Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T21:34:36.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis on the Potential Performance of GPS and Galileo Precise Point Positioning using Simulated Real-Time Products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2018

Francesco Basile ,
Terry Moore  and
Chris Hill
Francesco Basile*
Affiliation:
(Nottingham Geospatial Institute, University of Nottingham)
Terry Moore
Affiliation:
(Nottingham Geospatial Institute, University of Nottingham)
Chris Hill
Affiliation:
(Nottingham Geospatial Institute, University of Nottingham)
*
(E-mail: Francesco.Basile@nottingham.ac.uk)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the evolving Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) landscape, the International GNSS Service (IGS) has started the Multi-GNSS Experiment (MGEX) to produce precise products for new generation systems. Various analysis centres are working on the estimation of precise orbits, clocks and bias for Galileo, Beidou and Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) satellites. However, at the moment these products can only be used for post-processing applications. Indeed, the IGS Real-Time service only broadcasts Global Positioning System (GPS) and Globalnaya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema (GLONASS) corrections. In this research, a simulator of multi-GNSS observations and real-time precise products has been developed to analyse the performance of GPS-only, Galileo-only and GPS plus Galileo Precise Point Positioning (PPP). The error models in the simulated orbits and clocks were based on the difference between the GPS Real-Time and the Final products. Multiple scenarios were analysed, considering different signals combined in the Ionosphere Free linear combination. Results in a simulated open area environment show better performance of the Galileo-only case over the GPS-only case. Indeed, up 33% and 29% of improvement, respectively, in the accuracy level and convergence time can be observed when using the full Galileo constellation compared to GPS. The dual constellation case provides good improvements, in particular in the convergence time (47% faster than GPS). This paper will also consider the impact of different linear combinations of the Galileo signals, and the potential of the E5 Alternative Binary Offset Carrier (AltBOC) signal. Even though it is significantly more precise than E5a, the PPP performance obtained with the Galileo E1-E5a combination is either better or similar to the one with Galileo E1-E5. The reason for this inconsistency was found in the use of the ionosphere free combination with E1. Finally, alternative methods of ionosphere error mitigation are considered in order to ensure the best possible positioning performance from the Galileo E5 signal in multi-frequency PPP.

Keywords

Precise Point PositioningGalileoGPSIonosphere
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 19 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Afifi, A. and El-Rabbany, A. (2015). Performance Analysis of Several GPS/Galileo Precise Point Positioning Models. Sensors (Basel), 15, 14701–26.Google Scholar
Collins, P., Bisnath, S., Lahaye, F. and Héroux, P. (2010). Undifferenced GPS Ambiguity Resolution Using the Decoupled Clock Model and Ambiguity Datum Fixing. Navigation, 57, 123–135.Google Scholar
ESA. (2015). Salvage in Space: Recovering Galileo 5 and 6. From http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/galileo/Galileo_Sav_flyer_j15_low-res.pdf.Google Scholar
Ge, M., Gendt, G., Rothacher, M., Shi, C. and Liu, J. (2008). Resolution of GPS carrier-phase ambiguities in Precise Point Positioning (PPP) with daily observations. Journal of Geodesy, 82, 389–399.Google Scholar
Geng, J., Meng, X., Dodson, A. H., Ge, M. and Teferle, F. N. (2010). Rapid re-convergences to ambiguity-fixed solutions in precise point positioning. Journal of Geodesy, 84, 705–714.Google Scholar
GSA. (2014). Notice Advisory for Galileo Users (NAGU) 2014014. From https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/NOTICE_ADVISORY_TO_GALILEO_USERS_NAGU_2014014.txt.Google Scholar
GSA. (2016a). Notice Advisory for Galileo Users (NAGU) 2016029. From https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/NOTICE_ADVISORY_TO_GALILEO_USERS_NAGU_2016029.txt.Google Scholar
GSA. (2016b). Notice Advisory for Galileo Users (NAGU) 2016030. From https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/NOTICE_ADVISORY_TO_GALILEO_USERS_NAGU_2016030.txt.Google Scholar
Hadas, T. and Bosy, J. (2015). IGS RTS precise orbits and clocks verification and quality degradation over time. GPS Solutions, 19, 93–105.Google Scholar
Hatch, R. (1982). The synergism of GPS code and carrier measurements. International Geodetic Symposium on Satellite Doppler Positioning, Las Cruces, NM, USA. 1213–1231.Google Scholar
Jokinen, A., Feng, S., Ochieng, W., Hide, C., Moore, T. and Hill, C. (2012). Fixed ambiguity Precise Point Positioning (PPP) with FDE RAIM. ION PLANS. Myrtle Beach, SC: IEEE.Google Scholar
Juan, J. M., Hernandez-Pajares, M., Sanz, J., Ramos-Bosch, P., Aragon-Angel, A., Orus, R., Ochieng, W., Feng, S., Jofre, M., Coutinho, P., Samson, J. and Tossaint, M. (2012). Enhanced Precise Point Positioning for GNSS Users. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 50, 4213–4222.Google Scholar
Laurichesse, D., Mercier, F., Berthias, J.-P., Broca, P. and Cerri, L. (2009). Integer Ambiguity Resolution on Undifferenced GPS Phase Measurements and Its Application to PPP and Satellite Precise Orbit Determination. Navigation, 56, 135–149.Google Scholar
Li, X., Ge, M., Zhang, H. and Wickert, J. (2013). A method for improving uncalibrated phase delay estimation and ambiguity-fixing in real-time precise point positioning. Journal of Geodesy, 87, 405–416.Google Scholar
McGraw, G., Schnaufer, B. A., Hwang, P. Y. and Armatys, M. J. (2013). Assessment of Alternative Positioning Solution Architectures for Dual Frequency Multi-Constellation GNSS/SBAS. International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation, Nashville, TN, USA. 223–232.Google Scholar
Miguez, J., Gisbert, J. V. P., Perez, R. O., Garcia-Molina, J. A., Serena, X., Gonzales, F., Granados, G. S. and Crisci, M. (2016). Multi-GNSS PPP Performance Assessment with Different Ranging Accuracies in Challenging Scenarios. International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation, Portland, OR, USA. 2069–2081.Google Scholar
Montenbruck, O., Rizos, C., Weber, R., Weber, G., Neilan, R. E. and Hugentobler, U. (2013). Getting a Grip on Multi-GNSS: the International GNSS Service MGEX Campaign. GPS World, 24, 44–49.Google Scholar
Montenbruck, O., Steigenberger, P., Khachhikyan, R., Weber, G., Langley, R., Mervart, L. & Hugentobler, U. (2014). IGS-MGEX: Preparing the Ground for Multi-Constellation GNSS Science. Inside GNSS, 9, 42–49.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, K., Petovello, M., Lachapelle, G., Cannon, E. (2006). Assessing Probability of Correct Ambiguity Resolution in the Presence of Time-Correlated Errors. Navigation, 53(4), 269–282.Google Scholar
Richardson, T., