SIDELOBES CANCELLATION METHOD FOR

UNAMBIGUOUS TRACKING OF
BINARY-OFFSET-CARRIER MODULATED SIGNALS

Adina Burian, Elena Simona Lohan, Markku Renfors
Institute of Communications Engineering, Tampere University of Technology
P.O. Box 553, FIN-33101, Finland,
Emails: {adina.burian, elena-simona.lohan, markku.renfors}@tut.
Abstract
The signals proposed for the future European Galileo system and the GPS M-code signals use split-spectrum-type mod-
ulations, such as Binary-Offset-Carrier (BOC) modulation. Sine and cosine BOC modulations multiply the spreading
code with rectangular sub-carriers and create a split-spectrum signal with the main lobes shifted around the sub-carrier
frequency. This type of modulation brings multiple peaks in the envelope of the correlation function, and thus, the acqui-
sition and tracking become potentially ambiguous and therefore more challenging.
In this paper we propose a new unambiguous tracking method, the Sidelobes Cancellation Method (SCM), which
removes the threats brought by the side-peaks ambiguities, while keeping the same sharp correlation of the main peak
and, thus, allowing for better tracking performance. In contrast to other methods already introduced in literature for the
same purpose, the SCM has the advantage that it can be used with any sine and cosine BOC modulated signal. In order to
cope with the side-peaks ambiguities, a separate correlation function is computed and stored in the receiver and the delay
estimation is done according to this stored correlation function. The performance comparison is done in the presence of
realistic multipath fading channels, with the main focus on short multipath delays scenarios.
1 Introduction
Since both the GPS and Galileo systems will send several signals on the same carriers, a new modulation type has been
selected, which provides the desired spectral separation [1]. While this (sine or cosine) BOC modulation provides better
resistance to multipath and narrowband interference [3], deep fades (ambiguities) appear around the maximum peak of
the auto-correlation function (ACF) envelope (within 1 chips around the maximum). Since the receiver can lock on
a side-peak, BOC tracking process has to cope with false lock points. Therefore, better solutions (compared with the
traditional BPSK-modulation case) are necessary, in order to deal with these ambiguities.
Several methods have been proposed in literature, in order to alleviate this problem. Two types of unambiguous
normalized discriminators have been considered in [6], namely the Multiple Gate Delay (MGD), which uses multiple
weighted early and late gates, and the partial sideband discriminator, which uses weighted combinations of the upper
and lower sidebands. A bump-jumping algorithm which tracks the ambiguous offset that arises due to multi-peaked
ACF is presented in [4]. This bump-jumping discriminator, which is a special case of MGD discriminator [6], makes
some amplitude comparisons with the help of a simple up/down mechanism, but it does not resolve continuously the
ambiguity issue. An alternative technique of preventing incorrect code tracking is proposed in [5]. The method is based
on summation of two different discriminator S-curves (restoring forces), derived from coherent, respectively non-coherent
combining of the sidebands. There is a noise penalty which increases as Carrier-to-Noise ratio (CNR) decreases, but it

This work was carried out in the project Advanced Techniques for Mobile Positioning funded by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology
and Innovation (Tekes). This work has also been partly supported by the Academy of Finland.
does not seem excessive [5]. However, the narrow main lobe of the ACF is widened and the tracking performance in
multipath channels decreases. A replica code approach that produces a continuously unambiguous BOC correlation, and
that can be used in both acquisition and tracking, is described in [9].
The techniques in [4, 5, 6] tend to destroy the sharp peak of the ACF, while removing its ambiguities. However,
for accurate delay tracking, preserving a sharp peak of the ACF is a pre-requisite. In [8] a new unambiguous tracking
technique was proposed, which used two correlation channels and completely removed the side-peaks of the ACF, while
keeping the sharp correlation of the main peak. This method is however limited to the particular case of SinBOC(n,n)
signals, and its extension to arbitrary sine or cosine BOC(m,n) signals (m = n) is not straightforward. A similar method,
with a better multipath resistance, was proposed in [10].
Our paper introduces a tracking algorithm which deals with the ambiguities (or false lock points) of the ACF envelope
of BOC modulated signals, while still preserving the sharp peak of the ACF envelope. This method, named the Sidelobes
Cancellation Method (SCM), can be applied to both the receiver acquisition and tracking stages, but due to the narrow
width of the main lobe, we will emphasize here the tracking stage only (its possible advantages in the acquisition stage are
still under consideration). By distinction with the method in [8], our method is valid for any BOC(m,n)-modulated signal
and it has reduced complexity, because it is based on an ideal reference correlation function stored at the receiver side.
Besides the challenges introduced by BOC modulation, there is also the presence of multipaths (especially closely-
spaced echoes) which introduces a bias error in the Line-of-Sight (LOS) delay tracking. One algorithm proposed to dimin-
ish the effect of multipath for GPS applications is the Multipath Estimating Delay Locked Loop (MEDLL) [11]. MEDLL
is based on joint estimation of the multipath delays, amplitudes and phases and on multipath interference cancellation. In
order to increase the multipath resistance, the proposed SCM method is used in conjunction with a MEDLL-based unit,
thus we propose here a Sidelobes Cancellation Method with multipath Interference Cancellation (SCM with IC) in order
to deal with both the false lock points due to BOC modulation and with the presence of interfering multipaths. Section 2
deals with an overview of several representative delay tracking algorithms. It also introduces the proposed SCM with IC
method. Section 3 describes the signal model and compares the performances of the studied methods. The conclusion are
drawn in Section 4.
2 Delay tracking algorithms
In this paper we compare the new introduced method with various traditional delay tracking algorithms, which are de-
scribed in Sections 2.1 to 2.3. The signals in focus are BOC-modulated signals. The sine/cosine BOC modulation is a
square carrier modulation, where a signal is multiplied with a rectangular sub-carrier that has a frequency multiple of
spreading code frequency. A BOC modulated signal creates a split spectrum with the two main lobes symmetric shifted
from the carrier frequency f
carrier
by the value of sub-carrier frequency f
sc
[2]. The common notation for a BOC mod-
ulated signal is BOC(m, n) with m =
fsc
f
ref
and n =
fc
f
ref
, where f
c
is the code chip rate and f
ref
=1.023 MHz is the
reference frequency. A generic characterization of the sine/cosine BOC signal at baseband is given in [12].
2.1 Early-Minus-Late loops (classical Delay Locked Loop)
The classical tracking structure used by many modern receivers is based on Early-Minus-Late (EML) delay-locked
loop (DLL) estimator, which is a practical discrete approximation of the maximum-likelihood loop. In an EML, the
received signal is correlated with an early and late version of the spreading waveform. Two correlators spaced at
chips ( 1) from each other are used in the receiver in order to form a discriminator function, whose zero crossings
determine the multipath delay. The output of the discriminator is ltered and provides a feedback signal to a numeric-
controlled oscillator in order to advance or delay the timing of the reference signal generator. The EML loops may be
either coherent, when channel and data estimates are available, or non-coherent, when squaring or absolute value are
used in order to compensate for data modulation and channel variations. Typically, the later variants are used due to the
low CNR from GPS and Galileo systems, and due to the presence of residual Doppler errors (e.g., due to instability of
the oscillator, Doppler drifts, or less accurate frequency estimation in the acquisition stage). The early and late branch
correlations R
Early
and R
Late
can be written as in eq.(1):
R
Early,Late
( ) =

NcT
r(t)c
ref
(t

2
)dt, (1)
Here, T is the code epoch length, r(t) is the incoming signal, N
c
is the coherent integration length, c
ref
(t

