Bridging GPS Gaps in Urban Canyons:

The Benefits of ZUPTs

DOROTA A. GREJNER-BRZEZINSKA, YUDAN YI, and CHARLES K. TOTH

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Received October 2001; Revised March 2002

ABSTRACT: Land-based mobile mapping systems operate in urban environments, where losses of GPS lock occur,
leading to often extended periods of free-navigation mode. The result is degraded navigation accuracy. Performing
periodic ZUPTs (zero velocity updates) enables calibration of velocity error sources, leading to a lower positioning
error rate as compared with unaided navigation mode. This paper presents a study of the impact of ZUPTs on navi-
gation accuracy in urban canyons, with special emphasis on the speed and reliability of ambiguity resolution sup-
ported by periodic ZUPTs. An analysis of the positioning errors after ZUPT events versus unaided and GPS/inertial
navigation system (INS) results is also presented. In addition, the observability aspects of static INS calibration are
briefly addressed. The results discussed here are based on investigation of a high-accuracy, tightly integrated
GPS/INS system providing georeferencing to a fully digital imaging component, designed for near-real-time highway
mapping.

INTRODUCTION DGPS carrier phases and raw inertial measurement

unit (IMU) data provided by a medium-accuracy,
The primary objective of a mobile mapping system
high-reliability strapdown Litton LN-100 INS. The
(MMS) is to provide automatic acquisition of directly
LN-100 is based on a Zero-lockTM Laser Gyro
oriented (georeferenced) digital imagery for mapping
(ZLGTM) and A-4 accelerometer triad (0.8 nmi/h cir-
and geographic information system (GIS) data col-
cular error probable [CEP], gyro bias 0.003 deg/h,
lection. The direct georeferencing is most commonly
accelerometer bias 25 g). An optimal 21-state cen-
facilitated by the integration of differential GPS
tralized Kalman filter estimates errors in position,
(DGPS) and inertial navigation systems (INS), pro-
velocity, and attitude, as well as in the inertial and
viding nearly continuous (up to 256 Hz) positioning
GPS measurements. Under favorable GPS constella-
and attitude information of the imaging sensor(s).
tions (minimum of 5 – 6 satellites) and short to medi-
The navigation data can be processed in near real
um baselines, the estimated standard deviations are
time or in postmission mode to determine the best
at the level of 2 – 3 cm for position coordinates, and
estimates of the image exterior orientation. Directly
~10 arcsec and 10 – 20 arcsec for attitude and head-
oriented images are then used in photogrammetric
ing components, respectively.
processing to extract the feature data, together with
As a land-based MMS, the system operates prima-
their positional information. In the past 10 years,
rily in urban environments, where frequent losses of
MMSs have evolved toward multisensor and multi-
GPS signal lock occur. To prevent major degradation
tasking systems, comprising four primary modules:
in navigation accuracy and to support ambiguity res-
(1) the control module, (2) the positioning (georefer-
olution after GPS signal reacquisition, the loss-of-lock
encing) module, (3) the imaging module, and (4) the
events must be controlled in real time. The MMS con-
data postprocessing module. The modular design cre-
trol module tracks the duration of the loss of lock (or
ates a system capable of handling numerous concur-
extended partial satellite blockage) and, based on
rent operations in real time and in postprocessing.
empirical knowledge of the positioning error growth,
The MMS presented in this paper is designed for
provides a warning to the operator that a ZUPT (zero
high-accuracy, near-real-time mapping of highway
velocity update) is needed (see Figure 1). This empiri-
center and edge lines [1]; the system development is
cal information is derived from the system calibration
currently supported by the Ohio Department of
and testing, and facilitates a reference input to the
Transportation. The positioning module of this sys-
control system. This paper presents the calibration
tem is based on a tight integration of dual-frequency
results for the static INS used to derive the empirical
information for the system’s controls, including
observability characteristics. Special emphasis is
NAVIGATION: Journal of The Institute of Navigation
Vol. 48, No. 4, Winter 2001 – 2002
placed on the speed and reliability of the ambiguity
Printed in the U.S.A. resolution supported by ZUPT events.

217
 Table 1 — Quality of INS Bridging During GPS Loss of Lock
Total Error (m)
Calibration
Period (s) East North Height

Varying geometry of the trajectory

30 s gap
120 0.02 0.01 0.00
200 0.01 0.02 0.03
60 s gap
120 0.07 0.01 0.01
200 0.01 0.03 0.03
90 s gap
120 0.16 0.10 0.03
200 0.02 0.08 0.02
120 s gap
120 0.32 0.25 0.10
200 0.03 0.14 0.03
Straight/static portion of the trajectory
30 s gap
120 0.11 0.02 0.11
200 0.06 0.01 0.02
60 s gap
120 0.41 0.41 0.21
200 0.23 0.06 0.16
90 s gap
Fig. 1 – Real-Time Quality Control Module 120 0.68 1.03 0.30
200 0.36 0.30 0.30
120 s gap
HOW GOOD IS FREE INS NAVIGATION? 120 0.83 1.95 0.46
200 0.52 0.53 0.42
The positioning errors of free INS navigation grow
with time, depending on the quality of the IMU sen-
sors: lower-grade sensors will drift faster, especially A comparison of the corresponding results, i.e.,
in the vertical channel. The errors in the vertical the top and the bottom of Table 1, clearly indicates
channel of a Schuler-tuned INS tend to grow expo- that the dynamics of the trajectory indeed plays an
nentially with time, while the errors in the horizontal important role. The more significant are the geome-
channels tend to grow no faster than sinusoidally try variations along the calibration portion of the
with a linearly increasing envelope. The quality of trajectory, the better is the sensor calibration quali-
INS bridging during GPS gaps depends not only on ty, and thus the slower is the positioning error
the extent of the gap itself, but also on the dynamics growth during the free navigation mode. The same
of the trajectory and the duration of the sensor error conclusion applies to the length of the calibration
calibration prior to the gap, as shown below. period: the longer it is, the slower is the error growth
To determine the impact of GPS signal loss on the in the following free navigation period (see also
quality of navigation, we analyzed the errors in free Figure 2, which illustrates the 3D error growth in
navigation mode at the end of GPS gaps of varying the free navigation mode after 120 s and 200 s GPS-
duration. An independent GPS/INS solution was based calibrations on a straight portion of the trajec-
used as a “true” reference (root mean square [RMS] tory). It should be noted, however, that the benefits of
for east and north was about 1 – 2 cm and for height the dynamics during the GPS-based INS calibration
3 – 4 cm). Table 1 presents the positioning errors at are not as apparent for shorter gaps (30 – 60 s). Under
the end of simulated gaps of 30, 60, 90, and 120 s these circumstances, the error growth is rather slow
introduced to GPS data, allowing the LN-100 to nav- in both cases (i.e., 120 s and 200 s calibrations), and
igate in a stand-alone mode. Two different cases of the difference between the free navigation and the
GPS-based calibration were studied: (1) with cali- GSP/INS reference solutions approaches the level of
bration performed during the varying dynamics of the estimated standard deviation of the GPS/INS
the trajectory and (2) with calibration performed solution itself. Clearly, the effect of the length of the
during the straight portion of the vehicle path. Two GPS-based INS calibration under varying dynamics is
datasets, collected on February 18, 1999, and more pronounced for longer GPS gaps.
February 19, 2001, were used for the test results Based on the data presented in Table 1, it can be
presented in Table 1. concluded that for longer gaps following the GPS-

