This degradation
was set from beginning to a fixed value (here, Pf a = 10−2 ) is expected, observing the small fades from ACF envelope for
and the corresponding threshold γ was computed in order to an odd BOC modulation order (Fig. 4, the lower plot). The
meet this fixed Pf a . The Pd was computed based on estimated channel is 2-paths Rayleigh distributed, with xmax =1 chip,
threshold γ. Nc =10 ms, Nnc =4 blocks and the mobile speed 25 km/h.
The studied methods were tested for different fading channel Fig. 8 presents the simulation results for a higher BOC
profiles with multipath propagation. The oversampling factor modulation order, namely SinBOC(15,2.5), proposed for PRS
was set to Ns =4 and the step time bin ∆tbin =0.5 chips. The Galileo signals. We expect to get similar performance curves

5215

This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE ICC 2006 proceedings.
 Fading Rician channel, 2 paths, SinBOC(15,2.5), Nc=20, Nnc=4
1 ∆tbin =0.5 chips, in order to speed the acquisition process and
0.9 ambigous BOC to reduce the implementation complexity.
Fishman met. SSB
0.8 Fishman met. DSB V. C ONCLUSIONS
Proposed met. SSB
0.7
Detection probability

Proposed met. DSB In this paper we have proposed a modified low complexity
0.6
’BPSK-like’ method in the context of BOC-modulated signals
0.5
for hybrid search acquisition and we have compared it with
0.4
traditional sideband processing method of Fishman & al. Our
0.3
method has the advantage of a lower computational complexity
0.2 at the cost of a very small CNR degradation, comparing to
0.1 Fishman & al. BPSK-like method, due to the fact that the
0
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
number of filters is reduced and the reference code sequence
CNR [dBHz] is kept as a sequence of ±1s, which allows an efficient
correlation implementation, as reported in [10].
Fig. 8. Simulation results for a Rician fading channel, SinBOC(15,2.5), Compared to ambiguous BOC processing, there is a sig-
∆tbin =0.5 chips: Pd vs CN R nificant gain if dual sideband processing is used in order to
remove the ambiguities of correlation function, since higher
Rayleigh fading channel, 3 paths, SinBOC(1,1), Nc=20, Nnc=4 steps in searching the timing hypotheses can be used. Also,
1
we have showed that single sideband processing does not
0.9 ambigous BOC
Fishman met. SSB always outperform the ambiguous-BOC approach due to the
0.8 Fishman met. DSB correlation losses. The results were checked via simulations
0.7 Proposed met. SSB
Detection probability

Proposed met. DSB in case of multipath fading channels for BOC-modulated

0.6
and oversampled signals modeled according to the Galileo
0.5 proposals.
0.4

0.3
0.2
0.1
0 [3] P. Fishman and J.W. Betz, “Predicting performance of direct
30 31 32 33 34
CNR [dBHz]
Fig. 9. Simulation results for a fading Rayleigh channel, small step
∆tbin =0.125 chips: Pd vs CN R
for CosBOC(15,2.5), since the ACF for Sin- and Cos-
BOC(15,2.5) are very similar. The channel is a 2-paths Rician
distributed fading channel with mobile speed 45 km/h, Nc =20
ms and Nnc =5 blocks. The gap between performances of
DSB and SSB processing is maintained also here. Also, it
can be observed that the ambiguous BOC performs worse that
SSB processing due to an increased number of ambiguities.
The performances of Fishman & al. method and that of our
proposed method are roughly similar, for both SSB and DSB
processing.
The results in case of a smaller step time bin 1/(Ns NBOC )
chips are presented in Fig. 9 for a 3-paths fading Rayleigh
channel and SinBOC(1,1) modulation. Here the oversampling
factor Ns =4, xmax =2 chips, Nc =20 ms, Nnc =4 blocks. As
it can be observed, for a smaller step time bin ∆tbin =0.125
chips, the ambiguous BOC method provides superior per-
formance, compared with both DSB and SSB processing.
Also, the SSB processing of Fishman & al. method gives an
improvement of about 0.3 dB compared with the SSB of pro-
posed method. Therefore, the non-ambiguous BOC processing
makes sense to be used only with high enough steps, namely
R EFERENCES
[1] J.W. Betz, “The Offset Carrier Modulation for GPS moderniza-
tion”, in Proc. of ION Technical meeting, 1999, pp. 639–648.
[2] J.W. Betz, ”Design and Performance of Code Tracking for the
GPS M Code Signal”, MITRE Technical Paper, Sep. 2000 .
35 36 37 38
acquisition for the M-code signal”, in Proc. of ION NMT, 2000,
pp. 574–582.
[4] J. Betz and P. Capozza, “System for direct acquisition
of received signals”, US Patent Application Publication
2004/0071200 A1, Apr 2004.
[5] N. Martin, V. Leblond, G. Guillotel, V. Heiries, “BOC(x,y)
signal acquisition techniques and performances”, in Proc. of ION
GPS/GNSS 2003, 9-12 September 2003, Portland, pp. 188–198.
[6] V. Heiries, D. Roviras, L. Ries, V. Calmettes, ”Analysis of Non
Ambiguous BOC Signal Acquisition performance”, ION GNSS
17th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division,
21-24 Sept. 2004, pp. 2611–2622.
[7] S. Fischer, A. Guerin, S. Berberich, ”Acquisition concepts for
Galileo BOC(2,2) signals in consideration of hardware limita-
tion”, Proc. of IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, vol. 5,
pp. 2852–2856, May 2004.
[8] G. Hein, M. Irsigler, J.A. Rodriguez, T. Pany, ”Performance
of Galileo L1 signals candidates”, CDROM Proc. of European
Navigation Conference GNSS, May 2004.
[9] A. Burian, E.S. Lohan, V. Lehtinen, M. Renfors, “Complexity
Considerations for Unambiguous Acquisition of Galileo Sig-
nals”, accepted for presentation at 3rd Workshop on Positioning,
Navigation and Communication 2006 (WPNC 2006), Hannover,
Germany, March 2006.
[10] A. Lakhzouri, E. S. Lohan, and M. Renfors, “Reduced-
Complexity Time-Domain Correlation for Acquisition and
Tracking of BOC-Modulated Signals”, in CDROM Proc. of
1st ESA Workshop on Satellite Navigation User Equipment
Technologies (NAVITEC), Dec 2004.
[11] E.S. Lohan, A. Lakhzouri, and M. Renfors, ”Selection of
multiple-dwell hybrid-search strategy for acquisition of Galileo
signals in fading channels”, Proc. of PIMRC 2004, vol. 4,
pp.2352-2356, Barcelona, Spain, Sep. 2004.

5216

This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE ICC 2006 proceedings.