Evaluation of Adaptive Loop-Bandwidth Tracking Techniques in GNSS Receivers

GNSS receivers use tracking loops to lock onto GNSS signals. Fixed loop settings limit the tracking performance against noise, receiver dynamics, and the current scenario. Adaptive tracking loops adjust these settings to achieve optimal performance for a given scenario. This paper evaluates the performance and complexity of state-of-the-art adaptive scalar tracking techniques used in modern digital GNSS receivers. Ideally, a tracking channel should be adjusted to both noisy and dynamic environments for optimal performance, defined by tracking precision and loop robustness. The difference between the average tracking jitter of the discriminator's output and the square-root CRB indicates the loops' tracking capability. The ability to maintain lock characterizes the robustness in highly dynamic scenarios. From a system perspective, the average lock indicator is chosen as a metric to measure the performance in terms of precision, whereas the average number of visible satellites being tracked indicates the system's robustness against dynamics. The average of these metrics' product at different noise levels leads to a reliable system performance metric. Adaptive tracking techniques, such as the FAB, the FL, and the LBCA, facilitate a trade-off for optimal performance. These adaptive tracking techniques are implemented in an open software interface GNSS hardware receiver. All three methods steer a third-order adaptive PLL and are tested in simulated scenarios emulating static and high-dynamic vehicular conditions. The measured tracking performance, system performance, and time complexity of each algorithm present a detailed analysis of the adaptive techniques. The results show that the LBCA with a piece-wise linear approximation is above the other adaptive loop-bandwidth tracking techniques while preserving the best performance and lowest time complexity. This technique achieves superior static and dynamic system performance being 1.5 times more complex than the traditional tracking loop.