BDS-3 full-frequency precise point positioning: models and performance comparison

With the BDS-3 six-frequency integration, there are more choices to implement the precise point positioning (PPP) technology. To take full advantage of the multi-frequency combination, six typical BDS-3 six-frequency PPP models using uncombined observation (UC), five dual-frequency ionospheric-free...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Physica scripta 2024-08, Vol.99 (8), p.85017
Hauptverfasser: Wang, Cancan, Pan, Lin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 8
container_start_page 85017
container_title Physica scripta
container_volume 99
creator Wang, Cancan
Pan, Lin
description With the BDS-3 six-frequency integration, there are more choices to implement the precise point positioning (PPP) technology. To take full advantage of the multi-frequency combination, six typical BDS-3 six-frequency PPP models using uncombined observation (UC), five dual-frequency ionospheric-free (IF) combinations (IF2), four triple-frequency IF combinations (IF3), three four-frequency IF combinations (IF4), two five-frequency IF combinations (IF5), and a single six-frequency IF combination (IF6) were constructed and compared. The results indicate that the positioning accuracies of the six models are similar. The static positioning accuracies reach 4, 3–5, and 12–14 mm in the east, north, and up directions, respectively, while the kinematic positioning accuracies are 24–26, 16–17, and 42–43 mm, respectively. Regarding the convergence times, the UC model is slightly worse than the five IF combined models, except for some cases in the up direction. In the static mode, benefiting from the smallest noise amplification factor, the average convergence times of the IF6 model are the shortest, reaching 12.1, 5.5, and 13.4 min in the three directions, respectively, and are 7%, 15%, and 6% shorter than those of the UC model. In the kinematic mode, with the combination of more signals into a single IF combination, the noise level of the IF combined observables gradually decreases, but the convergence times gradually increase. The kinematic average convergence times of the IF2 model are 15.3, 3.6, and 18.0 min in the three directions, which are 6%, 22%, and 10% and 1%, 16%, and 20% shorter than those of the UC and IF6 models, respectively. In addition, the observation residuals, and the estimates of inter-frequency bias, tropospheric zenith wet delay, and receiver clock offsets from different models were compared and analyzed. The specific selection of the model should be based on actual situations.
doi_str_mv 10.1088/1402-4896/ad5e0b
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>iop_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_iop_journals_10_1088_1402_4896_ad5e0b</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>psad5e0b</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c194t-4b79a981bcf991ec45764ec9aa7321033c416332e957e0858e1581f2ea1fe0903</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UD1PwzAUtBBIlMLOmImJ0OfYSWw2KJ9SJYSA2XKdZ-QqsY3dDv33pCpiguU96enu3t0Rck7hioIQM8qhKrmQzUx3NcLygEx-T4dkAsBoKSSXx-Qk5xVA1VSNnJDX27u3khV20_elTfi1QW-2RUxoXMYiBufX48xu7YJ3_vO6GEKHfS6074qIyYY0aG-wMGGIOrkc_Ck5srrPePazp-Tj4f59_lQuXh6f5zeL0lDJ1yVftlJLQZfGSknR8LptOBqpdcsqCowZThvGKpR1iyBqgbQW1FaoqUWQwKYE9romhZwTWhWTG3TaKgpqV4na5Ve7_GpfyUi52FNciGoVNsmPBlXMSkol1PgEaKtiZ0fg5R_Af3W_AcNBb-w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>BDS-3 full-frequency precise point positioning: models and performance comparison</title><source>Institute of Physics Journals</source><creator>Wang, Cancan ; Pan, Lin</creator><creatorcontrib>Wang, Cancan ; Pan, Lin</creatorcontrib><description>With the BDS-3 six-frequency integration, there are more choices to implement the precise point positioning (PPP) technology. To take full advantage of the multi-frequency combination, six typical BDS-3 six-frequency PPP models using uncombined observation (UC), five dual-frequency ionospheric-free (IF) combinations (IF2), four triple-frequency IF combinations (IF3), three four-frequency IF combinations (IF4), two five-frequency IF combinations (IF5), and a single six-frequency IF combination (IF6) were constructed and compared. The results indicate that the positioning accuracies of the six models are similar. The static positioning accuracies reach 4, 3–5, and 12–14 mm in the east, north, and up directions, respectively, while the kinematic positioning accuracies are 24–26, 16–17, and 42–43 mm, respectively. Regarding the convergence times, the UC model is slightly worse than the five IF combined models, except for some cases in the up direction. In the static mode, benefiting from the smallest