First Results of Field Absolute Calibration of the GPS Receiver Antenna at Wuhan University

Hu, Zhigang; Zhao, Qile; Chen, Guohong; Wang, Guangxing; Dai, Zhiqiang; Li, Tao

doi:10.3390/s151128717

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The corresponding virtual ranging observation PCC 0 (z i , α i ) calculated according to Equation ( 1) is called the virtual PCC observation. Since the datum B is arbitrary and cannot be determined, differencing between different satellites is performed, which is commonly applied in real field calibration [17,18]. Another virtual satellite j at direction (z j , α j ) is introduced as a reference.…”

Section: Virtual Differenced Pcc Observationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since PCO and PCV are both related to the satellite direction, they are highly coupled. Therefore, the estimation is divided into two steps following similar procedures to real field calibration [13,18] to investigate the consistency of different PCO/PCV and its correlation.…”

Section: Pco and Pcv Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The original PCC models are based on igs05.atx, igs08.atx, igs14.atx, and igsR3.atx released by IGS (https://files.igs.org/pub/station/general/, accessed on 18 January 2022). In addition, absolute antenna calibration was implemented at Wuhan University [18], and multi-GNSS PCC model calibration is currently under testing. Benefiting from previous work, the impact of PCO and PCV on calibration can be investigated through field GNSS data.…”

Section: Coupling Analysis Of Pco and Pcv Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Consistency Analysis of the GNSS Antenna Phase Center Correction Models

Zhou

Zhao

et al. 2022

Remote Sensing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the same antenna type, numerical differences among the phase center correction (PCC) models released by different institutes can reach several millimeters, which is far beyond the nominal calibration accuracy. This contribution introduces a new method to evaluate the consistency of these PCC models. We first investigated the coupling of phase center offset (PCO) and phase center variation (PCV) through simulation experiments, and the results show that the calibrated PCO values under different strategies may result in large differences, and so do PCV values due to strong coupling with PCO. This is further confirmed by field calibration experiments. Moreover, a new datum parameter is introduced to equivalently transform the PCC models to assess the consistency of PCC models of the same antenna type calibrated under different strategies or by different facilities. It is also essential to perform consistency analysis of PCC models in the coordinate domain. We further investigated these PCC models through a simulated positioning experiment. The results show that millimeter-level consistency of PCC models will lead to the same level of positioning precision in the coordinate domain. Moreover, as a comparison, both baseline positioning and PPP were performed with an antenna-type JAV_RINGANT_G3T NONE based on real observations. Multiday results showed that the average RMS of the positioning differences between PCC models from robot and anechoic chamber calibration is less than 1 mm for the baseline solution and 4 mm for the PPP solution, although the PCC model differences can reach 6 mm in L1 and 4 mm in L2, respectively. Finally, we also investigated the distribution of position biases without PCC or with inaccurate PCC. Considering the actual GPS constellation, we found that position biases have a strong correlation with latitude, if PCV values fluctuate greatly with the users’ elevation angle.

show abstract

Section: Virtual Differenced Pcc Observationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pco and Pcv Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Coupling Analysis Of Pco and Pcv Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consistency Analysis of the GNSS Antenna Phase Center Correction Models

Zhou

Zhao

et al. 2022

Remote Sensing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The other five are the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) (Virginia, USA), University of Bonn (UB) (Bonn, Germany), SenB (Berlin, Germany), Geo++ (Hannover, Germany), and the Institute of Geodesy (IfE) (Hannover, Germany) facilities. The first results obtained by two new calibration facilities at Wuhan University [ 19 ] and Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zürich [ 20 , 21 ] have recently been published.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary Results of an Astri/UWM EGNSS Receiver Antenna Calibration Facility

Dawidowicz

Rapiński

Śmieja

et al. 2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2019, the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, in cooperation with Astri Polska, started a European Space Agency (ESA) project. The purpose of the project is the development and implementation of a field calibration procedure for a multi-frequency and multi-system global navigation satellite system (GNSS). The methodology and algorithms proposed in the project are inspired by the “Hannover” concept of absolute field receiver antenna calibration; however, some innovations are introduced. In our approach, the antenna rotation point is close to the nominal mean phase center (MPC) of the antenna, although it does not coincide with it. Additionally, a National Marine Electronics Association local time zone (NMEA ZDA) message is used to synchronize the robot with the GNSS time. We also propose some modifications in robot arm movement scenarios. Our first test results demonstrate consistent performance for the calibration strategy and calibration procedure. For the global positioning system (GPS) L1 frequency, the calibration results show good agreement with the IGS-type mean values. For high satellite elevations (20°–90°), the differences do not exceed 1.5 mm. For low elevation angles (0°–20°), the consistency of the results is worse and the differences exceed a 3 mm level in some cases.

show abstract

“…Currently, two absolute calibration approaches are used. The first of them (used, e.g., by Geo++ ® GmbH [18], Leibniz University Hannover, Institut für Erdmessung [19], or Wuhan University [20]) uses a special robot for this purpose. In this case, the estimated values are based on the real GNSS signal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Height Variation Depending on the Source of Antenna Phase Centre Corrections: LEIAR25.R3 Case Study

Araszkiewicz

Kiliszek

Podkowa

2019

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we compared two sets of antenna phase center corrections for groups of the same type of antenna mounted at the continuously operating global navigation satellite system (GNSS) reference stations. The first set involved type mean models provided by the International GNSS Service (release igs08), while the second set involved individual models developed by Geo++. Our goal was to check which set gave better results in the case of height estimation. The paper presents the differences between models and their impact on resulting height. Analyses showed that, in terms of the stability of the determined height, as well as its variability caused by increasing the facade mask, both models gave very similar results. Finally, we present a method for how to estimate the impact of differences in phase center corrections on height changes.

show abstract

First Results of Field Absolute Calibration of the GPS Receiver Antenna at Wuhan University

Cited by 16 publications

References 17 publications

Consistency Analysis of the GNSS Antenna Phase Center Correction Models

Consistency Analysis of the GNSS Antenna Phase Center Correction Models

Preliminary Results of an Astri/UWM EGNSS Receiver Antenna Calibration Facility

Height Variation Depending on the Source of Antenna Phase Centre Corrections: LEIAR25.R3 Case Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About