Advertisement

GPS Solutions

, 22:82 | Cite as

Estimating satellite phase fractional cycle biases based on Kalman filter

  • Guorui XiaoEmail author
  • Lifen Sui
  • Bernhard Heck
  • Tian Zeng
  • Yuan Tian
Original Article
  • 327 Downloads

Abstract

Phase fractional cycle biases (FCBs) originating from satellites and receivers destroy the integer nature of PPP carrier phase ambiguities. To achieve integer ambiguity resolution of PPP, FCBs of satellites are required. In former work, least squares methods are commonly adopted to isolate FCBs from a network of reference stations. However, it can be extremely time consuming concerning the large number of observations from hundreds of stations and thousands of epochs. In addition, iterations are required to deal with the one-cycle inconsistency among FCB measurements. We propose to estimate the FCB based on a Kalman filter. The large number of observations are handled epoch by epoch, which significantly reduces the dimension of the involved matrix and accelerates the computation. In addition, it is also suitable for real-time applications. As for the one-cycle inconsistency, a pre-elimination method is developed to avoid iterations and posterior adjustments. A globally distributed network consisting of about 200 IGS stations is selected to determine the GPS satellite FCBs. Observations recorded from DoY 52 to 61 in 2016 are processed to verify the proposed approach. The RMS of wide lane (WL) posterior residuals is 0.09 cycles while that of the narrow lane (NL) is about 0.05 cycles, which indicates a good internal accuracy. The estimated WL FCBs also have a good consistency with existing WL FCB products (e.g., CNES-GRG, WHU-SGG). The RMS of differences with respect to GRG and SGG products are 0.03 and 0.05 cycles. For satellite NL FCB estimates, 97.9% of the differences with respect to SGG products are within ± 0.1 cycles. The RMS of the difference is 0.05 cycles. These results prove the efficiency of the proposed approach.

Keywords

Precise point positioning Integer ambiguity resolution Fractional cycle bias Kalman filter 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the IGS, GFZ and CNES for providing GNSS data and products. Thanks also goes to Prof. ZHANG Xiaohong and Dr. LI Pan from WHU-SGG for FCB products and valuable discussions. Guorui XIAO is supported by the China Scholarship Council. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 41674016 and 41274016).

References

  1. Collins P, Lahaye F, Héroux P, Bisnath S (2008) Precise point positioning with ambiguity resolution using the decoupled clock model. In: Proceedings of ION GNSS 2008, Institute of Navigation, Savannah, 16–19 Sept 2008, pp 1315–1322Google Scholar
  2. Gabor MJ, Nerem RS (1999) GPS carrier phase AR using satellite-satellite single difference. In: Proceedings of ION GPS 1999, 14–17 Sept 1999, pp 1569–1578Google Scholar
  3. 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 Geodesy 82(7):389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Geng J, Shi C (2016) Rapid initialization of real-time PPP by resolving undifferenced GPS and GLONASS ambiguities simultaneously. J Geodesy 91(4):361–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Geng J, Meng X, Dodson AH, Teferle FN (2010) Integer ambiguity resolution in precise point positioning: method comparison. J Geodesy 84(9):569–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gu S, Lou Y, Shi C, Liu J (2015a) BeiDou phase bias estimation and its application in precise point positioning with triple-frequency observable. J Geodesy 89(10):979–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gu S, Shi C, Lou Y, Liu J (2015b) Ionospheric effects in uncalibrated phase delay estimation and ambiguity-fixed PPP based on raw observable model. J Geodesy 89(5):447–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hatch R (1982) The synergism of GPS code and carrier measurements. In: Proceedings of the third international symposium on satellite Doppler positioning at Physical Sciences Laboratory of New Mexico State University, 8–12 Feb 1982, pp 1213–1231Google Scholar
  9. Kalman RE (1960) A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. J Basic Eng 82(1):35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kouba J (2009) A guide to using International GNSS Service (IGS) products. International GNSSGoogle Scholar
  11. Laurichesse D, Mercier F, Berthias J-P, 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):135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li X, Zhang X (2012) Improving the estimation of uncalibrated fractional phase offsets for PPP ambiguity resolution. J Navig 65(3):513–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li X, Ge M, Zhang H, Wickert J (2013) A method for improving uncalibrated phase delay estimation and ambiguity-fixing in real-time precise point positioning. J Geodesy 87(5):405–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li P, Zhang X, Ren X, Zuo X, Pan Y (2015) Generating GPS satellite fractional cycle bias for ambiguity-fixed precise point positioning. GPS Solut 20(4):771–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li P, Zhang X, Guo F (2017) Ambiguity resolved precise point positioning with GPS and BeiDou. J Geodesy 91(1):25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lou Y, Zheng F, Gu S, Wang C, Guo H, Feng Y (2016) Multi-GNSS precise point positioning with raw single-frequency and dual-frequency measurement models. GPS Solut 20(4):849–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Loyer S, Perosanz F, Mercier F, Capdeville H, Marty J-C (2012) Zero-difference GPS ambiguity resolution at CNES-CLS IGS Analysis Center. J Geodesy 86(11):991–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Melbourne WG (1985) The case for ranging in GPS-based geodetic systems. In: Proceedings of the first international symposium on precise positioning with the Global Positioning System, Rockville, pp 373–386Google Scholar
  19. Shi J, Gao Y (2014) A comparison of three PPP integer ambiguity resolution methods. GPS Solut 18(4):519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tegedor J, Liu X, Jong K, Goode M, Øvstedal O, Vigen E (2016) Estimation of Galileo uncalibrated hardware delays for ambiguity-fixed precise point positioning. Navigation 63(2):173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Teunissen PJG, Khodabandeh A (2015) Review and principles of PPP-RTK methods. J Geodesy 89(3):217–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang M, Chai H, Li Y (2017) Performance analysis of BDS/GPS precise point positioning with undifferenced ambiguity resolution. Adv Space Res 60(12):2581–2595.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2017.01.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wübbena G (1985) Software developments for geodetic positioning with GPS using TI-4100 code and carrier measurements. In: Proceedings of the first international symposium on precise positioning with the global positioning system, Rockville, pp 403–412Google Scholar
  24. Yang Y (2006) Adaptive navigation and kinematic positioning. Surveying and Mapping Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  25. Yang Y, Gao W, Zhang X (2010) Robust Kalman filtering with constraints: a case study for integrated navigation. J Geodesy 84(6):373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang X, Li P (2013) Assessment of correct fixing rate for precise point positioning ambiguity resolution on a global scale. J Geodesy 87(6):579–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geodetic InstituteKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Zhengzhou Institute of Surveying and MappingZhengzhouChina

Personalised recommendations