Journal of Geodesy

, 84:51 | Cite as

Partial integer decorrelation: optimum trade-off between variance reduction and bias amplification

Original Article

Abstract

Different techniques have been developed for determining carrier phase ambiguities, ranging from float approximations to the efficient solution of the integer least square problem by the LAMBDA method. The focus so far was on double-differenced measurements. Practical implementations of the LAMBDA method lead to a residual probability of wrong fixing of the order one percent. For safety critical applications, this probability had to be reduced by eight orders of magnitude, which could be achieved by linear multi-frequency code–carrier combinations. Scenarios with single or no differences include biases due to orbit errors, satellite clock offsets, as well as residual code and phase biases. For this case, a linear combination of Galileo E1 and E5 code and carrier phase measurements with a wavelength of 3.285 m and a noise level of a few centimeters is derived. This ionosphere-free combination preserves the orbit and clock errors, and suppresses the E1 code multipath by 12.6 dB. Since integer decorrelation transformations, as used in the LAMBDA method, inflate biases, the number of such transformations must be limited, and applied in a judicious order. With a Galileo type constellation, this leads to a vertical standard deviation of ca. 20 cm, while keeping the probability of wrong fixing extremely low for code biases of 10 cm, and phase biases of 0.1 cycle, combined in a worst case.

Keywords

Galileo Ambiguity resolution Integer decorrelation Bias robustness Partial fixing 

References

  1. Betz J (2002) Binary offset carrier modulations for radionavigation. Navigation 48(4): 227–246Google Scholar
  2. Blewitt G (1989) Carrier-phase ambiguity resolution for the Global Positioning System applied to geodetic baselines up to 2000 km. J Geophys Res 94: 10187–10203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cao W, O’Keefe K, Cannon M (2007) Partial ambiguity fixing within multiple frequencies and systems. In: Proceedings of ION GNSS 2007, Fort Worth, USA, pp 312–323Google Scholar
  4. Cao W, O’Keefe K, Cannon M (2008) Performance evaluation of GPS/Galileo multiple-frequency RTK positioning using a single- difference processor. In: Proceedings of ION GNSS 2008, Savannah, GA, USA, 9 pGoogle Scholar
  5. Gabor M, Nerem S (2002) Satellite–satellite single difference phase bias calibration as applied to ambiguity resolution. Navigation 49(4): 223–242Google Scholar
  6. Ge M, Gendt G, Rothacher M, Shi C, Liu J (2008) Resolution of GPS carrier-phase ambiguities in Precise Point Positioning (PPP) with daily observations. J Geod 82(7): 389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Golub G, van Loan C (1996) Matrix computations. 3. Johns Hopkins University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Henkel P, Gomez V, Günther C (2009) Modified LAMBDA for absolute carrier phase positioning in the presence of biases. In: Proceedings of Intern. Technical Meeting (ITM), Anaheim, USA, 10 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Henkel P, Günther C (2008a) Joint L/C-band code–carrier linear combinations for Galileo. Intl. Journal of Navigation and Observation, Special Issue on Future GNSS Signals, 8 pGoogle Scholar
  10. Henkel P, Günther C (2008b) Precise Point Positioning with multiple Galileo frequencies. In: Proceedings of the positioning, location and navigation symposium (PLANS), Monterey, USA, pp 592–599Google Scholar
  11. Hwang P, Graw G, Bader J (1999) Enhanced differential GPS carrier-smoothed code processing using dual-frequency measurements. J Navig 46(2): 127–137Google Scholar
  12. Kay S (1993) Fundamentals of statistical signal processing, vol I, estimation theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  13. Khanafseh S, Pervan B (2008) A new approach for calculating position domain integrity risk for cycle resolution in carrier phase navigation systems. In: Proceedings of ION/IEEE PLANS, Monterey, USA, 9 p, May 2008Google Scholar
  14. McGraw G, Murphy T, Brenner M, Pullen S, Van Dierendonck AJ (2000) Development of the LAAS Accuracy Models. ION GPS 2000, Salt Lake City, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Niell A (1996) Global mapping functions for the atmosphere delay at radio wavelengths. J Geophys Res 101: 3227–3246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Salychev O, Schaffrin B (1992) New filter approaches for GPS/INS integration. In: Kumar M, Fell P (eds) Proceedings of the 6th international geodetic symposium on satellite positioning, vol II, pp 670–680, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  17. Teunissen P (1993) Least-squares estimation of the integer GPS ambiguities. Invited lecture, Section IV, Theory and Methodology, IAG General Meeting, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  18. Teunissen P (1996) An analytical study of ambiguity decorrelation using dual frequency code and carrier phase. J Geod 70: 515–528Google Scholar
  19. Teunissen P (1998) Success probability of integer GPS ambiguity rounding and bootstrapping. J Geod 72(10): 606–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Teunissen P (2001) Integer estimation in the presence of biases. J Geod 75(7): 399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tiberius C, de Jonge P (1995) Fast positioning using the LAMBDA method. In: Proceedings of DSNS-95, no. 30Google Scholar
  22. Verhagen S (2004) Integer ambiguity validation: an open problem. GPS Solutions 8: 36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Verhagen S (2005) On the reliability of integer ambiguity resolution. Navigation: Journal of the Institute of Navigation, Vol. 52, No. 2.Google Scholar
  24. Wang J, Satirapod C, Rizos C (2002) Stochastic assessment of GPS carrier phase measurements for precise relative positioning. J Geod 76(2): 95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang J, Stewart M, Tsakiri M (1998a) Stochastic modelling for GPS static baseline data processing. J Surv Eng USA 124: 171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang J, Stewart M, Tsakiri M (1998b) A discrimination test procedure for ambiguity resolution on the fly. J Geod 72(11): 644–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Communications and NavigationTechnische Universität München (TUM)MunichGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Communications and Navigation, German Aerospace Center (DLR)OberpfaffenhofenGermany

Personalised recommendations