Network-based triple-frequency carrier phase ambiguity resolution between reference stations using BDS data for long baselines |
| |
| Authors: | Weiming Tang Mingxing Shen Chenlong Deng Jianhui Cui Jia Yang |
| |
| Institution: | 1.GNSS Research Center,Wuhan University,Wuhan,China;2.Collaborative Innovation Center for Geospatial Technology,Wuhan,China;3.Xihe Space Time (Wuhan) Network Technology Co. Ltd,Wuhan,China |
| |
| Abstract: | Network-based ambiguity resolution (AR) between reference stations is the prerequisite to realize a precise real-time kinematic positioning service. With the help of BDS triple-frequency signals, we can efficiently deal with the ionospheric delay and tropospheric delay, and achieve rapid and reliable AR. To overcome the inaccurate ionospheric delay estimated by the geometry-free three carrier ambiguity resolution (GF TCAR) technique, which leads to failure in the original ambiguity resolution, we propose an ionospheric-free (IF) TCAR method to resolve the ambiguity between the reference stations over long baselines. Taking full advantage of the known positions of the reference stations, the easily resolved extra-wide-lane (EWL) ambiguity, and the IF phase combinations, we can reliably fix the wide-lane (WL) ambiguity. A Kalman filter is applied to estimate precise IF ambiguities and the original ambiguity is resolved with the fixed WL ambiguity. A numerical analysis with triple-frequency BDS data from three long baselines of a CORS network is provided to compare the AR performance of GF TCAR with that of IF TCAR. The results show that both methods can reliably resolve the WL ambiguity with a remarkable correctly-fixed rate of higher than 99%, and the reliably-fixed rates of the IF TCAR slightly increase from 92.19, 94.67 and 94.61–98.26, 99.54 and 97.51% for the three baselines. Herein “correctly-fixed” and “reliably-fixed” mean the difference between the float ambiguity and the true one are less than ± 0.5 and ± 0.25 cycles, respectively. On the other hand, the AR performance of the original signals with the IF TCAR method is much better than that with the GF TCAR method attaining a 100% correctly-fixed rate, while the GF TCAR method can hardly fix the original ambiguity with the largest bias being as much as 4 cycles because of the amplified systematic bias. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
