Next Article in Journal
Deriving Stand Structural Complexity from Airborne Laser Scanning Data—What Does It Tell Us about a Forest?
Next Article in Special Issue
Position-Domain Non-Gaussian Error Overbounding for ARAIM
Previous Article in Journal
Source Model for Sabancaya Volcano Constrained by DInSAR and GNSS Surface Deformation Observation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Optimal Walker Constellation Design of LEO-Based Global Navigation and Augmentation System
 
 
Article

GPS/BDS-2/Galileo Precise Point Positioning Ambiguity Resolution Based on the Uncombined Model

1
College of Geology Engineering and Geomatics, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710054, China
2
Department of Geomatics Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
3
Radar Research Lab, School of Information and Electronics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(11), 1853; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12111853
Received: 23 April 2020 / Revised: 2 June 2020 / Accepted: 4 June 2020 / Published: 8 June 2020
In this study, an uncombined precise point positioning (PPP) model was established and was used for estimating fractional cycle bias (FCB) products and for achieving ambiguity resolution (AR), using GPS, BDS-2, and Galileo raw observations. The uncombined PPP model is flexible and efficient for positioning services and generating FCB. The FCBs for GPS, BDS-2, and Galileo were estimated using the uncombined PPP model with observations from the Multi-GNSS Experiment (MGEX) stations. The root mean squares (RMSs) of the float ambiguity a posteriori residuals associated with all of the three GNSS constellations, i.e., GPS, BDS-2, and Galileo, are less than 0.1 cycles for both narrow-lane (NL) and wide-lane (WL) combinations. The standard deviation (STD) of the WL combination FCB series is 0.015, 0.013, and 0.006 cycles for GPS, BDS-2, and Galileo, respectively, and the counterpart for the NL combination FCB series is 0.030 and 0.0184 cycles for GPS and Galileo, respectively. For the BDS-2 NL combination FCB series, the STD of the inclined geosynchronous orbit (IGSO) satellites is 0.0156 cycles, while the value for the medium Earth orbit (MEO) satellites is 0.073 cycles. The AR solutions produced by the uncombined multi-GNSS PPP model were evaluated from the positioning biases and the success fixing rate of ambiguity. The experimental results demonstrate that the growth of the amount of available satellites significantly improves the PPP performance. The three-dimensional (3D) positioning accuracies associated with the PPP ambiguity-fixed solutions for the respective only-GPS, GPS/BDS-2, GPS/Galileo, and GPS/BDS-2/Galileo models are 1.34, 1.19, 1.21, and 1.14 cm, respectively, and more than a 30% improvement is achieved when compared to the results related to the ambiguity-float solutions. Additionally, the convergence time based on the GPS/BDS-2/Galileo observations is only 7.5 min for the ambiguity-fixed solutions, and the results exhibit a 53% improvement in comparison to the ambiguity-float solutions. The values of convergence time based on the only-GPS observations are estimated as 22 and 10.5 min for the ambiguity-float and ambiguity-fixed solutions, respectively. Lastly, the success fixing rate of ambiguity is also dramatically raised for the multi-GNSS PPP AR. For example, the percentage is approximately 99% for the GPS/BDS-2/Galileo solution over a 10 min processing period. In addition, the inter-system bias (ISB) between GPS, BDS-2, and Galileo, which is carefully considered in the uncombined multi-GNSS PPP method, is modeled as a white noise process. The differences of the ISB series between BDS-2 and Galileo indicate that the clock datum bias of the satellite clock offset estimation accounts for the variation of the ISB series. View Full-Text
Keywords: multi-GNSS; raw observations; uncombined PPP; fractional cycle bias (FCB); ambiguity resolution (AR) multi-GNSS; raw observations; uncombined PPP; fractional cycle bias (FCB); ambiguity resolution (AR)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, J.; Huang, G.; Zhang, Q.; Gao, Y.; Gao, Y.; Luo, Y. GPS/BDS-2/Galileo Precise Point Positioning Ambiguity Resolution Based on the Uncombined Model. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1853. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12111853

AMA Style

Wang J, Huang G, Zhang Q, Gao Y, Gao Y, Luo Y. GPS/BDS-2/Galileo Precise Point Positioning Ambiguity Resolution Based on the Uncombined Model. Remote Sensing. 2020; 12(11):1853. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12111853

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Jin, Guanwen Huang, Qin Zhang, Yang Gao, Yuting Gao, and Yiran Luo. 2020. "GPS/BDS-2/Galileo Precise Point Positioning Ambiguity Resolution Based on the Uncombined Model" Remote Sensing 12, no. 11: 1853. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12111853

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop