GPS Receiver Impact from the UTC Offset (UTCO) Anomaly of 25-26 January 2016

Kovach, Karl; Mendicki, Philip J.; Powers, Edward; Renfro, Brent

doi:10.33012/2016.14767

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the three values of A 0 broadcast by GPS immediately before and after the UTC anomaly (six values total) ranged from -2.79 ns to +1.86 ns. The erroneous value of A 0 broadcast during the timing anomaly was approximately -13696.03 ns, which rounds to the -13.7 µs value [5] that was widely reported by media outlets.…”

Section: Technical Description Of Utc Offset Anomalymentioning

confidence: 52%

“…This added a correction of ~671 ns and reduced the UTC offset to about -13024 ns. Thus, GPS clocks that applied A 1 were offset from UTC by about -13.0 µs and those that did not were offset by about -13.7 µs [5]. The GPS clocks in our study all applied the A 1 drift correction.…”

Section: Technical Description Of Utc Offset Anomalymentioning

confidence: 62%

“…Broadcasting t ot as 0 resulted in t E -t ot being equal to ~2 days, instead of the usual fractional part of a day, because the anomaly occurred near the Monday/Tuesday transition, about two days after the GPS week began on the Saturday/Sunday transition. Therefore, the drift correction supplied by A 1 was applied to a period of ~625 days (623 + ~2 days) [3,5]. This added a correction of ~671 ns and reduced the UTC offset to about -13024 ns.…”

Section: Technical Description Of Utc Offset Anomalymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The erroneous UTC offset parameters were transmitted by 15 of the 30 satellites that remained in the GPS constellation after PRN 32 was decommissioned. Table 1 lists the 15 satellites and the periods when bad data were transmitted [5]. The time stamps in Table 1 refer to GPS system time.…”

Section: Technical Description Of Utc Offset Anomalymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interval between the last bad upload to the satellites (07:46:18, to PRN 23) and the first corrected upload (11:43:48, to PRNs 13 and 14) was 3 h, 57 min, and 30 s. After the first corrected upload the remaining 13 satellites were corrected within 1 h, 27 min, and 30 s [5].…”

Section: Technical Description Of Utc Offset Anomalymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Effects of the January 2016 UTC Offset Anomaly on GPS-Controlled Clocks Monitored at NIST

Yao¹,

Lombardi²,

Novick³

et al. 2017

The Precise Time and Time Interval Systems and Applications Meeting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Errors in the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) offset parameters broadcast by Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites caused many thousands of GPS-controlled clocks to be in error by approximately-13 µs on January 25-26, 2016. The erroneous UTC offset information was broadcast by 15 GPS satellites, or half of the available constellation, during the anomaly. This paper discusses the technical reasons for the UTC offset anomaly, its effect on clocks controlled by GPS satellites (hereafter referred to as GPS clocks), and how it was detected at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It then discusses the impact of the UTC offset anomaly on GPS clocks maintained and monitored by NIST, including clocks located in Boulder, Colorado and those at remote locations. Some analysis is presented of the effects of the UTC offset anomaly on GPS clocks located at 19 sites in North, Central, and South America.

show abstract

Section: Technical Description Of Utc Offset Anomalymentioning

confidence: 52%

Section: Technical Description Of Utc Offset Anomalymentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Technical Description Of Utc Offset Anomalymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Technical Description Of Utc Offset Anomalymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Technical Description Of Utc Offset Anomalymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Effects of the January 2016 UTC Offset Anomaly on GPS-Controlled Clocks Monitored at NIST

Yao¹,

Lombardi²,

Novick³

et al. 2017

The Precise Time and Time Interval Systems and Applications Meeting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reduced-dynamic and kinematic baseline determination for the Swarm mission

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Swarm mission of the European Space Agency was launched in November 2013 with the objective of performing measurements of the earth's magnetic field with unprecedented accuracy. At the beginning of data collection, two satellites started to fly in orbits with a separation in ascending nodes of 1°-1.5°at an altitude of about 480 km, and a third satellite has been placed in a higher orbit with an altitude of 530 km. The three spacecraft are equipped with dual-frequency eight-channel GPS receivers for the generation of precise orbits. Although such orbits support the fulfillment of the primary objectives of the mission, precise space baselines may be helpful for studying the earth's gravity field, a spin-off application of the Swarm mission. Hitherto, a particular challenge for the computation of precise baselines from Swarm has been the presence of half-cycle ambiguities in GPS carrier phase observations, which complicate the implementation of integer ambiguity resolution methods. The present study shows the feasibility of generating carrier phase observations with full-cycle ambiguities, which in turn has been used to improve the performance of reduced-dynamic and kinematic precise baseline determination schemes. The implemented strategies have been tested in a period of 90 days in 2016. The obtained reduced-dynamic and kinematic baseline products were evaluated by inter-product and inter-agency comparisons using two independent software tools.

show abstract