2
) is the
advanced or delayed reference code and is the early-late spacing. The non-coherent S-curve is obtained as in eq. (2):
S
EML,nc
( ) = |R
Late
( )|
2
|R
Early
( )|
2
, (2)
The wide Early-Minus-Late (EML) correlator, which uses a spacing of = 1 chip, is known to have a poor perfor-
mance in multipath channels. As a result of the ambiguities brought by BOC modulation, stable tracking will occur when
any correlation peak is centered between the early and late correlators. In order for a zero-crossing to signal a correct
channel delay, the early-late spacing should be less than the width of the main lobe of the ACF envelope. Typically, for
BOC(m,n) modulation, this translates to approximately
n
4m
. The narrow correlator, which has a narrower early-late
spacing than the traditional EML loops (i.e. 1 chip, and typically = 0.1 chips) provides much better resistance
against long delay multipath propagation than the wide EML [7] and it will be considered as a benchmark in what follows.
2.2 Multipath Estimating Delay Looked Loop
One of the rst algorithms which attempts to remove the effect of multipath sources from the input signal inside the
receiver, for GPS delay tracking is the Multipath Estimating Delay Locked Loop (MEDLL), introduced by van Nee
[11]. The MEDLL algorithm can work in both feedback and feedforward congurations, since its functioning is not based
on S-curve. The used MEDLL algorithm is based on joint estimation of the delays, phases and amplitudes of all the
multipaths and on multipath interference cancellation. The steps of MEDLL algorithm are summarized next:
The correlation function R
n
(t) is calculated for the n-th transmitted code epoch. The maximum peak of the corre-
lation function and the corresponding delay
1
, amplitude a
1,n
and phase

1,n
are found out.
The contribution of the calculated peak is subtracted, in order to have a new approximation of the correlation
function R
(1)
n
() = R
n
() a
1,n
R
ref
(t
1,n
)e
j
b
1,n
, where R
ref
is the reference correlation function, in the
absence of multipaths (which can be, for example, stored at the receiver). The new peak of the residual function
R
(1)
n
() and its corresponding delay
2,n
, amplitude a
2,n
and phase

2,n
are found out. Then the contribution of the
new peak of residual function is subtracted from R
(1)
n
(t) and a new estimate of the maximum peak is found. For
more than two peaks the procedure is continued until all desired peaks are estimated.
The previous step is repeated until a certain criteria of convergence is met, i.e. when residual function is below a
threshold (e.g., set to 0.5 here) or when introducing a new delay does not improve the performance in the sense of
root mean square error between the original correlation function and the estimated correlation function.
MEDLL was proposed to combat the effect of multipath propagation for GPS C/A delay tracking. The performance of
MEDLL for BOC modulated signals has not yet been reported to the authors knowledge. Therefore, it would be of
interest to employ a similar approach after the ambiguities from correlation function are removed.
2.3 Julien & al. method
One innovative tracking method dedicated to BOC(n,n) signals has been proposed in [8]. This technique (which will be
referred here as Julien & al. method, after the name of the rst author in [8]), has emerged while studying the auto-
correlation function of a BOC(1,1) signal with sine phasing, and also the cross correlation of BOC(1,1) signal with its
spreading sequence. The ideal correlation function R
(ideal)
BOC
() of BOC(1,1) signals in the absence of multipaths can be
written as [12]:
R
(ideal)
BOC
() = ()
1
2
( T
B
)
1
2
( + T
B
), (3)
where ( ) is the value in of a triangular function centered in and having 2T
B
-chips width, T
B
= T
c
/2 is the
BOC interval for sine BOC(1,1) modulation, and is the code delay in chips. We remark that our notation is equivalent
with the notation tri

x
y

used in [8], via tri

= ( T
c
/y), where T
c
is the chip interval.
The cross correlation R
(ideal)
BOC,PRN
() of BOC(1,1) signal and the spreading PRN code, for the ideal case (i.e., no
multipaths and ideal pseudo-random code), can be written as [8]:
R
(ideal)
BOC,PRN
() =
1
2

( + T
B
) ( T
B
)

, (4)
Based on eqs. (3) and (4), it is possible to construct an ideal Early-Minus-Late-Prompt discriminator as in eq. (5),
where is the code tracking error [8]:
S
(ideal)
Julien
() =

R
(ideal)
BOC

+

2

R
(ideal)
BOC

R
(ideal)
BOC,PRN

+

2

R
(ideal)
BOC,PRN

. (5)
It can be easily seen (by plotting S
(ideal)
Julien
()) that the resulting discriminator has no longer false lock points, and thus
it removes the effect of BOC modulation, by preserving the narrow structure of the main correlation lobe. Indeed, the
side-peaks of BOC(1,1) correlation function R
(ideal)
BOC
() have the same magnitude and same location as the two peaks of
BOC(1,1)/PRN correlation function R
(ideal)
BOC,PRN
(). By subtracting the squares of the two functions, as shown in eqs. (5),
a new synthesized correlation function is derived and the two side-peaks of BOC(1,1) correlation function are canceled
almost totally, while still keeping the sharpness of the main lobe. Two small negative sidelobes appear next to the main
peak (around 0.35 chips around the global maximum), but they do not bring any threat, since they point downwards.
The correlation values spaced at more than 0.5 chips apart from the global peak are very close to zero, which means a
potentially strong resistance to long-delay multipath.
In practice, the discriminator S
Julien
() as given in [8] is formed via the computed R
BOC
() and R
BOC,PRN
()
values (not the ideal ones), where R
BOC
() is the correlation between the incoming signal (in the presence of multi-
paths) and the reference BOC-modulated code, and R
BOC,PRN
() is the correlation between the incoming signal and the
pseudo-random code (without BOC modulation). Thus, the implementation of Julien & al. method relies on continuous
computations of R
BOC
() and R
BOC,PRN
() correlation functions at the receiver side. This method is however limited
to sine BOC(n,n) signals. Moreover, instead of making use of the ideal reference function R
(ideal)
BOC,PRN
() (which can be
computed only once, via eq. (4), and stored at the receiver side), the correlation R
BOC,PRN
() is computed for each code
epoch in [8]. Of course, in order to make use of the R
(ideal)
BOC,PRN
() shape, we also need some information about channel
multipath prole. This will be explained in the next section.
2.4 Unambiguous tracking via Sidelobes Cancellation Method
This section presents the proposed unambiguous tracking technique - the Sidelobes Cancellation Method (SCM), which
removes or diminishes the threats brought by the sidelobes of the correlation function of the BOCmodulated signals, while
keeping the same sharp shape of the main peak. We will prove via simulation results that keeping the sharp main lobe of
the ACF is indeed benecial for the tracking process. The SCM method uses an ideal reference correlation function at
receiver, which resembles the shape of sidelobes induces by BOC modulation and which is subtracted from the correlation
function of received BOC modulated signal with the reference code.
Following derivations similar with [12] and empirical trials, we have built the following SinBOC(m,n)-based ideal
reference function necessary to be subtracted from the received signal after code correlation:
R
(ideal)
sin
() = w
NBOC
1

i=0
NBOC
1

i1=0
(1)
ii1
( + iT
B
i
1
T
B
), (6)
where N
BOC1

2m
n
is the sine BOC modulation order (i.e. N
BOC1
=2 for SinBOC(1,1), or N
BOC1
=4 for SinBOC(10,5))
[12], and w < 1 is a weight factor used to normalize the reference function (to achieve a magnitude of 1). Above, ()
stands also for a triangular function of unit amplitude and width 2T
B
, but BOC interval is dened, in the general case, as
T
B
=
Tc
NBOC
1
. Eq. (6) is only valid for SinBOC modulation. Similarly, for CosBOC modulated signals , the subtracted
reference function can be generated, after several computations, by:
R
(ideal)
cos
() = w
NBOC
1
1

i=0
NBOC
1
1

i1=0
NBOC
2
1

k=0
NBOC
2
1

k1=0
(1)
ii1+k+k1

+ (i i
1
)T
B
+ (k k
1
)
T
B
N
BOC2

, (7)
where N
BOC2
= 2 is the cosine BOC modulation factor, as explained in [12]. In fact, eq. (7) is also valid for sine BOC
signals when N
BOC2
= 1.
The Sin- or CosBOC(m,n)-based ideal autocorrelation function can be written as [12]:
R
(ideal)
BOC
() =
NBOC
1
1

i=0
NBOC
1
1

i1=0
NBOC
2
1

k=0
NBOC
2
1

k1=0
(1)
i+i1+k+k1

+ (i i
1
)T
B
+ (k k
1
)
T
B
N
BOC2

. (8)
The only differences between eq. (8) and eq. (7) stand in the weight factor w and in the power coefcient of (1) factor.
It can be easily veried (again via straightforward plots, shown later in Fig. 1), that in order to obtain an unambiguous
ACF shape, the function R
(ideal)
sin/cos
() has to be subtracted from the ambiguous correlation function as below:
R
(ideal)
unamb
() = R
(ideal)
BOC
() R
(ideal)
sin/cos
(). (9)
In order to perform the normalization of reference function (i.e. to nd the weight factors w), the peaks of the
magnitude of R
(ideal)
BOC
() are rst found out and sorted in increased order. Then the weighting factor w is computed as the
ratio between the last-but-one peak and the highest peak.
Eq. (9) is valid for single path channels. However, in multipath presence, delay errors due to multipaths are likely to
appear. Therefore, our method also tries to compensate for multipath effects after the ambiguities due to BOC modulation
are eliminated. Thus, we combine the MEDLL concepts with the SCMmethod and we obtain an improved SCMtechnique
with multipath Interference Cancellation (SCM with IC) as follows:
1. Compute the ideal reference function R
(ideal)
sin/cos
() via eq. (6) or (7).
2. Calculate the correlation function R
n
() between the received signal (via multipath channel) and the reference
BOC-modulated code. Find the global maximum peak (peak 1) of this correlation function max

|R
n
()| and its
corresponding delay,
1,n
, amplitude a
1,n
and phase

1,n
.
3. Based on
1,n
, a
1,n
, and

1,n
, build an initial estimate of the channel impulse response. The function R
(ideal)
sin/cos
() is
centered at
1,n
and it is then subtracted from the multipath correlation function R
n
(): R
n,unamb
() = R
n
()
R
(ideal)
sin/cos
(), in order to remove the sidelobes ambiguities.
4. Update the unambiguous correlation function, by canceling out the contribution of the rst path: R
(1)
n,unamb
() =
R
n,unamb
() a
1,n
R
(ideal)
unmab
()(
1,n
)e
j
b
1,n
, where R
(ideal)
unmab
() is the unambiguous reference function given
by eq. (9). The maximum peak of the residual function R
(1)
n,unamb
is found out, with its corresponding delay

2,n
, amplitude a
2,n
and phase

2,n
. The contributions of both peaks 1 and 2 are subtracted from unambiguous
correlation function R
n,unamb
() and the maximum global peak is re-estimated.
5. The steps 3 to 4 are repeated until all desired peaks are estimated and until the residual function is below a threshold
value (e.g., here set to 0.5).
We remark that the above algorithm does not require the computation of the BOC/PRN correlation anymore, it only
requires the computation of R
n
() correlation. The correlations given in eqs. (6), (7) and (8) are independent on the code
sequence (they were derived under the assumption of ideal pseudo-random codes), and therefore they are computed only
once and stored at the receiver side (in order to decrease the complexity of the tracking unit). By comparison with Julien &
al. method, here the number of correlations at the receiver is reduced by half (i.e. R
BOC,PRN
() is not needed any more).
Fig. 1 illustrates the shapes of ambiguous correlation functions and of the subtracted pulses, together with the correlation
functions obtained after subtraction (SCM method). The left plot exemplies the SinBOC(1,1) modulation case, while
the right plot illustrates the shapes for a CosBOC(10,5) modulated signal. For both Sin- and CosBOC modulations, the
subtractions remove the sidelobes which are closest to the main peak and which are the main threats in the tracking
process. The SCM method has the advantage that it can be applied to any Sin- or CosBOC modulation order, while the
Julien & al. method is more restrictive (only for the SinBOC(n,n) case). Also, our method provides less computational
burden (only one correlation channel is needed, in contrast to Julien & al. method, which uses two correlation channels).
3 Performance comparisons
The simulations were performed in Matlab, under the assumption of Rayleigh or Rician multipath channel proles. Two
representative BOC signals were selected in this paper. The rst one is the SinBOC(1, 1) modulation, the common
1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
0
0.5
1
SinBOC(1,1) modulation: ACFs of BOC modulated and substracted signals
1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
0
0.5
1
Delay [chips]
SinBOC(1,1) modulation: ACF of unambiguous signal
Blue: BOC modulated signal
Dashed red: substracted signal
Unambiguous signal
1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
0
0.5
1
CosBOC(10,5) modulation: ACFs of BOC modulated and substracted signals
1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
0
0.5
1
Delay [chips]
CosBOC(10,5) modulation: ACF of unambiguous signal
Blue: BOC modulated signal
Dashed red: substracted signal
Unambiguous signal
Figure 1: SCM method for SinBOC(1,1) (left plots) and for CosBOC(10,5) (right plots)). Examples of the ambiguous
correlation function (continue line, upper plots), subtracted pulse (dashed line, upper plots) and obtained unambiguous
correlation function (lower plots)), single-path channel.
baseline for Galileo Open Service (OS) structure agreed by US and European negotiation, which uses a 1.023 MHz
square-wave sub-carrier modulated by spreading code chips at f
c
= 1.023 MHz [1]. The second one is the CosBOC(10, 5)
modulation, which has been proposed for the Galileo Public Regulated Service (PRS) and for the current GPS M-code.
However, the introduced method may be used with any BOC modulation case.
After BOC modulation, the data sequence is oversampled with an oversampling factor N
s
, representing the number of
sub-samples per BOC sub-chip interval. This oversampling determines the desired delay accuracy in the delay estimation
process (e.g., minimum time search step is equal to 1/(N
s
N
BOC1
N
BOC2
) when no further interpolation is employed.
We recall that N
BOC2
= 1 for sine BOC cases and N
BOC2
= 2 for cosine BOC cases [12]. Thus, one chip will consists
of N
BOC1
N
BOC2
N
s
sub-samples.
After correlation, the signal is coherently averaged over N
c
ms (with maximum coherence integration length dictated
by the coherence time of the channel and by the stability of oscillators), and next non-coherently averaged over N
nc
blocks. After the coarse acquisition of signal, the tracking process is started, assuming that the initial delay error is
smaller than one chip. During simulations, the rst path delay of the channel is assumed to be linearly increasing, with
a slope 0.05 chips, thus the tracking algorithms should capture this linear delay increase. The successive channel path
delays have a random spacing with respect to the precedent delay, uniformly distributed between 1/(N
s
N
BOC1
N
BOC2
)
and x
max
(in chips). In order to have reliable results for each method, the search interval is different for each algorithm,
20 25 30 35 40
10
0.9
10
0.7
10
0.5
10
0.3
CNR [dBHz]
R
M
S
E

[
c
h
i
p
s
]
SinBOC(1,1), Rayleigh ch., paths
pow
=[1 2 0 3]dB, x
max
=0.1 chips
EML
Julien&al.
MEDLL
SCM IC
20 25 30 35 40
10
0
10
1
10
2
CNR [dBHz]
M
T
T
L

[
s
]
SinBOC(1,1), Rayleigh ch., x
max
=0.1 chips, speed mobile=3 km/h
EML
Julien&al.
MEDLL
SCM IC
Figure 2: Performance in terms of RMSE and MTLL for SinBOC(1,1) modulation case, Rayleigh fading channel, with 4
closely-spaced paths prole, x
max
=0.1 chips.
which means that once the lock is lost for one algorithm, this will not affect the other algorithms. The search window
has few chips, typically from 4 to 10 chips, depending on the BOC modulations orders, the number of paths and on
the distance between them. The search window is sliding around the previous delay estimate and if we have erroneous
estimates, at some point we will loose the lock. For the narrow EML (denoted in what follows simply by EML) and Julien
& al. algorithms, the search for zero-crossings is conditioned by the previous delay estimates.
25 30 35 40
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
CNR [dBHz]
R
M
S
E

[
c
h
i
p
s
]
SinBOC(1,1), Rician ch., paths
pow
=[0 2] dB, mobile speed=80 km/h
EML
Julien&al.
MEDLL
SCM IC
25 30 35 40
10
1
10
2
CNR [dBHz]
M
T
T
L

[
s
]
SinBOC(1,1), Rician channel, N
c
=20 ms, N
nc
=2, statistics on 240 s
EML
Julien&al.
MEDLL
SCM IC
Figure 3: Performance in terms of RMSE and MTLL for SinBOC(1,1) modulation case, Rician fading channel, with 2
closely-spaced paths prole, x
max
=0.1 chips.
As performance measures we employed the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) (computed only when we are in lock
condition, i.e., when the delay error is strictly less than 1 chip) and the Mean Time to Loose Lock (MTLL). The early-late
spacing for narrow EML was taken equal to = 0.1 chips.
Figs. 2 to 3 show the RMSE and MTLL curves for SinBOC(1,1) modulation case. For Fig. 2, the channel is Rayleigh
fading with 4 closely-spaced paths (x
max
= 0.1 chips) and mobile speed of 3 km/h. Fig. 3 uses Rician channel with 2
paths (x
max
= 0.1 chips) and mobile speed of 80 km/h. The coherent integration length is set for all presented simulation
at N
c
= 20 ms, the non-coherent integration length to N
nc
= 2 blocks (i.e., total coherent and non-coherent integration
length is 40 ms) and the oversampling factor N
s
= 11.
As it can be observed, the best results in terms of RMSE, for a Rayleigh channel (Fig. 2, left plot) are provided by the
proposed SCM with IC method. This behavior is expected, since this method copes with both the threat of BOC sidelobes
and with the interfering multipaths. For a Rician channel prole (Fig. 3, left plot), the MEDLL and SCM IC methods
offer similar performance, followed by the Julien & al. method. As expected, the narrow EML algorithm provides the
worst RMSE performance, since it operates in presence of multipaths spaced at most x
max
= 0.1 chips (i.e., smaller or
equal to the early-late spacing). Also, the Julien & al. algorithm is surpassed (in RMSE terms) by both the MEDLL and
the SCM IC methods, since the Julien & al. method provides just long-delay multipath mitigation.
In terms of MTLL, for a Rayleigh channel, (Fig. 2, right plot), the EML and Julien & al. methods have similar results,
while the SCM IC method comes between the these two algorithms and the MEDLL approach. This can be explained
by the fact that, at low CNR values, the channel estimation errors become signicant and may trigger the loose of lock.
However, at moderate CNR values, MTLL becomes comparable for all the considered algorithms. The MTLL results do
not contradict the RMSE curves, since RMSE curves have been computed only for the lock-in region. This means that
as long as we are not in out-of-lock condition, SCM with IC method offer the best accuracy. In terms of MTLL, for the
case of a Rician channel (Fig. 3, right plot), the SCM IC and MEDLL methods provide the same performance, while the
Julien & al. and EML methods are inferior.
Fig. 4 presents the performances for a SinBOC(10,5) modulated signal. The channel has a Rayleigh prole, with
4 closely-spaced paths and mobile speed of 3 km/h. In terms of RMSE (Fig.4, left plot), comparing to precedent plots,
dedicated to SinBOC(1,1) signals, the gap between the SCM IC and the Julien & al. methods is increasing, since the
latter method is not adapted to BOC(m, n) signal with m = n. As before, EML gives the worst performance, while the
MEDLL algorithm is next inferior to SCM IC method. In terms of MTLL, for the SinBOC(10,5) case (Fig.4, right plot)
the EML and Julien & al. methods have similar performances, while the SCM IC technique provides a little improvement
for CNRs values of 30 dB or higher.
4 Conclusions
In this paper we have proposed a new tracking method (the SCM IC technique), which removes or diminishes the threats
brought by the sidelobes of the BOC modulated signal, while maintaining the sharp shape of the main peak, which is
20 25 30 35 40
10
0.8
10
0.7
10
0.6
10
0.5
10
0.4
10
0.3
CNR [dBHz]
R
M
S
E