noise amplification factor, the average convergence times of the IF6 model are the shortest, reaching 12.1, 5.5, and 13.4 min in the three directions, respectively, and are 7%, 15%, and 6% shorter than those of the UC model. In the kinematic mode, with the combination of more signals into a single IF combination, the noise level of the IF combined observables gradually decreases, but the convergence times gradually increase. The kinematic average convergence times of the IF2 model are 15.3, 3.6, and 18.0 min in the three directions, which are 6%, 22%, and 10% and 1%, 16%, and 20% shorter than those of the UC and IF6 models, respectively. In addition, the observation residuals, and the estimates of inter-frequency bias, tropospheric zenith wet delay, and receiver clock offsets from different models were compared and analyzed. The specific selection of the model should be based on actual situations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0031-8949</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1402-4896</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1088/1402-4896/ad5e0b</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PHSTBO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>IOP Publishing</publisher><subject>BDS-3 ; mathematical model ; performance comparison ; precise point positioning ; six-frequency integration</subject><ispartof>Physica scripta, 2024-08, Vol.99 (8), p.85017</ispartof><rights>2024 IOP Publishing Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c194t-4b79a981bcf991ec45764ec9aa7321033c416332e957e0858e1581f2ea1fe0903</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2921-1402</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/ad5e0b/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Giop$$H</linktopdf><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27906,27907,53828,53875</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wang, Cancan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pan, Lin</creatorcontrib><title>BDS-3 full-frequency precise point positioning: models and performance comparison</title><title>Physica scripta</title><addtitle>PS</addtitle><addtitle>Phys. Scr</addtitle><description>With the BDS-3 six-frequency integration, there are more choices to implement the precise point positioning (PPP) technology. To take full advantage of the multi-frequency combination, six typical BDS-3 six-frequency PPP models using uncombined observation (UC), five dual-frequency ionospheric-free (IF) combinations (IF2), four triple-frequency IF combinations (IF3), three four-frequency IF combinations (IF4), two five-frequency IF combinations (IF5), and a single six-frequency IF combination (IF6) were constructed and compared. The results indicate that the positioning accuracies of the six models are similar. The static positioning accuracies reach 4, 3–5, and 12–14 mm in the east, north, and up directions, respectively, while the kinematic positioning accuracies are 24–26, 16–17, and 42–43 mm, respectively. Regarding the convergence times, the UC model is slightly worse than the five IF combined models, except for some cases in the up direction. In the static mode, benefiting from the smallest noise amplification factor, the average convergence times of the IF6 model are the shortest, reaching 12.1, 5.5, and 13.4 min in the three directions, respectively, and are 7%, 15%, and 6% shorter than those of the UC model. In the kinematic mode, with the combination of more signals into a single IF combination, the noise level of the IF combined observables gradually decreases, but the convergence times gradually increase. The kinematic average convergence times of the IF2 model are 15.3, 3.6, and 18.0 min in the three directions, which are 6%, 22%, and 10% and 1%, 16%, and 20% shorter than those of the UC and IF6 models, respectively. In addition, the observation residuals, and the estimates of inter-frequency bias, tropospheric zenith wet delay, and receiver clock offsets from different models were compared and analyzed. The specific selection of the model should be based on actual situations.</description><subject>BDS-3</subject><subject>mathematical model</subject><subject>performance comparison</subject><subject>precise point positioning</subject><subject>six-frequency integration</subject><issn>0031-8949</issn><issn>1402-4896</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1UD1PwzAUtBBIlMLOmImJ0OfYSWw2KJ9SJYSA2XKdZ-QqsY3dDv33pCpiguU96enu3t0Rck7hioIQM8qhKrmQzUx3NcLygEx-T4dkAsBoKSSXx-Qk5xVA1VSNnJDX27u3khV20_elTfi1QW-2RUxoXMYiBufX48xu7YJ3_vO6GEKHfS6074qIyYY0aG-wMGGIOrkc_Ck5srrPePazp-Tj4f59_lQuXh6f5zeL0lDJ1yVftlJLQZfGSknR8LptOBqpdcsqCowZThvGKpR1iyBqgbQW1FaoqUWQwKYE9romhZwTWhWTG3TaKgpqV4na5Ve7_GpfyUi52FNciGoVNsmPBlXMSkol1PgEaKtiZ0fg5R_Af3W_AcNBb-w</recordid><startdate>20240801</startdate><enddate>20240801</enddate><creator>Wang, Cancan</creator><creator>Pan, Lin</creator><general>IOP Publishing</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2921-1402</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240801</creationdate><title>BDS-3 full-frequency precise point positioning: models and performance comparison</title><author>Wang, Cancan ; Pan, Lin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c194t-4b79a981bcf991ec45764ec9aa7321033c416332e957e0858e1581f2ea1fe0903</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>BDS-3</topic><topic>mathematical model</topic><topic>performance comparison</topic><topic>precise point positioning</topic><topic>six-frequency integration</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wang, Cancan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pan, Lin</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Physica scripta</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wang, Cancan</au><au>Pan, Lin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>BDS-3 full-frequency precise point positioning: models and performance comparison</atitle><jtitle>Physica scripta</jtitle><stitle>PS</stitle><addtitle>Phys. Scr</addtitle><date>2024-08-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>99</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>85017</spage><pages>85017-</pages><issn>0031-8949</issn><eissn>1402-4896</eissn><coden>PHSTBO</coden><abstract>With the BDS-3 six-frequency integration, there are more choices to implement the precise point positioning (PPP) technology. To take full advantage of the multi-frequency combination, six typical BDS-3 six-frequency PPP models using uncombined observation (UC), five dual-frequency ionospheric-free (IF) combinations (IF2), four triple-frequency IF combinations (IF3), three four-frequency IF combinations (IF4), two five-frequency IF combinations (IF5), and a single six-frequency IF combination (IF6) were constructed and compared. The results indicate that the positioning accuracies of the six models are similar. The static positioning accuracies reach 4, 3–5, and 12–14 mm in the east, north, and up directions, respectively, while the kinematic positioning accuracies are 24–26, 16–17, and 42–43 mm, respectively. Regarding the convergence times, the UC model is slightly worse than the five IF combined models, except for some cases in the up direction. In the static mode, benefiting from the smallest noise amplification factor, the average convergence times of the IF6 model are the shortest, reaching 12.1, 5.5, and 13.4 min in the three directions, respectively, and are 7%, 15%, and 6% shorter than those of the UC model. In the kinematic mode, with the combination of more signals into a single IF combination, the noise level of the IF combined observables gradually decreases, but the convergence times gradually increase. The kinematic average convergence times of the IF2 model are 15.3, 3.6, and 18.0 min in the three directions, which are 6%, 22%, and 10% and 1%, 16%, and 20% shorter than those of the UC and IF6 models, respectively. In addition, the observation residuals, and the estimates of inter-frequency bias, tropospheric zenith wet delay, and receiver clock offsets from different models were compared and analyzed. The specific selection of the model should be based on actual situations.</abstract><pub>IOP Publishing</pub><doi>10.1088/1402-4896/ad5e0b</doi><tpages>23</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2921-1402</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0031-8949
ispartof Physica scripta, 2024-08, Vol.99 (8), p.85017
issn 0031-8949
1402-4896
language eng
recordid cdi_iop_journals_10_1088_1402_4896_ad5e0b
source Institute of Physics Journals
subjects BDS-3
mathematical model
performance comparison
precise point positioning
six-frequency integration
title BDS-3 full-frequency precise point positioning: models and performance comparison
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T10%3A52%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-iop_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=BDS-3%20full-frequency%20precise%20point%20positioning:%20models%20and%20performance%20comparison&rft.jtitle=Physica%20scripta&rft.au=Wang,%20Cancan&rft.date=2024-08-01&rft.volume=99&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=85017&rft.pages=85017-&rft.issn=0031-8949&rft.eissn=1402-4896&rft.coden=PHSTBO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1088/1402-4896/ad5e0b&rft_dat=%3Ciop_cross%3Epsad5e0b%3C/iop_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true