Advertisement

Journal of Geodesy

, Volume 93, Issue 5, pp 765–784 | Cite as

Multi-GNSS triple-frequency differential code bias (DCB) determination with precise point positioning (PPP)

  • Teng LiuEmail author
  • Baocheng ZhangEmail author
  • Yunbin Yuan
  • Zishen Li
  • Ningbo Wang
Original Article

Abstract

Differential code biases (DCBs) account for the most significant systematical biases when sensing the earth’s ionosphere with GNSS observations and are also important correction parameters in GNSS applications of positioning, navigation and timing. With the continuous modernization of the American GPS and Russian GLONASS systems, and also the rapid developments of the European Galileo and Chinese BeiDou systems, there is a strong demand of precise satellite DCB products for multiple constellations and frequencies. This study proposes a new method for the precise determination of multi-GNSS triple-frequency DCBs, which can be divided into three steps. The first step is to precisely retrieve slant ionospheric delays and “additional code biases” based on a newly established full-rank triple-frequency precise point positioning (PPP) model with raw observations. Both the slant ionospheric delays and “additional code biases” containing the DCBs need to be estimated. Then, an enhanced IGGDCB (IGG stands for Institute of Geodesy and Geophysics) method is used to estimate the DCBs between the first and second frequency bands with the PPP-derived slant ionospheric delays. At last, the previously estimated DCBs between the first and second frequency bands are substituted into the “additional code biases” and DCBs between the first and third frequency bands are estimated. Multi-GNSS slant ionospheric delays from the triple-frequency PPP method are compared with those from the traditional dual-frequency carrier-to-code level (CCL) method, in terms of formal precision and zero-baseline experiment. Quad-system average formal precisions are 0.08 and 0.41 TECU, for PPP and CCL methods, respectively, indicating the obvious improvements of PPP over CCL. One month of data from 60 globally distributed multi-GNSS experiment stations are selected, and totally eight types of DCBs are estimated for GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou. Multi-GNSS satellite DCBs generated with the proposed method are compared with the products from different agencies, including Center for Orbit Determination in Europe (CODE), Deutsches zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt (DLR) and Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). For GPS C1WC2 W DCBs, RMS values with respect to CODE products are 0.24, 0.07 and 0.09 ns for DLR, CAS and IGG (this study), respectively. RMS values are 0.31/0.25 and 0.19/0.15 ns, for GPS C1WC5X and C1WC5Q DCBs and with respect to DLR/CAS, respectively. For GLONASS C1PC2P DCBs, RMS values with respect to CODE are 0.68, 0.49 and 0.33 ns for DLR, CAS and IGG, respectively. For Galileo, RMS values are 0.16/0.20 and 0.13/0.14 ns, for C1XC5X and C1XC7X DCBs and with respect to DLR/CAS, respectively. For BeiDou, RMS values are 0.32/0.25 and 0.34/0.41, for C2IC7I and C2IC6I DCBs and with respect to DLR/CAS. These results show that the proposed method can provide multi-GNSS and multi-frequency satellite DCB estimation with high precision, processing efficiency and flexibility.

Keywords

Multi-GNSS Triple-frequency Raw observations Differential code bias (DCB) Precise point positioning (PPP) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the IGS MGEX, Curtin University, GNSS Research Center in Wuhan University, iGMAS, DLR and CODE for providing access to the multi-GNSS observation data, post-processed satellite orbit/clock products, DCB products and GIM products used in this study. Funding supports from China Natural Science Funds (No. 41804037 and 41674022) and National Key Research Program of China “Collaborative Precision Positioning Project” (No.2016YFB0501900) are also gratefully acknowledged. The second author is supported by the CAS Pioneer Hundred Talents Program.

References

  1. Banville S, Collins P, Lahaye F (2013) GLONASS ambiguity resolution of mixed receiver types without external calibration. GPS Solut 17(3):275–282Google Scholar
  2. Bisnath S, Gao Y (2007) Current state of Precise Point Positioning and future prospects and limitations. Observing our changing planet. IAG Symp 133:615–624Google Scholar
  3. Choi B, Cho J, Lee S (2011) Estimation and analysis of GPS receiver Differential Code Biases using KGN in Korean Peninsula. Adv Space Res 47(9):1590–1599Google Scholar
  4. Choy S, Bisnath S, Rizos C (2017) Uncovering common misconceptions in GNSS Precise Point Positioning and its future prospect. GPS Solut 21(1):13–22Google Scholar
  5. Chuang S, Wenting Y, Weiwei S, Yidong L, Rui Z (2013) GLONASS pseudorange inter-channel biases and their effects on combined GPS/GLONASS Precise Point Positioning. GPS Solut 17(4):439–451Google Scholar
  6. Ciraolo L, Azpilicueta F, Brunini C et al (2007) Calibration errors on experimental slant total electron content (TEC) determined with GPS. J Geod 81(2):111–120Google Scholar
  7. Dach R, Lutz S, Walser P, Fridez P (2015) Bernese GNSS Software Version 5.2. Astronomical Institute, University of Bern, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  8. De Jonge P (1998) A processing strategy for the application of the GPS in networks. In: Ph. D. thesis, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  9. Feltens J (2003) The activities of the ionosphere working group of the International GPS Service (IGS). GPS Solut 7(1):41–46Google Scholar
  10. Geng J, Meng X, Dodson AH et al (2010) Rapid re-convergences to ambiguity-fixed solutions in Precise Point Positioning. J Geod 84(12):705–714Google Scholar
  11. Guo J, Xu X, Zhao Q et al (2016) Precise orbit determination for quad-constellation satellites at Wuhan University: strategy, results, validation, and comparison. J Geod 90(2):143–159Google Scholar
  12. Hernández-Pajares M, Juan JM, Sanz J et al (2009) The IGS VTEC maps: a reliable source of ionospheric information since 1998. J Geod 83(3–4):263–275Google Scholar
  13. Hernández-Pajares M, Juan JM, Sanz J et al (2011) The ionosphere: effects, GPS modeling and the benefits for space geodetic techniques. J Geod 85(12):887–907Google Scholar
  14. Kouba J (2009) A guide to using International GNSS service (IGS) products. http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/igscb/resource/pubs/UsingIGSProductsVer21.pdf. Accessed Sept 2016
  15. Kouba J, Héroux P (2001) Precise Point Positioning using IGS orbit and clock products. GPS Solut 5(2):12–28Google Scholar
  16. Li Z, Yuan Y, Li H et al (2012) Two-step method for the determination of the Differential Code Biases of COMPASS satellites. J Geod 86:1059–1076Google Scholar
  17. Li X, Ge M, Dai X, Ren X, Fritsche M, Wickert J, Schuh H (2015a) Accuracy and reliability of multi-GNSS real-time precise positioning: GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, and Galileo. J Geod 89(6):607–635Google Scholar
  18. Li Z, Yuan Y, Wang N et al (2015b) SHPTS: towards a new method for generating precise global ionospheric TEC map based on spherical harmonic and generalized trigonometric series functions. J Geod 89(4):331–345Google Scholar
  19. Liu T, Yuan Y, Zhang B et al (2017) Multi-GNSS Precise Point Positioning (MGPPP) using raw observations. J Geod 91(3):253–268Google Scholar
  20. Liu T, Zhang B, Yuan Y, Li M (2018) Real-time Precise Point Positioning (RTPPP) with raw observations and its application in real-time regional ionospheric VTEC modeling. J Geod.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-018-1118-2(firstonline) Google Scholar
  21. Lou Y, Zheng F, Gu S, Wang C, Guo H, Feng Y (2016) Multi-GNSS Precise Point Positioning with raw single-frequency and dual-frequency measurement models. GPS Solut 20(4):849–862Google Scholar
  22. Ma G, Maruyama T (2003) Derivation of TEC and estimation of instrumental biases from GEONET in Japan. Ann Geophys 21(10):2083–2093Google Scholar
  23. Mannucci A, Wilson B, Yuan D, Ho C, Lindqwister U, Runge T (1998) A global mapping technique for GPS-derived ionospheric total electron content measurements. Radio Sci 33(3):565–582Google Scholar
  24. Marques HA, Monico JFG, Aquino M (2011) RINEX_HO: second-and third-order ionospheric corrections for RINEX observation files. GPS Solut 15(3):305–314Google Scholar
  25. Montenbruck O, Steigenberger P, Khachikyan R et al (2014a) IGS-MGEX: preparing the ground for multi-constellation GNSS science. Inside GNSS 9(1):42–49Google Scholar
  26. Montenbruck O, Hauschild A, Steigenberger P (2014b) Differential Code Bias estimation using multi-GNSS observations and global ionosphere maps. Navigation 61(3):191–201Google Scholar
  27. Montenbruck O, Steigenberger P, Prange L et al (2017) The multi-GNSS experiment (MGEX) of the international GNSS service (IGS)—achievements, prospects and challenges. Adv Space Res 59(7):1671–1697Google Scholar
  28. Odijk D, Zhang B, Khodabandeh A et al (2016) On the estimability of parameters in undifferenced, uncombined GNSS network and PPP-RTK user models by means of S-system theory. J Geod 90(1):15–44Google Scholar
  29. Prange L, Orliac E, Dach R et al (2017) CODE’s five-system orbit and clock solution—the challenges of multi-GNSS data analysis. J Geod 91(4):345–360Google Scholar
  30. Sardon E, Rius A, Zarraoa N (1994) Estimation of the transmitter and receiver differential biases and the ionospheric total electron content from Global Positioning System observations. Radio Sci 29(3):577–586Google Scholar
  31. Schaer S (1999) Mapping and predicting the earth’s ionosphere using the global positioning system. In: Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Berne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  32. Schaer S, Gurtner W, Feltens J (1998) IONEX: the ionosphere map exchange format version 1. In: Proceedings of the IGS AC workshop, Darmstadt, Germany, vol. 9(11)Google Scholar
  33. Sleewagen JM, Simsky A, de Wilde W et al (2012) Demystifying GLONASS inter-frequency carrier phase biases. Inside GNSS 7(3):57–61Google Scholar
  34. Teunissen P (1985) Generalized inverses, adjustment, the datum problem and S-transformations. In: Sanso F, Grafarend EW (eds) Optimization of geodetic networks. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–55Google Scholar
  35. Teunissen P, Odijk D, Zhang B (2010) PPP-RTK: results of CORS network-based PPP with integer ambiguity resolution. J Aeronaut Astronaut Aviat 42(4):223–230Google Scholar
  36. Wang N, Yuan Y, Li Z et al (2016) Determination of Differential Code Biases with multi-GNSS observations. J Geod 90(3):209–228Google Scholar
  37. Wanninger L (2012) Carrier-phase inter-frequency biases of GLONASS receivers. J Geod 86(2):139–148Google Scholar
  38. Yuan Y, Ou J (2004) A generalized trigonometric series function model for determining ionospheric delay. Prog Nat Sci 14(11):1010–1014Google Scholar
  39. Zhang B (2016) Three methods to retrieve slant total electron content measurements from ground-based GPS receivers and performance assessment. Radio Sci 51(7):972–988Google Scholar
  40. Zhang B, Ou J, Yuan Y, Li Z (2012) Extraction of line-of-sight ionospheric observables from GPS data using Precise Point Positioning. Sci China Earth Sci 55(11):1919–1928Google Scholar
  41. Zhang B, Liu T, Yuan Y (2018) GPS receiver phase biases estimable in PPP-RTK networks: dynamic characterization and impact analysis. J Geod 92(6):659–674Google Scholar
  42. Zumberge J, Heflin M, Jefferson D, Watkins M, Webb F (1997) Precise Point Positioning for the efficient and robust analysis of GPS data from large networks. J Geophys Res 102(B3):5005–5017Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Geodesy and Earth’s Dynamics, Institute of Geodesy and GeophysicsChinese Academy of SciencesWuhanChina
  2. 2.Academy of Opto-ElectronicsChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations