Advertisement

GPS Solutions

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 43–56 | Cite as

Network-based geometry-free three carrier ambiguity resolution and phase bias calibration

  • Yanming FengEmail author
  • Chris Rizos
Original Article

Abstract

Continuously operating reference stations (CORS) are increasingly used to deliver real-time and near-real-time precise positioning services on a regional basis. A CORS network-based data processing system uses either or both of the two types of measurements: (1) ambiguity-resolved double-differenced (DD) phase measurements, and (2) phase bias calibrated zero-differenced (ZD) phase measurements. This paper describes generalized, network-based geometry-free models for three carrier ambiguity resolution (TCAR) and phase bias estimation with DD and ZD code and phase measurements. First, the geometry-free TCAR models are constructed with two Extra-Widelane (EWL)/Widelane (WL) virtual observables to allow for rapid ambiguity resolution (AR) for DD phase measurements without distance constraints. With an ambiguity-resolved WL phase measurement and the ionospheric estimate derived from the two EWL observables, an additional geometry-free equation is formed for the third virtual observable linearly independent of the previous two. AR with the third geometry-free model requires a longer period of observations for averaging than the first two, but is also distance-independent. A more general formulation of the geometry-free model for a baseline or network is also introduced, where all the DD ambiguities can be more rigorously resolved using the LAMBDA method. Second, the geometry-free models for calibration of three carrier phase biases of ZD phase measurements are similarly defined for selected virtual observables. A network adjustment procedure is then used to improve the ZD phase biases with known DD integer constraints. Numerical results from experiments with 24-h dual-frequency GPS data from three US CORS stations baseline lengths of 21, 56 and 74 km confirm the theoretical predictions concerning AR reliability of the network-based geometry-free algorithms.

Keywords

GNSS Three carrier ambiguity resolution Phase bias calibration Network adjustment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out with financial support from the Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information (CRCSI) project 1.4—“Delivering precise positioning services in regional areas”, 2007–2010.

References

  1. Cislowski G, Higgins MB (2006) SunPOZ: enabling centimeter accuracy GNSS applications in Queensland, Paper 100. Proceedings of IGNSS 2006 Symposium on GPS/GNSS, July, Gold Coast, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  2. De Jonge PJ, Teunissen PJG, Jonkman NF, Joosten P (2000) The distributional dependence of the range on triple frequency GPS ambiguity resolution. In: Proceedings of ION-NTM 2000, pp 605–612, January 26–28, Anaheim, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Feng Y (2008) GNSS three carrier ambiguity resolution using ionosphere-reduced virtual signals. J Geod. doi: 10.1007/s00190-008-0209-x
  4. Feng Y, Rizos C (2005) Three carrier approaches for future global, regional and local GNSS positioning services: concepts and performance perspectives. In: Proceedings of ION-GNSS 2005, pp 2277–2787, September 13–16, Long Beach, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. Feng Y, Moody M (2006) Improved phase ambiguity resolution using three GNSS signals, PCT/AU2006/000492. http://www.wipo.int/pctdb, April
  6. Feng Y, Rizos C (2007) Geometry-based TCAR models and performance analysis. Accepted for publication in IAG Symposium, vol 133. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  7. Feng Y, Rizos C, Higgins M (2007) Multiple carrier ambiguity resolutions and performance benefits for RTK and PPP in regional areas. In: Proceedings of ION-GNSS 2007, pp 668–678, September 25–28, Fort Worth, TXGoogle Scholar
  8. Feng Y, Wang J (2007) Exploring GNSS RTK performance benefits with GPS and virtual Galileo measurements. In: Proceedings of ION-NTM 2007, pp 218–226, January 22–24, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Forssell B, Martin-Neira M, Harris RA (1997) Carrier phase ambiguity resolution in GNSS-2. In: Proceedings of ION-GPS 1997, pp 1727–1736, September 16–19, Kansas City, MOGoogle Scholar
  10. Han S, Rizos C (1999) The impact of two additional civilian GPS frequencies on ambiguity resolutions strategies. In: Proceedings of ION annual technical meeting, pp 315–321, June 28–30, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Hatch RR (2006) A new three-frequency, geometry-free technique for ambiguity resolution. In: Proceedings of ION-GNSS 2006, pp 309–316, September 26–29, Fort Worth, TXGoogle Scholar
  12. Hatch RR, Jung J, Enge P, Pervan B (2000) Civilian GPS: the benefits of three frequencies. GPS Solut 3(4):1–9. doi: 10.1007/PL00012810 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McGraw GA, Murphy T, Brenner M, Pullen S, Van Dierendonck A J (2000) Development of the LAAS accuracy models. In: Proceedings of ION GPS-2000, pp 1212–1223, September 19–22, Salt Lake City, UT Google Scholar
  14. Rizos C, Han S (2003) Reference station network based RTK systems. Concepts and progress. Wuhan Univ J Nat Sci 8(2):566–574. doi: 10.1007/BF02899820 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Vollath U, Birnbach S, Landau H (1998) Analysis of three carrier ambiguity resolution (TCAR) technique for precise relative positioning in GNSS-2. In: Proceedings of ION-GPS 1998, pp 417–426, 15–18 September 1998, Nashville, TNGoogle Scholar
  16. Vollath U (2004) The factorized multi-carrier ambiguity resolution (FAMCAR) approach for efficient carrier-phase ambiguity estimation. In: Proceedings of ION-GNSS 2004, pp 2499–2508, September 21–24, Long Beach, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.The University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations