Uncombined precise point positioning with triple-frequency GNSS signals

Cao, Xinyun; Li, Jiancheng; Zhang, Shoujian; Kuang, Kaifa; Gao, Kang; Zhao, Qingzhi; Hu, Hong

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2018.03.030

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper, we first showed the difference among the performance of triple-frequency PPP-AR based on different signal combinations. E1/E5a/E5b signals were usually used in previous research, but the contributions of other signal combinations are unclear [14,15,29,30]. We then discuss the receiver antenna phase center errors for Galileo signals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We then discuss the receiver antenna phase center errors for Galileo signals. Such errors were usually corrected using the GPS corrections due to the lack of Galileo corrections in the current official IGS antenna file [14,15,29]. Li et al (2018) also used GPS corrections for BeiDou signals due to the receiver antenna PCO/PCV corrections not being available for BeiDou signals [12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, (extra-)wide-lane ambiguity resolution, though expected to assist in speeding up narrow-lane ambiguity resolution, might sometimes deteriorate PPP convergences compared to dual-frequency PPP-AR [14]. Cao et al (2018) used an uncombined PPP model to study triple-frequency PPP-AR using Galileo E1/E5a/E5b signals; their results also indicated that some ambiguities were not fixed successfully to integers which might be imputed to unmodeled errors such as antenna phase centers; note that the International GNSS Service (IGS) has not released official phase center corrections for Galileo stations [15]. Hence, while the third frequency of GNSS signals has been demonstrated to have the potential to shorten the convergence time of PPP-AR, it is still interesting to investigate how each of the candidate third-frequency signals contributes to fast PPP-AR.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the Choice of the Third-Frequency Galileo Signals in Accelerating PPP Ambiguity Resolution in Case of Receiver Antenna Phase Center Errors

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid precise point positioning ambiguity resolution (PPP-AR) is of great importance to improving precise positioning efficiency. There is an expectation that Galileo multi-frequency (three or more frequencies) data processing will offer a promising way to accelerate PPP-AR. However, the performance of different combination observables out of raw Galileo multi-frequency data is still unclear, and the adverse impacts of missing receiver antenna phase center corrections have not been quantified in detail. We therefore studied uncombined Galileo PPP-AR by contrasting three typical triple-frequency combinations, which are E1/E5a/E5b, E1/E5a/E6, and E1/E5/E6 signals, using 30 days of data from 15 stations across Australia. We carried out triple-frequency PPP-AR by separately applying the official GPS receiver antenna phase centers, as currently employed in most relevant literatures, as well as the pilot Galileo receiver antenna phase centers preliminarily measured by the International GNSS Service. We found that, compared to dual-frequency (E1/E5a) PPP-AR, triple-frequency PPP-AR based on E1/E5a/E5b signals shortened the convergence time by only 7.6%, while those based on E1/E5a/E6 and E1/E5/E6 increased unexpectedly the convergence time by 17.6% and 12.7%, respectively, if the GPS receiver antenna corrections were presumed for Galileo signals. However, after using the pilot Galileo phase center corrections, triple-frequency PPP-AR based on E1/E5a/E5b, E1/E5a/E6, and E1/E5/E6 signals could speed up the convergence on average by about 16.2%, 30.3%, and 17.7%, respectively. Therefore, we demonstrate the critical impact of correct Galileo receiver antenna phase centers on multi-frequency PPP-AR convergences. Moreover, the triple-frequency signal combination E1/E5a/E6 is advantageous over others in achieving rapid triple-frequency Galileo PPP-AR.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the Choice of the Third-Frequency Galileo Signals in Accelerating PPP Ambiguity Resolution in Case of Receiver Antenna Phase Center Errors

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, the performance of triple-frequency PPP has been examined in a number of studies, e.g., [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. Li et al [42] developed a triple-frequency triple-constellation (i.e., GPS, BeiDou and Galileo) precise point positioning ambiguity resolution (PPP-AR) model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Evaluation of Triple-Frequency GPS/Galileo Techniques for Precise Static and Kinematic Applications

Rabbou

Abdelazeem

Morsy

2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this research was to develop new precise point positioning (PPP) processing models using triple-frequency GPS/Galileo observations. Different triple-frequency PPP models were developed including undifferenced, between-satellite single-difference (BSSD) and semi-decoupled PPP models. Additionally, a dual-frequency ionosphere-free undifferenced PPP model was developed. The performance of our developed PPP models was evaluated for both static and kinematic applications. To validate the proposed PPP models for static applications, triple-frequency GPS/Galileo observations spanning three successive days from eight globally distributed reference stations were acquired. Then, the observations were processed using the four static PPP solutions. It is found that the 3D positioning accuracy of the triple-frequency semi-decoupled, BSSD and undifferenced PPP models is enhanced after 10 min by about 50, 41 and 29%, respectively, compared with the dual-frequency undifferenced PPP model. After 20 min of processing, improvements in the 3D positioning accuracy by 40, 31 and 21% are obtained for the triple-frequency semi-decoupled, BSSD and undifferenced PPP models, respectively, with respect to the dual-frequency PPP model. The 3D positioning accuracy is also improved after 60 min, compared with the dual-frequency solution, by 40, 40 and 35% for the triple-frequency semi-decoupled, BSSD and undifferenced PPP solutions, respectively. For kinematic application validation, a vehicle trajectory was carried out. The collected triple-frequency GPS/Galileo observations were processed using the four kinematic PPP solutions. It is shown that the triple-frequency semi-decupled, BSSD and undifferenced PPP solutions enhance the 3D positioning accuracy by 31, 23 and 10%, respectively, in comparison with the dual-frequency undifferenced PPP solutions.

show abstract

“…RMS values and average SNR values of multi-path errors at different frequencies for different types of satellites.The observation equations of the triple-frequency uncombined PPP (UC-PPP) model are given as follows[29,34,35]:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Assessment of Positioning Based on Multi-Frequency Multi-GNSS Observations: Signal Quality, PPP and Baseline Solution

Qian

et al. 2021

IEEE Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uncombined precise point positioning with triple-frequency GNSS signals

Cited by 21 publications

References 33 publications

On the Choice of the Third-Frequency Galileo Signals in Accelerating PPP Ambiguity Resolution in Case of Receiver Antenna Phase Center Errors

On the Choice of the Third-Frequency Galileo Signals in Accelerating PPP Ambiguity Resolution in Case of Receiver Antenna Phase Center Errors

Performance Evaluation of Triple-Frequency GPS/Galileo Techniques for Precise Static and Kinematic Applications

Performance Assessment of Positioning Based on Multi-Frequency Multi-GNSS Observations: Signal Quality, PPP and Baseline Solution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About