[
c
h
i
p
s
]
SinBOC(10,5), Rayleigh ch., paths
pow
=[1 2 0 3]dB, x
max
=0.1 chips
EML
Julien&al.
MEDLL
SCM IC
20 25 30 35 40
10
0
10
1
10
2
CNR [dBHz]
M
T
T
L

[
s
]
SinBOC(10,5), Rayleigh ch., speed mobile=3 km/h, N
c
=20 ms, N
nc
=2
EML
Julien&al.
MEDLL
SCM IC
Figure 4: Performance in terms of RMSE and MTLL for SinBOC(10,5) modulation case, Rayleigh fading channel, with
4 closed spaced paths prole, x
max
=0.1 chips
benecial for tracking process. This approach has the advantage that it can be used for arbitrary sine and cosine BOC
modulations and that it provides a low complexity solution, since it uses reference ideal correlations function, which
are generated only once and stored at receiver. SCM IC method also deals with the multipath problem and it is able
to reduce the undesired effect of short delay multipaths. It has been show through simulation results, that in the case of
multipath fading channels, the proposed method has the best accuracy among the considered delay tracking algorithms. As
future work, other tracking-loop methods can be considered in context of unambiguous SCM method (e.g., double-delta
correlators, differential correlation, etc.).
References
[1] Galileo Open Service - Signal in Space Interface Control Document (OS SIS ICD), Galileo Joint Undertaking (GJU) webpages,
http: www.galileooju.com, active May 2006.
[2] J.W. Betz, The Offset Carrier Modulation for GPS modernization, in Proc. of ION Technical meeting, 1999, pp. 639648.
[3] J.W. Betz, Design and Performance of Code Tracking for the GPS M Code Signal, MITRE Technical Paper, Sep. 2000 .
[4] P. Fine, W. Wilson, Tracking Algorithm for GPS Offset Carrier Signals, in Proceedings of ION NTM 1999, Institute of naviga-
tion, January 1999, pp. 671676.
[5] V.S. Lin, P.A. Dafesh, A. Wu, C.R. Cahn, Study of the Impact of False Lock Points in Subcarrier Modulated Ranging Signals and
Recommended Mitigation Approaches, in Proceedings of ION 59th Annual Meeting/CIGTF 22nd Guidance Test Symposium,
June 2003, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 156165.
[6] P. Bello, R. Fante, Code Tracking Performance for Novel Unambiguous M-Code Time Discriminators, in Proceedings of ION
NTM 2005, Institute of navigation, January 2005, San Diego, CA, pp. 293298.
[7] A.J. Van Dierendonck, P. Fenton, T. Ford, Theory and Performance of a Narrow Correlator Spacing in a GPS Receiver, in
Journal of The Institute of Navigation, Vol. 39, No. 3, Fall 1992.
[8] O. Julien, M.E. Cannon, G. Lachapelle, C. Mongredien, C. Macabiau, A New Unambiguous BOC(n,n) Signal Tracking Tech-
nique, in Proceedings of European Navigation Conference GNSS 2004.
[9] P.W. Ward, A Design Technique to Remove the Correlation Ambiguity in Binary Offset Carrier (BOC) Spread Spectrum Sig-
nals, in Proceedings of ION NTM 2004, San Diego, CA, pp. 886896.
[10] V. Heiries, J.-A. Avila-Rodriguez, M. Irsigler, G.W. Hein, E. Rebeyrol, D. Roviras, Acquisition Performance Analysis of Com-
posite Signals for the L1 OS Optimized Signal, in Proceedings of ION GNSS 18th International Meeting of the Satellite Division,
September 2005, Long Beach, CA, pp. 877889.
[11] R.D.J. van Nee, J. Siereveld, P.C. Fenton, and B.R. Townsend, The Multipath estimating delay locked loop: approaching
theoretical accuracy limits, in Proc. of IEEE Position Location and Navigation Symp., vol. 1, pp. 246-251, 1994.
[12] E. S. Lohan, A. Lakhzouri, and M. Renfors, Binary-Offset-Carrier modulation techniques with applications in satellite naviga-
tion systems, in print, Wiley Journal of Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, DOI: 10.1002/ wcm.407, published
on-line, Jul 2006.