## 8 SQI and RAIM Interaction
### Simulation Results without Using GDOP Data
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number of Satellites** & \(\boldsymbol{\gamma}\) & **E (m)** & **N (m)** & **U (m)** & **MSE (m)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{5} & 0 & 3.04783 & 9.27226 & 57.8219 & 51.5876 \\  & 1 & 1.77521 & 6.44012 & 45.965 & 41.311 \\  & 5 & 1.98589 & 11.7037 & 31.2759 & 30.1326 \\  & 10 & 2.51859 & 14.378 & 26.4405 & 27.2389 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{8} & 0 & 8.28045 & 10.9965 & 41.898 & 38.7889 \\  & 1 & 4.54109 & 14.0635 & 36.4797 & 34.4765 \\  & 5 & 2.30562 & 16.053 & 31.0838 & 30.0961 \\  & 10 & 3.10298 & 15.8458 & 29.9185 & 28.7643 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{10} & 0 & 7.028 & 13.9999 & 37.057 & 35.5515 \\  & 1 & 3.60098 & 16.0674 & 29.853 & 30.284 \\  & 5 & 1.77159 & 15.8387 & 20.8092 & 23.409 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 10 & 2.20445 & 14.2902 & 17.4283 & 20.2332 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results for the scenario 2 with increasing penalty weight and different number of satellites. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number of Satellites** & \(\boldsymbol{\gamma}\) & **E (m)** & **N (m)** & **U (m)** & **MSE (m)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{5} & 0 & 17.5363 & 8.36942 & 37.5979 & 24.0336 \\  & 1 & 17.5299 & 8.36801 & 37.4598 & 24.0374 \\  & 5 & 17.5148 & 8.39186 & 37.1987 & 23.987 \\  & 10 & 17.5049 & 8.42931 & 37.0731 & 23.9496 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{8} & 0 & 11.6558 & 9.08143 & 31.5525 & 22.7982 \\  & 1 & 11.8193 & 9.07103 & 32.3279 & 22.8998 \\  & 5 & 12.1992 & 9.09621 & 34.1857 & 23.3293 \\  & 10 & 12.4388 & 9.15166 & 35.3221 & 23.6366 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{10} & 0 & 5.82226 & 8.88567 & 12.4009 & 12.7028 \\  & 1 & 5.78051 & 8.91175 & 12.2429 & 12.4587 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 5 & 5.83003 & 9.15222 & 12.3956 & 12.4954 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 10 & 5.94344 & 9.3618 & 12.8177 & 12.7211 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results for the scenario 1 with increasing penalty weight and different number of satellites. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number of Satellites** & \(\boldsymbol{\gamma}\) & **E (m)** & **N (m)** & **U (m)** & **MSE (m)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{5} & 0 & 17.5363 & 8.36942 & 37.5979 & 24.0336 \\  & 1 & 17.5299 & 8.36801 & 37.4598 & 24.0374 \\  & 5 & 17.5148 & 8.39186 & 37.1987 & 23.987 \\  & 10 & 17.5049 & 8.42931 & 37.0731 & 23.9496 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{8} & 0 & 11.6558 & 9.08143 & 31.5525 & 22.7982 \\  & 1 & 11.8193 & 9.07103 & 32.3279 & 22.8998 \\  & 5 & 12.1992 & 9.09621 & 34.1857 & 23.3293 \\  & 10 & 12.4388 & 9.15166 & 35.3221 & 23.6366 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{10} & 0 & 5.82226 & 8.88567 & 12.4009 & 12.7028 \\  & 1 & 5.78051 & 8.91175 & 12.2429 & 12.4587 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 5 & 5.83003 & 9.15222 & 12.3956 & 12.4954 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 10 & 5.94344 & 9.3618 & 12.8177 & 12.7211 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results for the scenario 1 with increasing penalty weight and different number of satellites. Note that the focus of this paper is to show that fault detection via signal processing techniques is possible and useful especially for land applications where the environment has important effects on the degradation of the signals. For this reason methods for a proper selection of the threshold have not been considered, and will the objective of a future study activity.