Safoora Zaminpardaz

Dr. Safoora Zaminpardaz

School of Science, College of Science, Engineering and Health, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

15Years (2012-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
16 April 2016 in GPS Solutions
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DODennis Odijk
Dennis Odijk
NNNandakumaran Nadarajah
Nandakumaran Nadarajah
Safoora ZaminpardazSafoora Zaminpardaz
Safoora Zaminpardaz
PTPeter J. G. Teunissen
Peter J. G. Teunissen

9 April 2018 in Journal of Geodesy
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Safoora ZaminpardazSafoora Zaminpardaz
Safoora Zaminpardaz
Peter TeunissenPeter Teunissen
Peter Teunissen
In this contribution, we present and analyze datasnooping in the context of the DIA method. As the DIA method for the detection, identification and adaptation of mismodelling errors is concerned with estimation and testing, it is the combination of both that needs to be considered. This combination is rigorously captured by the DIA estimator. We discuss and analyze the DIA-datasnooping decision probabilities and the construction of the corresponding partitioning of misclosure space. We also investigate the circumstances under which two or more hypotheses are nonseparable in the identification step. By means of a theorem on the equivalence between the nonseparability of hypotheses and the inestimability of parameters, we demonstrate that one can forget about adapting the parameter vector for hypotheses that are nonseparable. However, as this concerns the complete vector and not necessarily functions of it, we also show that parameter functions may exist for which adaptation is still possible. It is shown how this adaptation looks like and how it changes the structure of the DIA estimator. To demonstrate the performance of the various elements of DIA-datasnooping, we apply the theory to some selected examples. We analyze how geometry changes in the measurement setup affect the testing procedure, by studying their partitioning of misclosure space, the decision probabilities and the minimal detectable and identifiable biases. The difference between these two minimal biases is highlighted by showing the difference between their corresponding contributing factors. We also show that if two alternative hypotheses, say \({\mathcal {H}}_{i}\) and \({\mathcal {H}}_{j}\), are nonseparable, the testing procedure may have different levels of sensitivity to \({\mathcal {H}}_{i}\)-biases compared to the same \({\mathcal {H}}_{j}\)-biases.

1 November 2012 in Journal of Surveying Engineering
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AAAlireza Amiri-Simkooei
Alireza Amiri-Simkooei
JAJamal Asgari
Jamal Asgari
FZF. Zangeneh-Nejad
F. Zangeneh-Nejad
Safoora ZaminpardazSafoora Zaminpardaz
Safoora Zaminpardaz
This contribution reviews a few basic concepts of optimization and design of a geodetic network. Proper assessment and analysis of networks is an important task in many geodetic-surveying projects. Appropriate quality-control measures should be defined, and an optimal design should be sought. The quality of a geodetic network is characterized by precision, reliability, and cost. The aim is to present a few case studies that have been designed to meet optimal precision and reliability criteria. Though the case studies may be of interest to the geodetic community in their own right, the aim is to gain insight into the general optimization problem of a geodetic network. This is also potentially of interest for educational purposes. The case studies include a zeroth-order design to improve the precision of the network points in a traverse network and a first-order design to meet the high reliability and maximum precision criteria in a geodetic network. It is shown that not only the configuration of th...

13 December 2021 in Sensors
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Chien Zheng YongChien Zheng Yong
Chien Zheng Yong
Robert OdolinskiRobert Odolinski
Robert Odolinski
Safoora ZaminpardazSafoora Zaminpardaz
Safoora Zaminpardaz
MMMichael Moore
Michael Moore
EREldar Rubinov
Eldar Rubinov
MDMike Denham
Mike Denham
The recent development of the smartphone Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) chipsets, such as Broadcom BCM47755 and Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 embedded, makes instantaneous and cm level real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning possible with Android-based smartphones. In this contribution we investigate the instantaneous single-baseline RTK performance of Samsung Galaxy S20 and Google Pixel 4 (GP4) smartphones with such chipsets, while making use of dual-frequency L1 + L5 Global Positioning System (GPS), E1 + E5a Galileo, L1 + L5 Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) and B1 BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) code and phase observations in Dunedin, New Zealand. The effects of locating the smartphones in an upright and lying down position were evaluated, and we show that the choice of smartphone configuration can affect the positioning performance even in a zero-baseline setup. In particular, we found non-zero mean and linear trends in the double-differenced carrier-phase residuals for one of the smartphone models when lying down, which become absent when in an upright position. This implies that the two assessed smartphones have different antenna gain pattern and antenna sensitivity to interferences. Finally, we demonstrate, for the first time, a near hundred percent (98.7% to 99.9%) instantaneous RTK integer least-squares success rate for one of the smartphone models and cm level positioning precision while using short-baseline experiments with internal and external antennas, respectively.

18 May 2016 in GPS Solutions
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Safoora ZaminpardazSafoora Zaminpardaz
Safoora Zaminpardaz
Peter TeunissenPeter Teunissen
Peter Teunissen
NNNandakumaran Nadarajah
Nandakumaran Nadarajah
A first assessment of GLONASS CDMA L3 ambiguity resolution and positioning performance is provided. Our analyses are based on GLONASS L3 data from the satellite pair SVNs 755-801, received by two JAVAD receivers at Curtin University, Perth, Australia. In our analyses, four different versions of the two-satellite model are applied: the geometry-free model, the geometry-based model , the height-constrained geometry-based model, and the geometry-fixed model. We study the noise characteristics (carrier-to-noise density, measurement precision), the integer ambiguity resolution performance (success rates and distribution of the ambiguity residuals), and the positioning performance (ambiguity float and ambiguity fixed). The results show that our empirical outcomes are consistent with their formal counterparts and that the GLONASS data have a lower noise level than that of GPS, particularly in case of the code data. This difference is not only seen in the noise levels but also in their onward propagation to the ambiguity time series and ambiguity residuals distribution.

29 August 2017 in GPS Solutions
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Safoora ZaminpardazSafoora Zaminpardaz
Safoora Zaminpardaz
PTPeter J. G. Teunissen
Peter J. G. Teunissen