Igs08.atx to igs14.atx change dependent differences in a GNSS- derived position time series

Dawidowicz, Karol

doi:10.13168/agg.2018.0027

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These selected IGS MGEX and iGMAS tracking stations are used to perform SPP. The least-square method is applied in SPP, the antenna phase center offset (PCO) and phase center variations (PCVs) are corrected by using IGS ANTEX files [36,37]. About the tropospheric delay, the modified Hopfield model based on the Global Pressure and Temperature 3 (GPT3) model is used to correct the dry and wet tropospheric delay, and the mapping functions of both dry and wet parts are obtained by Vienna mapping functions 3 (VMF3) according to the elevation angle of each satellite [38].…”

Section: Datasets and Processing Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis and Assessment of BDS-2 and BDS-3 Broadcast Ephemeris: Accuracy, the Datum of Broadcast Clocks and Its Impact on Single Point Positioning

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the global ordinary users, the broadcast ephemeris plays important roles in positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) services. With the construction of a new generation of the BeiDou navigation satellite system (BDS), the development of BDS has entered the era of globalization. It is meaningful for global users to analyze and assess the BDS-2 and BDS-3 broadcast ephemeris. Therefore, the satellite orbits and clock offsets calculated by broadcast ephemeris are compared with the precise orbit and clock offset products provided by three analysis centers (i.e., Helmholtz Centre Potsdam German Research Center for Geosciences (GFZ), Wuhan University (WHU) and Shanghai Astronomical Observatory (SHA)), and the corresponding signal-in-space range error (SISRE) and the orbit-only SISRE are analyzed to assess the accuracy of BDS broadcast ephemeris. Due to the upgrade of BDS-3 satellite hardware technology and inter-satellite links payload and the development of satellite orbit determination algorithm, the accuracy of broadcast orbit and clock offsets has been greatly improved. The root mean square (RMS) of BDS-3 broadcast orbit errors is improved by 86.30%, 89.47% and 76.86%, and the standard deviation (STD) is improved by 79.41%, 77.00% and 76.78% compared with BDS-2 in the radial, along-track and cross-track directions. The corresponding RMS and STD of all BDS-3 satellite clock offsets are improved by 40.34% and 52.49% than that of BDS-2, respectively. Meanwhile, the mean RMS and STD are 1.78 m and 0.40 m for BDS-2 SISRE, 1.72 m and 0.34 m for BDS-2 orbit-only SISRE, 0.50 m and 0.14 m for BDS-3 SISRE, and 0.17 m and 0.04 m for BDS-3 orbit-only SISRE. It is noteworthy that the average broadcast-minus-precise (BMP) clock values of BDS-2 and BDS-3 are inconsistent, which can indirectly prove that the datum of broadcast clock offsets for BDS-2 and BDS-3 are inconsistent. The inconsistency of the datum of satellite clock offsets and receiver hardware delay bias between BDS-2 and BDS-3 will result in the inter-system bias (ISB) on the receiver segment. For JAVAD TRE_3 receivers, the ISB is relatively small and thus can be ignored. However, for the TRIMBLE ALLOY, SEPT POLARX5, CETC-54-GMR-4016, CETC-54-GMR-4011, GNSS-GGR and UB4B0-13478 receivers, estimating ISB can improve the positioning accuracy of single point positioning (SPP) by 20.15%, 19.81% and 12.76% in north, east and up directions, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Datasets and Processing Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis and Assessment of BDS-2 and BDS-3 Broadcast Ephemeris: Accuracy, the Datum of Broadcast Clocks and Its Impact on Single Point Positioning

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During weeks when igs08 and igb08 were in use, there were some inaccurate solutions, which may be treated as gross errors. Despite that, clearly visible is the change in ellipsoidal height difference after the introduction of the IGS14 system (after GPS week 1933 [33]). The offset is up to about 8 mm (Figure 7).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phase Centre Corrections of GNSS Antennas and Their Consistency with ATX Catalogues

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changes of the antenna models on permanent global navigation satellite system (GNSS) stations can lead to jumps and discontinuities in the coordinate time series. In this paper, the results of research on the adequacy of the antenna phase centre corrections (PCC) variations are presented by analysing its component—the antennas’ phase centre offset (PCO). For this purpose, height differences were determined using different and independent methods: EUREF Permanent Network (EPN) combined solutions, Precise Point Positioning (PPP), and the single baseline solution. The results of GNSS processing were referenced to direct geometric levelling outputs. The research was conducted only within the global positioning system (GPS) system due to the compatibility of one of the receivers, and the experiment was based on a comparison of the height differences between four GNSS antennas located on the roof of a building: two permanent station antennas and two auxiliary points. The antennas were located at similar heights; precise height differences were determined by geometric levelling, both at the beginning and the end of the session. Post-processing was conducted with the use of the GPS system, precise ephemeris, the adopted antenna correction model, and a zero-elevation mask. For one of the antennas, a change of the antenna characteristic model from IGS08 to IGS14 leads to an 8-mm difference in height. Older antennas used in the national (or transnational) permanent network need individual PCC.

show abstract

“…Regarding the BDS satellite, the ANTEX file that was provided by iGMAS Analysis Center of Shanghai Astronomical Observatory is used to correct the PCO and PCV of BDS. The correction of PCO and PCV of some receiver antennas only gives GPS and GLONASS, and it rarely updates BDS and Galileo [21,22]. We can only use the correction value provided by GPS to correct BDS and Galileo when we make PCO and PCV corrections on the receiver antenna.…”

Section: Data Sets and Processing Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of BeiDou-3 and Multi-GNSS Precise Point Positioning Performance

Jiao

Song

et al. 2019

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the launch of BDS-3 and Galileo new satellites, the BeiDou navigation satellite system (BDS) has developed from the regional to global system, and the Galileo constellation will consist of 26 satellites in space. Thus, BDS, GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo all have the capability of global positioning services. It is meaningful to evaluate the ability of global precise point positioning (PPP) of the GPS, BDS, GLONASS, and Galileo. This paper mainly contributes to the assessment of BDS-2, BDS-2/BDS-3, GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo PPP with the observations that were provided by the international Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Monitoring and Assessment System (iGMAS). The Position Dilution of Precision (PDOP) value was utilized to research the global coverage of GPS, BDS-2, BDS-2/BDS-3, GLONASS, and Galileo. In particular, GPS-only, BDS-2-only, BDS-2/BDS-3, GLONASS-only, Galileo-only, and multi-GNSS combined PPP solutions were analyzed to verify the capacity of the PPP performances in terms of positioning accuracy, convergence time, and zenith troposphere delay (ZTD) accuracy. In view of PDOP, the current BDS and Galileo are capable of global coverage. The BDS-2/BDS-3 and Galileo PDOP values are fairly evenly distributed around the world similar to GPS and GLONASS. The root mean square (RMS) of positioning errors for static BDS-2/BDS-3 PPP and Galileo-only PPP are 10.7, 19.5, 20.4 mm, and 6.9, 18.6, 19.6 mm, respectively, in the geographic area of the selected station, which is the same level as GPS and GLONASS. It is worth mentioning that, by adding BDS-3 observations, the positioning accuracy of static BDS PPP is improved by 17.05%, 24.42%, and 35.65%, and the convergence time is reduced by 27.15%, 27.87%, and 35.76% in three coordinate components, respectively. Similar to the static positioning, GPS, BDS-2/BDS-3, GLONASS, and Galileo have the basically same kinematic positioning accuracy. Multi-GNSS PPP significantly improves the positioning performances in both static and kinematic positioning. In terms of ZTD accuracy, the difference between GPS, BDS-2/BDS-3, GLONASS, and Galileo is less than 1 mm, and the BDS-2/BDS-3 improves ZTD accuracy by 20.48% over the BDS-2. The assessment of GPS, BDS-2, BDS-2/BDS-3, GLONASS, Galileo, and multi-GNSS global PPP performance are shown to make comments for the development of multi-GNSS integration, global precise positioning, and the construction of iGMAS.

show abstract

Igs08.atx to igs14.atx change dependent differences in a GNSS- derived position time series

Cited by 15 publications

References 23 publications

Analysis and Assessment of BDS-2 and BDS-3 Broadcast Ephemeris: Accuracy, the Datum of Broadcast Clocks and Its Impact on Single Point Positioning

Analysis and Assessment of BDS-2 and BDS-3 Broadcast Ephemeris: Accuracy, the Datum of Broadcast Clocks and Its Impact on Single Point Positioning

Phase Centre Corrections of GNSS Antennas and Their Consistency with ATX Catalogues

Assessment of BeiDou-3 and Multi-GNSS Precise Point Positioning Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About