218 Navigation Winter 2001–2002


Fig. 2 – 3D Error Growth in Free Navigation Mode (the time is
shown in 10 s intervals)
based INS calibration over the straight portions of
the trajectory, the navigation error growth may pre-
clude instantaneous ambiguity resolution after sig-
nal reacquisition. Thus, during extended losses of
GPS lock, ZUPT should typically be performed every
1 – 2 min, depending on the acceptable level of error
for a particular application and the ambiguity reso-
lution mechanism. To complete the discussion of the
impact of GPS gaps on the quality of navigation,
Figure 3 illustrates the differences in heading, pitch,
and roll angles between the GPS /INS and free nav-
igation solutions over a 50 s interval. The two larg-
er spikes on the heading differences correspond to
the sharp turns of the vehicle. It should be noted
here that the error in attitude of about 3.5 arcmin
corresponds to only about 0.5 cm on the ground for
Fig. 3 – Errors in Heading, Pitch, and Roll for a 50 s Interval of the
Free Navigation Mode (0.001 rad  3.4 arcmin)
Vol. 48, No. 4 Grejner-Brzezinska et al.: Bridging GPS Gaps in Urban Canyons: The Benefits of ZUPTs
an object distance of ~3 m, which is the case for our
system (single downward-looking camera mounted
on the top of a van).
An example of how ZUPT events can help lower the
rate of error growth during the free navigation period
is presented in Table 2 and Figure 4. The INS errors
were first calibrated using the GPS data in the inte-
grated Kalman filter, and GPS was then turned off for
60 s. Two cases are presented: (1) with a 20 s ZUPT
following the free navigation period, and (2) without
a ZUPT. The free navigation mode continued after the
ZUPT in case (1), and was a total of 140 s long in case
(2). The positioning error was estimated with respect
to the reference GPS/INS solution at the end of the
140 s period. Table 2 presents the error estimates as
an average of three sample tests. Clearly, a ZUPT
event causes a significant decrease in the positioning
error growth, especially in east and north, while
improvement in height is less pronounced. To further
support the height component, another means of
external aiding to the vertical channel could be used
(some land-based MMSs use digital barometers;
see, for example, [2]). More detail on the error observ-
ability in the horizontal vs. vertical channel during
static calibration is provided in the following
discussion.
Table 2 — Effect of ZUPT on the Rate of Positioning Error
Growth in Free INS Navigation (average of three
sample tests)
Total Error (m)
Free Nav. ZUPT Free Nav.
(s) (s) (s) East North Height
60 20 60 0.07 0.07 0.16
60 0 80 0.12 0.30 0.43
Fig. 4 – Error Growth in Free Navigation Mode Supported by a
ZUPT Event (time is shown in 10 s intervals)
219
AUTOMATIC ZUPT DETECTION IN
POSTPROCESSING MODE
In our current implementation of the GPS/INS fil-
ter, the ZUPT events are detected automatically
during the data postprocessing by testing the hori-
zontal velocity components and the gyro rates with
the tolerance levels shown in equation (1):
 vN   vN0 3 vN
(1)
 vN   vE0 3 vE
In equation (1), the empirical mean of velocity
e s t i m a t e s vN0  vE0  0.0015 m /s,w ith vN  vE 
0.002 m /s estimated for a static LN-100. Similar
conditions are applied to the gyro rates, where the
empirical mean equal to 0.08 deg/s with a sigma of
0.02 deg/s was estimated for a static LN-100. These
values are monitored continuously during a ZUPT
event to detect the vehicle vibration due to gusty
winds, passing cars, or movement inside the vehicle.
A look-ahead filter is used to detect the ZUPT
events, and if the threshold for acceptance of static
conditions is not exceeded for 3 s, the processing fil-
ter switches automatically to the ZUPT mode.
STATIC CALIBRATION OF THE INS ERRORS:
AN OVERVIEW
The INS navigation and sensor errors cannot be
estimated in the unaided inertial navigation mode.
To partially control the INS errors, a static calibra-
tion, which relies on the fact that the vehicle is sta-
tionary on a rotating earth, must be performed. The
primary objective of a static calibration (ZUPT) is
estimation of the systematic errors of the IMU sen-
sors, as well as the attitude errors (if observable)
that are crucial to accurate inertial navigation.
Consequently, in the case of an integrated GPS /INS
system, a calibrated INS will aid the ambiguity res-
olution after the GPS lock has been reestablished. A
short discussion of the INS error observability in
static calibration is presented below, primarily for
those readers not fully familiar with this problem. It
should be pointed out, however, that there exists a
vast literature on this subject. Interested readers
are referred to, for example, [3 – 13].
The GPS/INS Kalman filter [14, 15] used in the
analysis presented here implements the psi-angle
approach to the INS error model [11] and uses the
velocity error version of the translatory error equa-
tion according to equation (2).
vœ  (ie  ) v    f g  
rœ  en  r  v
