Advertisement

Journal of Geodesy

, Volume 87, Issue 6, pp 579–589 | Cite as

Assessment of correct fixing rate for precise point positioning ambiguity resolution on a global scale

  • Xiaohong Zhang
  • Pan Li
Original Article

Abstract

Ambiguity resolution (AR) for a single receiver has been a popular topic in Global Positioning System (GPS) recently. Ambiguity-resolution methods for precise point positioning (PPP) have been well documented in recent years, demonstrating that it can improve the accuracy of PPP. However, users are often concerned about the reliability of ambiguity-fixed PPP solution in practical applications. If ambiguities are fixed to wrong integers, large errors would be introduced into position estimates. In this paper, we aim to assess the correct fixing rate (CFR), i.e., number of ambiguities correctly fixing to the total number of ambiguities correctly and incorrectly fixing, for PPP user ambiguity resolution on a global scale. A practical procedure is presented to evaluate the CFR of PPP user ambiguity resolution. GPS data of the first 3 days in each month of 2010 from about 390 IGS stations are used for experiments. Firstly, we use GPS data collected from about 320 IGS stations to estimate global single-differenced (SD) wide-lane and narrow-lane satellite uncalibrated phase delays (UPDs). The quality of UPDs is evaluated. We found that wide-lane UPD estimates have a rather small standard deviation (Std) between 0.003 and 0.004 cycles while most of Std of narrow-lane estimates are from 0.01 to 0.02 cycles. Secondly, many experiments have been conducted to investigate the CFR of integer ambiguity resolution we can achieve under different conditions, including reference station density, observation session length and the ionospheric activity. The results show that the CFR of PPP can exceed 98.0 % with only 1 h of observations for most user stations. No obvious correlation between the CFR and the reference station density is found. Therefore, nearly homogeneous CFR can be achieved in PPP AR for global users. At user end, higher CFR could be achieved with longer observations. The average CFR for 30-min, 1-h, 2-h and 4-h observation is 92.3, 98.2, 99.5 and 99.7 %, respectively. In order to get acceptable CFR, 1 h is a recommended minimum observation time. Furthermore, the CFR of PPP can be affected by diurnal variation and geomagnetic latitude variation in the ionosphere. During one day at the hours when rapid ionospheric variations occur or in low geomagnetic latitude regions where equatorial electron density irregularities are produced relatively frequently, a significant degradation of the CFR is demonstrated.

Keywords

Correct fixing rate Ambiguity resolution Precise point positioning Uncalibrated phase delays 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge IGS and CODE community for providing global GNSS data and products. We also appreciate three anonymous reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments and improvements to this manuscript. This study was supported by the Foundation for Innovative Research Group of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41021061) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41074024) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2012214020207).

