© 2015, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. The characterization of the accuracy of ionospheric models currently used in global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs) is a long-standing issue. The characterization remains a challenging problem owing to the lack of sufficiently accurate slant ionospheric determinations to be used as a reference. The present study proposes a methodology based on the comparison of the predictions of any ionospheric model with actual unambiguous carrier-phase measurements from a global distribution of permanent receivers. The differences are separated as hardware delays (a receiver constant plus a satellite constant) per day. The present study was conducted for the entire year of 2014, i.e. during the last solar cycle maximum. The ionospheric models assessed are the operational models broadcast by the global positioning system (GPS) and Galileo constellations, the satellite-based augmentation system (SBAS) (i.e. European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System (EGNOS) and wide area augmentation system (WAAS)), a number of post-process global ionospheric maps (GIMs) from different International GNSS Service (IGS) analysis centres (ACs) and, finally, a more sophisticated GIM computed by the research group of Astronomy and GEomatics (gAGE). Ionospheric models based on GNSS data and represented on a grid (IGS GIMs or SBAS) correct about 85 % of the total slant ionospheric delay, whereas the models broadcasted in the navigation messages of GPS and Galileo only account for about 70 %. Our gAGE GIM is shown to correct 95 % of the delay. The proposed methodology appears to be a useful tool to improve current ionospheric models.Postprint (author's final draft

No abstract

Single-frequency users of the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) must correct for the ionospheric delay. These corrections are available from global ionospheric models (GIMs). Therefore, the accuracy of the GIM is important because the unmodeled or incorrectly part of ionospheric delay contributes to the positioning error of GNSS-based positioning. However, the positioning error of receivers located at known coordinates can be used to infer the accuracy of GIMs in a simple manner. This is why assessment of GIMs by means of the position domain is often used as an alternative to assessments in the ionospheric delay domain. The latter method requires accurate reference ionospheric values obtained from a network solution and complex geodetic modeling. However, evaluations using the positioning error method present several difficulties, as evidenced in recent works, that can lead to inconsistent results compared to the tests using the ionospheric delay domain. We analyze the reasons why such inconsistencies occur, applying both methodologies. We have computed the position of 34 permanent stations for the entire year of 2014 within the last Solar Maximum. The positioning tests have been done using code pseudoranges and carrier-phase leveled (CCL) measurements. We identify the error sources that make it difficult to distinguish the part of the positioning error that is attributable to the ionospheric correction: the measurement noise, pseudorange multipath, evaluation metric, and outliers. Once these error sources are considered, we obtain equivalent results to those found in the ionospheric delay domain assessments. Accurate GIMs can provide single-frequency navigation positioning at the decimeter level using CCL measurements and better positions than those obtained using the dual-frequency ionospheric-free combination of pseudoranges. Finally, some recommendations are provided for further studies of ionospheric models using the position domain method.

We introduce a methodology to extract the separate contributions of the ionosphere and the plasmasphere to the vertical total electron content, without relying on a fixed altitude to perform that separation. The method combines two previously developed and tested techniques, namely, the retrieval of electron density profiles from radio occultations using an improved Abel inversion technique and a two-component model for the topside ionosphere plus protonosphere. Taking measurements of the total electron content from global ionospheric maps and radio occultations from the Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate/FORMOSAT-3 constellation, the ionospheric and plasmaspheric electron contents are calculated for a sample of observations covering 2007, a period of low solar and geomagnetic activity. The results obtained are shown to be consistent with previous studies for the last solar minimum period and with model calculations, confirming the reversal of the winter anomaly, the hemispheric asymmetry of the semiannual anomaly, and the existence in the plasmasphere of an annual anomaly in the South American sector of longitudes. The analysis of the respective fractional contributions from the ionosphere and the plasmasphere to the total electron content shows quantitatively that during the night the plasmasphere makes the largest contribution, peaking just before sunrise and during winter. On the other hand, the fractional contribution from the ionosphere reaches a maximum value around noon, which is nearly independent of season and geomagnetic latitude.

Ionospheric scintillation causes rapid fluctuations of measurements from Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSSs), thus threatening space-based communication and geolocation services. The phenomenon is most intense in equatorial regions, around the equinoxes and in maximum solar cycle conditions. Currently, ionospheric scintillation monitoring receivers (ISMRs) measure scintillation with high-pass filter algorithms involving high sampling rates, e.g. 50 Hz, and highly stable clocks, e.g. an ultra-low-noise Oven-Controlled Crystal Oscillator. The present paper evolves phase scintillation indices implemented in conventional geodetic receivers with sampling rates of 1 Hz and rapidly fluctuating clocks. The method is capable to mitigate ISMR artefacts that contaminate the readings of the state-of-the-art phase scintillation index. Our results agree in more than 99.9% within ± 0.05 rad (2 mm) of the ISMRs, with a data set of 8 days which include periods of moderate and strong scintillation. The discrepancies are clearly identified, being associated with data gaps and to cycle-slips in the carrier-phase tracking of ISMR that occur simultaneously with ionospheric scintillation. The technique opens the door to use huge databases available from the International GNSS Service and other centres for scintillation studies. This involves GNSS measurements from hundreds of worldwide-distributed geodetic receivers over more than one Solar Cycle. This overcomes the current limitations of scintillation studies using ISMRs, as only a few tens of ISMRs are available and their data are provided just for short periods of time.

We address two main problems related to the receiver and satellite Differential Code Biases (DCBs) determination. The first issue concerns the drifts and jumps experienced by the DCB determinations of the International GNSS Service (IGS) due to satellite constellation changes. A new alignment algorithm is introduced to remove these nonphysical effects, which is applicable in real-time. The full-time series of 18 years of Global 14 Positioning System (GPS) satellite DCBs, computed by IGS, are realigned using the proposed algorithm. The second problem concerns the assessment of the DCBs accuracy. The short-and long-term receiver and satellite DCB performances for the different Ionospheric Associate Analysis Centers (IAACs) are discussed. The results are compared with the determinations computed with the two-layer Fast Precise Point Positioning (Fast-PPP) ionospheric model, to assess how the geometric description of the ionosphere affects the DCB determination and to illustrate how the errors in the ionospheric model are transferred to the DCB estimates. Two different determinations of DCBs are considered: the values 22 provided by the different IAACs and the values estimated using their pre-computed Global 23 Ionospheric Maps (GIMs). The second determination provides a better characterization of 24 DCBs accuracy, as it is confirmed when analyzing the DCB variations associated with the 25 GPS Block-IIA satellites under eclipse conditions, observed mainly in the Fast-PPP DCB 26 determinations. This study concludes that the accuracy of the IGS IAACs receiver DCBs is 27 approximately 0.3-0.5 ns and 0.2 ns for the Fast-PPP. In the case of the satellite DCBs, these 28 values are about 0.12-0.20 ns for IAACs and 0.07 ns for Fast-PPP.

No abstract

The calibration errors on experimental Slant Total Electron Content (STEC) determined with Global Positioning System (GPS) observations is revisited. Instead of the analysis of the calibration errors on the carrier phase leveled to code ionospheric observable, we focus on the accuracy analysis of the undifferenced ambiguity-fixed carrier phase ionospheric observable determined from a global distribution of permanent receivers. The results achieved are: (1) By using data from an entire month within the last Solar Cycle maximum, the undifferenced ambiguity-fixed carrier phase ionospheric observable is found to be over one order of magnitude more accurate than the carrier phase leveled to code ionospheric observable and the raw code ionospheric observable. The observation error of the undifferenced ambiguity-fixed carrier phase ionospheric observable ranges from 0.05 to 0.11 TECU (Total Electron Content Unit) while that of the carrier phase leveled to code and the raw code ionospheric observable is from 0.65 to 1.65 TECU and 3.14 to 7.48 TECU, respectively. (2) The time-varying receiver DCB, which presents clear Day Boundary Discontinuity and intra-day variability pattern, contributes the most part of the observation error. This contribution is assessed by the short-term stability of the Between-Receiver DCB, which ranges from 0.06 to 0.17 TECU in a single day. (3) The remaining part of the observation errors presents a sidereal time cycle pattern, indicating the effects of the multipath. Further, the magnitude of the remaining part implies that the code multipath effects are much reduced. (4) The intra-day variation of the Between-Receiver DCB of the collocated stations suggests that estimating DCBs as a daily constant can have a mis-modeling error of at least several tenths of one TECU.