œ       (2)
where v, r, and  are the velocity, position, and ori-
entation error vectors, respectively;  is the
accelerometer error vector;  is the gyro drift error;
220 Navigation
g is the gravity anomaly vector; f is the specific
force vector; ie is the rotation vector from the earth-
fixed to the inertial frame; en is the rotation vector
from the navigation to the earth-fixed frame;  is
the rotation vector from the navigation to the iner-
tial frame; and a dot denotes the time derivative.
The dynamics matrix is obtained by a linearization
of equations (2) and augmentation by the sensor
dynamics, as shown in [16].
Since the stationary INS calibration is performed
at a known location, the position errors are no longer
unknown, and thus are removed from the state vec-
tor. The Kalman filter measurement update uses
north, east, and down velocity (vN, vE, vD) or acceler-
ation components. It should be noted that the velo-
city tends to give a more robust solution. In general,
because vD is very weakly coupled with the
horizontal channels and because of the inherent sta-
bility of the vertical channel, only horizontal velocity
components are normally used in the static calibra-
tion. Under the assumption of no sensor errors, hor-
izontal channels should sense zero specific force. In
the case of no vertical aiding, the observability of the
vertical orientation errors (heading) and the vertical
gyro biases depends on the system’s sensitivity to the
earth’s rotation, which in general requires much
more time than estimation of the errors determined
by the zero horizontal velocity condition. Since the
gyro biases are especially detrimental to inertial
navigation, at least these biases should be included
in the static calibration, if observable [13].
The translatory error equations (2), augmented by
the sensor dynamics, form the state dynamics
matrix for a static calibration (equation (3)) under
the assumption that the position errors, vertical
velocity errors, and gravity anomaly errors are
removed from the state, and the sensor errors are
constant biases. Also, in a static case, the vertical
specific force (accelerometer readout), fD, is replaced
by g (equations (3a) and (3b)). Even a simple inspec-
tion of equations (3) allows partitioning the state
vector into observable and unobservable parts. For
example, g E and N in equation (3a) are both con-
stants whose influence on vN cannot be distin-
guished. Similarly, g E and E in equation (3b) are
inseparable. Examination of equation (3c) indicates
that ieD E cannot be directly distinguished from N.
Moreover, all three terms on the right side of equa-
tion (3d), as well as both terms in equation (3e), can-
not be uniquely observed. Clearly, only linear combi-
nations or a selected subset of the states are observ-
able; see, for example, [11, 13].
vœN  2 ieD vE  g E  N (3a)
vœE  2 ieD vN  g N  E (3b)
œN   ieD E  N (3c)
œE  ieD N  ieN D  E (3d)
œD  ieN E  D (3e)
Winter 2001–2002
STATIC INS ERROR OBSERVABILITY TEST
In this section, some results of the static INS cal-
ibration are presented, based on a static 30 min
GPS /INS dataset collected on December 6, 2000.
The LN-100 and two 4000SSI Trimble GPS
receivers were used in the test. A GPS/INS tight
integration software package developed at Ohio
State University was used to process the data
[14 – 16]. Examples below illustrate the brief discus-
sion presented in the previous section regarding the
error observability under static calibration with no
external aid. An independent GPS/INS solution was
used as a reference for comparing the quality of the
error estimation in ZUPT mode.
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the quality of horizontal
velocity estimation during the static INS calibra- Fig. 7 – Pitch and Roll Difference Between GPS/INS and
tion, which is visibly comparable to that of the ZUPT Solutions
GPS/INS solution. Figure 7 shows the difference in
pitch and roll between the GPS/INS and ZUPT solu-
tions. The difference amounts to only 0.5 – 1 arcsec,
indicating that the horizontal zero velocity informa-
tion can resolve pitch and roll errors, E and N,
respectively, since they are directly coupled to the
change in velocity errors (equations (3a) and (3b)).
Since the heading error, D, is not directly coupled to
the observed velocity errors (equation (3d)) and thus
is not fully separable from the east gyro drift, it
becomes only weakly observable (see Figure 8). It
should be noted that both solutions — static calibra-
tion and the reference GPS/INS solution (not shown
here) — indicate similar low quality, with about
130 arcsec RMS for heading error. This result clearly
indicates that the GPS aiding has to be combined
with the trajectory dynamics to decorrelate the head-
ing from the other states (especially gyro errors).
Figure 9 illustrates the gyro bias RMS of the
Fig. 5 – Horizontal Velocity Estimates Based on ZUPTs vs. ZUPT solution, and Figure 10 shows the gyro bias
GPS/INS Velocity Estimates
estimated by GPS / INS. It can be observed in

Fig. 6 – Horizontal Velocity RMS Difference Between ZUPT and Fig. 8 – RMS for Heading, Pitch, and Roll of ZUPT Solution (pitch
GPS/INS Solutions and roll RMS coincide)

Vol. 48, No. 4 Grejner-Brzezinska et al.: Bridging GPS Gaps in Urban Canyons: The Benefits of ZUPTs 221
 needed to separate sensor errors from attitude
errors. However, vertical acceleration remains the
weakest component as compared with its horizontal
counterparts.
Since the figures presented thus far are all based
on the static dataset, no transition between the kine-
matic GPS /INS and the ZUPT is shown. To illustrate
such a transition, Figures 11 and 12 present plots of
the RMS for heading, pitch, and roll and the RMS for
gyro north and east biases, respectively, based on the
dataset of January 31, 2001. In the figures, GPS / INS
navigation is followed by a free navigation period
starting at epoch 50, followed by a ZUPT, which
starts at epoch 80. Clearly, pitch and roll are of com-
parable quality in kinematic and static parts of the
trajectory, while heading is weaker for the static part
(see Figure 11). The north gyro bias is still observ-
Fig. 9 – Gyro Bias RMS of ZUPT Solution
able during ZUPT, while the observability of the east
gyro is weaker, as expected (see Figure 12).

Fig. 10 – Gyro Bias Estimates for GPS/INS

Fig. 11 – RMS of Heading, Pitch, and Roll at the Transition
Between GPS/INS and ZUPT
Figure 9 that the north gyro drift, N, becomes
observable through indirect coupling with the east
velocity error via north orientation error (see equa-
tions (3b) and (3c)). The vertical gyro error cannot be
estimated in a static situation even with GPS infor-
mation, as shown in Figure 10, where vertical gyro
bias remains equal to its a priori value of 0. It should
be noted that the vertical gyro’s observability
remains the weakest as compared with its horizontal
counterparts as long as there is no significant verti-
cal motion. To resolve the downward orientation and
the gyro errors in the static case, external azimuth
information must be provided (this information will
also allow for better calibration of the east gyro,
which will become uncorrelated with downward-
orientation error). As explained in the previous sec-
tion, the accelerometer errors are not separable from
the attitude errors, as seen in equations (3a) and Fig. 12 – RMS of North and East Gyros at the Transition Between
(3b). Dynamics and external information (GPS) are GPS/INS and ZUPT

222 Navigation Winter 2001–2002

 Even though estimation of the INS and attitude
errors is supported only partially in the ZUPT mode
the partial calibration information and the (fixed)
ZUPT positioning data can strengthen the ambiguity
resolution process after the GPS signal has been
reacquired. In the following section, test results
related to the quality/speed of ambiguity resolution
with and without ZUPT points are presented.
TESTING THE AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION
A method currently implemented in our GPS / INS
filter provides fast and reliable correction for cycle
slips and losses of lock affecting GPS measurements
[14]. The INS predictions of the position coordinates
are used to approximate the new double-difference
integer ambiguities if cycle slips are suspected and
when the signal is recovered after a loss of GPS lock.
If the gap is relatively short (up to 60 s), the INS is
usually capable of providing accurate coordinates
that are used to estimate ambiguities, which can be
fixed instantly to their integer values. However, the
procedure may require a search, based on the float
approximation obtained from the INS prediction
and the standard deviation of the ambiguity candi-
date (used to determine the search interval), if the
gap is longer. This procedure was initially imple-
mented for airborne applications, and, as explained
earlier, the ZUPT module was recently implemented
to make the procedure applicable to land-based
applications. This approach allows for faster and
more reliable ambiguity resolution, as opposed to
the case in which no ZUPT is performed, as dis-
cussed below. In addition to the ZUPT events sup-
porting the ambiguity resolution, an early rejection
criterion is applied to speed up the search (if needed).
This criterion is applied to the position candidates
that are related to the ambiguity candidates within
the search space. If the candidate position is outside
a circle centered at the prediction point with a
radius equal to 3 √(X 2  Y 2  Z2), the point is
removed from the candidate list (X, Y, and Z are
the differences between the filter-predicted and the
candidate positions). This criterion reduces the
number of candidates by 25 – 40 percent, which sig-
nificantly shortens the ambiguity search time. More
detail on that procedure can be found in [14].
A 4000 s GPS / INS dataset, collected on January
31, 2001, with 5 – 6 GPS satellites in view, was used
to derive the statistics presented in Tables 3 – 5. To
test the speed of ambiguity resolution, multiple GPS
gaps of 30, 60, and 90 s were introduced, and the

Table 3 — Ambiguity Resolution Statistics Supported by ZUPT

Ambiguities Ambiguities Ambiguities
GPS/INS Free Fixed Within Fixed Within Fixed Within
Calibration Navigation ZUPT Checkpoint First 2 Epochs 3–20 Epochs 21–90 Epochs
(s) (s) (s) # (percent) (percent) (percent)

100 30 6 – 20 13 92 0 8
100–200 30 16 – 20 6 83 0 0
200 30 5 – 20 4 100 0 0
100 60 5 – 20 9 78 11 11
100–200 60 10 – 20 7 100 0 0
200 60 5 – 20 3 34 33 33
100 90 8 – 20 8 50 0 50
100–200 90 16 – 20 6 83 0 17
200 90 5 – 20 3 67 0 33

Table 4 — Ambiguity Resolution Statistics Without ZUPT

Ambiguities Ambiguities Ambiguities
GPS/INS Free Fixed Within Fixed Within Fixed Within
Calibration Navigation Checkpoint First 2 Epochs 3–20 Epochs 21–90 Epochs Not Fixed
(s) (s) # (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

100 30 13 62 15 8 15
100 – 200 30 6 83 0 0 17
200 30 4 75 0 0 25
100 60 9 44 0 44 22
100 – 200 60 7 72 14 28 0
200 60 3 0 34 66 0
100 90 8 0 38 50 12
100 – 200 90 6 17 17 66 0
200 90 3 34 33 33 0

Vol. 48, No. 4 Grejner-Brzezinska et al.: Bridging GPS Gaps in Urban Canyons: The Benefits of ZUPTs 223
 Table 5 — Ambiguity Resolution Statistics for GPS-Only Solution
Ambiguities Ambiguities
Fixed Within Fixed Within
First 2 Epochs First 3–20 Epochs
Checkpoint # (percent) (percent)
17 0 82
ambiguity resolution time was determined after the
signal reacquisition as a function of GPS / INS cali-
bration time, duration of free navigation mode, and
length of the ZUPT events (relevant only to the case
presented in Table 3). However, it appears that the
ZUPT duration does not make a significant differ-
ence, as our tests indicate that any uninterrupted
ZUPT of ~20 s provides enough calibration time.
Naturally for more error decorrelation, very long
calibration periods may be required, but for the pur-
pose of supporting fast ambiguity resolution, we
found that a ~20 s ZUPT generally suffices.
As can be observed in Table 3, the majority of the
ambiguities are fixed to their integer values (based
on the INS prediction and verified with the GPS
information) within the first two epochs of signal
reacquisition, and all of them are fixed within the
first 90 epochs. The length of the GPS-based INS
error calibration prior to the free navigation mode
makes a difference, as expected based on the analy-
sis presented earlier of the navigation error growth
during free navigation under different conditions.
Generally, the longer is the calibration, the shorter
is the ambiguity resolution time, since the longer
calibration time normally ensures slower error
growth during the free navigation mode. However,
the dynamics of the trajectory is also important, as
indicated earlier; thus a longer calibration over a
straight portion of the trajectory may show weaker
results as opposed to a shorter calibration over more
varying geometry (for example, a calibration of
100 – 200 s shows better results compared with a
200 s calibration for the gaps of 60 and 90 s in
Table 3).
Table 4 presents ambiguity resolution statistics
similar to those in Table 3, but without ZUPT events
following the free navigation mode. A comparison of
the results presented in Tables 3 and 4 indicates
that if no ZUPT points are present, significantly
fewer ambiguities can be fixed within the first
2 epochs after GPS signal reacquisition, as com-
pared with the case of ZUPTs following the free
navigation mode. Also, while the results in Table 3
indicate that all the ambiguities were solved after
90 epochs, Table 4 still shows some percentage of
unresolved ambiguities. In general, the longer is the
free navigation mode and the larger is the error
growth (especially in cases not supported by ZUPT),
the more time is needed to fix the ambiguities.
224 Navigation
Ambiguities Ambiguities
Fixed Within First Fixed Within 
21 – 80 Epochs 80 Epochs Not Fixed
(percent) (percent) (percent)
6 6 6
Table 5 presents independent results for ambi-
guity resolution based only on GPS data. The clas-
sical four-measurement filter technique was used
to obtain the float ambiguities, and the search
in the ambiguity domain followed as described in
[14]. A sample of 17 checkpoints was analyzed in
which the ambiguity resolution was restarted. The
results indicate that while the majority of the
ambiguities can be resolved within 3 – 20 epochs,
no fixes can be accomplished within the first
2 epochs, and it takes more than 80 epochs to
resolve the remaining ambiguities. However, 6 per-
cent of the ambiguities remain unresolved.
Evidently, ambiguity resolution supported by INS
positioning results reinforced by the ZUPT option
provides the best results.
CONCLUSIONS
To demonstrate the impact of static calibration on
the overall quality of georeferencing by GPS/INS,
this paper has examined the error state observabil-
ity, the rate of navigation error growth, and the
speed of ambiguity resolution after a GPS gap. The
mechanism of ZUPT detection and the operational
aspects of dealing with the switches of GPS / INS
to/from free INS navigation and to/from ZUPT have
also been presented. Analysis of the impact of the
ZUPT points on the overall positioning quality of
the GPS / INS system and the speed of on-the-fly
ambiguity resolution has been discussed and com-
pared with the corresponding results obtained
without applying the ZUPT conditions.
A brief analysis of the error observability in a
static INS calibration has been presented as well.
It has been shown that the (partial) calibration
achievable during ZUPTs enables a significant
decrease in positioning errors at the end of the free
navigation mode. In general, implementation of
ZUPTs was shown to significantly increase the
quality and reliability of GPS / INS positioning by
lowering the rate of error growth during GPS loss of
lock. Consequently, after signal reacquisition, vir-
tually all ambiguities were found to be fixed within
at most 90 epochs for all the tests presented,
with the majority being fixed within the first
2 epochs, while some of the ambiguities remained
unresolved in the case of the no-ZUPT or GPS-only
search technique.
Winter 2001–2002
REFERENCES
1. Grejner-Brzezinska, D. A. and C. Toth, Real-time
Tracking of Highway Linear Features, Proceedings of
The Institute of Navigation’s ION GPS-2000,
September 19 – 21, 2000, Salt Lake City, UT (CD-
ROM).
2. Graefe, G., W. Caspary, H. Heister, J. Klemm, and
M. Sever, The Road Data Acquisition System MoSES—
Determination and Accuracy of Trajectory Data Gained
with the Applanix POS/LV, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Symposium on Mobile Mapping Tech-
nology, Cairo, Egypt, January 3 – 5, 2001 (CD-ROM).
3. Broxmeyer, C., Inertial Navigation Systems, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1964.
4. Britting, K. R., Inertial Navigation Systems Analysis,
Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1971.
5. Nash, R. A., J. A. D’Appolito, and K. J. Roy, Error
Analysis of Hybrid Aircraft Inertial Navigation
System, AIAA Paper 72-848, 1972.
6. O’Halloran, W. and R. Warren, Design of a Reduced-
State Sub-Optimal Filter for Self-Calibration of a
Terrestrial Inertial Navigation System, AIAA Paper
72-849, Stanford, CA, August 1972.
7. Benson D. O. Jr., A Comparison of Two Approaches to
Pure Inertial and Doppler-Inertial Error Analysis,
IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic
Systems, Vol. AES-11, July 1975, pp. 447 – 55.
8. Ellms, S. and J. Huddle, The Application of Inertial
Navigation Systems to Precision Land Survey, NAVI-
Vol. 48, No. 4 Grejner-Brzezinska et al.: Bridging GPS Gaps in Urban Canyons: The Benefits of ZUPTs
GATION, Journal of The Institute Navigation, Vol. 23,
No. 2, Summer 1976, pp. 93 – 105.
9. Huddle, J. R., Inertial Navigation System Error Model
Considerations in Kalman Filter Applications,
Control and Dynamic Systems (ed. C. T. Leondes),
Academic Press, New York, Vol. 20, No. 2,
pp. 294 – 340.
10. Arshal G., Error Equations of Inertial Systems,
Journal of Guidance, Navigation and Dynamics,
Vol. 10, No. 4, 1987, pp. 351 – 358.
11. Bar-Itzhak, I. Y. and N. Berman, Control Theoretic
Approach to Inertial Navigation Systems, AIAA Journal
of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 11, No. 3,
1988, pp. 237 – 45.
12. Siouris, G., Aerospace Avionics Systems, Academic
Press, Inc., San Diego/New York, 1993.
13. Jekeli, C., Inertial Navigation Systems with Geodetic
Applications, deGruyter, Berlin/New York, 2001.
14. Grejner-Brzezinska, D. A., R. Da, and C. Toth, GPS
Error Modeling and OTF Ambiguity Resolution for
High-Accuracy GPS/INS Integrated System, Journal
of Geodesy, 72(11), 1998, pp. 628 – 38.
15. Grejner-Brzezinska, D., Mobile Mapping Technology:
Ten Years Later, Part II, Surveying and Land
Information Systems, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 83 – 100.
16. Grejner-Brzezinska, D. A. and J. Wang, Gravity
Modeling for High-Accuracy GPS/INS Integration,
NAVIGATION, Journal of The Institute of Navigation,
Vol. 45, No. 3, Fall 1998, pp. 209 – 20.
225