References

  1. Bassiri S, Hajj GA (1993) Higher-order ionospheric effects on the global positioning system observables and means of modeling them. Manuscr Geodaet 18:280–289Google Scholar
  2. Bergeot N, Bruyninx C, Defraigne P, Pireaux S, Legrand J, Pottiaux E, Baire Q (2011) Impact of the Halloween 2003 ionospheric storm on kinematic GPS positioning in Europe. GPS Solut 15(2):171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertiger W, Desai S, Haines B, Harvey N, Moore A, Owen S, Weiss J (2010) Single receiver phase ambiguity resolution with GPS data. J Geod 84(5):327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhattacharyya A, Beach TL, Basu S (2000) Nighttime equatorial ionosphere: GPS scintillations and differential carrier phase fluctuations. Radio Sci 35(1):209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blewitt G (1989) Carrier phase ambiguity resolution for the Global Positioning System applied to geodetic baselines up to 2000 km. J Geophys Res 94(B8):10187–10203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen W, Gao S, Hu C, Chen Y, Ding X (2008) Effects of ionospheric disturbances on GPS observation in low latitude area. GPS Solut 12(1):33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins P, Bisnath S, Lahaye F, Héroux P (2010) Undifferenced GPS ambiguity resolution using the decoupled clock model and ambiguity datum fixing. Navigation 57(2):123–135Google Scholar
  8. Dach R, Brockmann E, Schaer S, Beutler G, Meindl M, Prange L, Bock H, Jäggi A, Ostini L (2009) GNSS processing at CODE: status report. J Geod 83(3):353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dow JM, Neilan RE, Rizos C (2009) The international GNSS service in a changing landscape of global navigation satellite systems. J Geod 83(3):191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ercha A, Zhang D, Ridley AJ, Xiao Z, Hao Y (2012) A global model: empirical orthogonal function analysis of total electron content 1999–2009 data. J Geophys Res 117(A3):A3328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Estey LH, Meertens CM (1999) TEQC: the multi-purpose toolkit for GPS/GLONASS data. GPS Solut 3(1):42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fritsche M, Dietrich R, Knöfel C, Rülke A, Vey S, Rothacher M, Steigenberger P (2005) Impact of higher-order ionospheric terms on GPS estimates. Geophys Res Lett 32(23):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Geng J, Teferle FN, Shi C, Meng X, Dodson AH, Liu J (2009) Ambiguity resolution in precise point positioning with hourly data. GPS Solut 13(4):263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geng J, Meng X, Dodson AH, Teferle FN (2010a) Integer ambiguity resolution in precise point positioning: method comparison. J Geod 84(9):569–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geng J, Meng X, Teferle FN, Dodson AH (2010b) Performance of precise point positioning with ambiguity resolution for 1 to 4 hour observation. Surv Rev 42(316):155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geng J, Shi C, Ge M, Dodson AH, Lou Y, Zhao Q, Liu J (2012) Improving the estimation of fractional-cycle biases for ambiguity resolution in precise point positioning. J Geod 86(8):579–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ji S, Chen W, Ding X, Chen Y, Zhao C, Hu C (2010) Ambiguity validation with combined ratio test and ellipsoidal integer aperture estimator. J Geod 84(10):597–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lannes A, Teunissen PJG (2011) GNSS algebraic structures. J Geod 85(5):273–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laurichesse D, Mercier F, Berthias JP, Broca P, Cerri L (2009) Integer ambiguity resolution on undifferenced GPS phase measurements and its application to PPP and satellite precise orbit determination. Navigation 56(2):135–149Google Scholar
  21. Li G, Ning B, Ren Z, Hu L (2010) Statistics of GPS ionospheric scintillation and irregularities over polar regions at solar minimum. GPS Solut 14(4):331–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li X, Zhang X (2012) Improving the estimation of uncalibrated fractional phase offsets for PPP ambiguity resolution. Navigation 65(3):513–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li X, Zhang X, Ge M (2011) Regional reference network augmented precise point positioning for instantaneous ambiguity resolution. J Geod 85(3):151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loyer S, Perosanz F, Mercier F, Capdeville H, Marty J (2012) Zero-difference GPS ambiguity resolution at CNES-CLS IGS analysis center. J Geod 86(11):991–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moreno B, Radicella S, de Lacy MC, Herraiz M, Rodriguez-Caderot G (2011) On the effects of the ionospheric disturbances on precise point positioning at equatorial latitudes. GPS Solut 15(4): 381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mukhtarov P, Pancheva D (2011) Global ionospheric response to nonmigrating DE3 and DE2 tides forced from below. J Geophys Res 116(A5):A5323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pi X, Mannucci AJ, Lindqwister UJ, Ho CM (1997) Monitoring of global ionospheric irregularities using the worldwide GPS network. Geophys Res Lett 24(18):2283–2286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmid R, Rothacher M, Thaller D, Steigenberger P (2005) Absolute phase center corrections of satellite and receiver antennas. GPS Solut 9(4):283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seeber G (2003) Satellite geodesy: foundations, methods, and applications. de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  30. Teunissen PJG (1994) A new method for fast carrier phase ambiguity estimation. In: Proceeding IEEE position, location and navigation symposium PLANS’94. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. April 11–15, 1994, pp 562–573Google Scholar
  31. Teunissen PJG (1998) Success probability of integer GPS ambiguity rounding and bootstrapping. J Geod 72(10):606–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Teunissen PJG (2001) Integer estimation in the presence of biases. J Geod 75(7):399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Teunissen PJG, Verhagen S (2004) On the foundation of the popular ratio test for GNSS ambiguity resolution. ION GNSS2004, Long Beach, CA, USGoogle Scholar
  34. Teunissen PJG, Verhagen S (2008) GNSS ambiguity resolution: when and how to fix or not to fix?, In: VI Hotine-Marussi symposiumon theoretical and computational geodesy: challenge and role of modern geodesy. Wuhan, China, Series: International Association of Geodesy Symposia, vol 132:143–148Google Scholar
  35. Teunissen PJG, Joosten P, Odijk D (1999a) The reliability of GPS ambiguity resolution. GPS Solut 2(3):63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teunissen PJG, Joosten P, Tiberius C (1999b) Geometry-free ambiguity success rates in case of partial fixing. In: proceedings of ION 55th national technical meeting, January, San Diego, CA, pp 25–27Google Scholar
  37. Teunissen PJG, Odijk D, Zhang B (2010) PPP-RTK: results of CORS network-based PPP with integer ambiguity resolution. J Aeronaut Astronaut Aviat Ser A 42(4):223–230Google Scholar
  38. Tiwari R, Bhattacharya S, Purohit PK, Gwal AK (2009) Effect of TEC variation on GPS precise point at low latitude. Open Atmos Sci J 3:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Verhagen S (2005a) On the reliability of integer ambiguity resolution. Navigation 52(2):99–110Google Scholar
  40. Verhagen S (2005b) The GNSS integer ambiguities: estimation and validation. PhD thesis, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  41. Verhagen S, Teunissen PJG (2012) The ratio test for future GNSS ambiguity resolution. GPS Solut 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10291-012-0299-z
  42. Wang J, Feng Y (2013) Reliability of partial ambiguity fixing with multiple GNSS constellations. J Geod 87(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang M, Gao Y (2009) A precise point positioning ambiguity resolution method with narrow-lane ambiguity fractional bias eliminated. ENC GNSS 2009:2009 Google Scholar
  44. Wei M, Schwarz KP (1995) Fast ambiguity resolution using an integer nonlinear programming method. In: Proceedings of the 8th International technical meeting of the satellite division of the institute of navigation (ION GPS 1995), Palm Springs, CA, September 1995, pp 1101–1110Google Scholar
  45. Wu JT, Wu SC, Hajj GA, Bertiger WI, Lichten SM (1993) Effects of antenna orientation on GPS carrier phase. Manuscr Geod 18(2): 91–98Google Scholar
  46. Zhang X, Li P, Guo F (2013) Ambiguity resolution in precise point positioning with hourly data for global single receiver. Adv Space Res 51(1):153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zumberge JF, Heflin MB, Jefferson DC, Watkins MM, Webb FH (1997) Precise point positioning for the efficient and robust analysis of GPS data from large networks. J Geophys Res 103(B3):5005–5017CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geodesy and GeomaticsWuhan UniversityWuhan People’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations