GPS Ambiguity Resolution for Navigation, Rapid Static Surveying, and Regional Networks

  • Paul J. de Jonge
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 118)


In this contribution an overview is given of the capabilities of methods for ambiguity resolution in use nowadays. This is done in the context of SSG 1.157, “Ambiguity Resolution and Validation”, although the overview is not restricted to the algorithms used within this group.

Methods from the fields of navigation, rapid static surveying, and regional networks are compared, and similarities and differences are indicated. It is shown that the subdivision of the algorithms by their applications is a rather arbitrary one, and that some of the ambiguity resolution algorithms can be applied in all three fields.

The capabilities of state of the art algorithms for ambiguity resolution are indicated in terms of maximum distances over which the ambiguities can be resolved and validated. In particular the role of the observational time span and the set of observables used in the estimation (single versus dual frequency, phase-only versus phase and pseudo range) is addressed. As the ionospheric delay is an important reason for being unable to resolve the ambiguities, the consequences of the next solar activity maximum at the end of the century are briefly discussed.


Ambiguity Resolution Ionospheric Delay Integer Ambiguity Lambda Method Phase Ambiguity Resolution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blewitt, G. (1989): Carrier phase ambiguity resolution for the Global Positioning System applied to baselines up to 2000 km, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 94, No. B8, pp. 10187–10203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Counselman, C.C., and S.A. Gourevitch (1981): Miniature interferometer terminals for earth surveying: ambiguity and multipath with Global Positioning System, IEEE Trans. on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 244–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Corbett, S.J. (1994): GPS single epoch ambiguity resolution for airborne positioning and orientation, PhD thesis, Dept. of Surveying, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Dong, D.-N., and Y. Bock (1989): Global Positioning System network analysis with phase ambiguity resolution applied to crustal deformation studies in California, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 94, No. B4, pp. 3949–3966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Euler, H.-J., and H. Landau (1992): Fast GPS ambiguity resolution on-the-fly for real-time applications, Proceedings of Sixth International Geodetic Symposium on Satellite Positioning, Columbus, OH, March 17–20, pp. 650–659.Google Scholar
  6. Frei, E. (1991): Rapid differential positioning with the Global Positioning System, PhD thesis, University of Berne, Switzerland, Geodetic and Geophysical Studies in Switzerland, Vol. 44.Google Scholar
  7. Han, S., and C. Rizos (1995): A new method of constructing multi-satellite ambiguity combinations for improved ambiguity resolution, Proceedings of ION GPS-95, Palm Springs, 12–15 September, pp. 1145–1153.Google Scholar
  8. Hatch, R. (1990): Instantaneous ambiguity resolution, Proceedings KIS90, Banff, Canada, September 10–13, Springer Verlag, pp. 299–308Google Scholar
  9. Hein, G.W., and W. Werner (1995): Comparison of different on-the-fly ambiguity resolution techniques, Proceedings ION GPS-95, Palm Springs, 12–15 September, pp. 1137–1144.Google Scholar
  10. Jonge, P.J. de, and C.C.J.M. Tiberius (1996): The LAMBDA method for integer estimation: implementation aspects, Delft Geodetic Computer Centre LGR series, No. 12.Google Scholar
  11. Joselyn, J.A., J.B. Anderson, H. Coffey, K. Harvey, D. Hathaway, G. Heckman, E. Hildner, W. Mende, K. Schatten, R. Thompson, A.W.P. Thomsom, and O.R. White (1997): Panel achieves consensus prediction of solar cycle 23, Eos Trans. AGU, Vol. 78, No. 20, pp. 205, 211–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li, Z., and Y. Gao (1997): Construction of high dimensional ambiguity transformation for the LAMBDA method, Proceedings KIS97, Banff, Canada, 3–6 June, pp. 409–416.Google Scholar
  13. Martin-Neira, M., M. Toledo, and A. Pelaez (1995): The null space method for GPS ambiguity resolution. Proceedings of DSNS’95, Bergen, April 24–28, Paper No. 31, 8 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Mervart, L. (1995): Ambiguity resolution techniques in geodetic and geodynamic applications of the Global Positioning System, PhD thesis, Astronomical Institute of the University of Berne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  15. Rothacher, M., G. Beutler, E. Brockmann, S. Fankhauser, W. Gurtner, J. Johnson, L. Mervart, S. Schaer, T. Springer, and R. Weber (1996): The Bernese GPS software Version 4.0, edited by M. Rothacher and L. Mervart, Astronomical Institute, University of Berne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  16. Talbot, N.C. (1991): Sequential phase ambiguity resolution for real-time static differential GPS positioning, Manuscripta Geodaetica, Vol. 16, pp. 274–282.Google Scholar
  17. Teunissen, P.J.G. (1993): Least-squares estimation of the integer GPS ambiguities, Invited lecture, Section IV Theory and Methodology, IAG General Meeting, Beijing, August, also in Delft Geodetic Computing Centre LGR series, No. 6, 16 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul J. de Jonge
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Geodetic EngineeringDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations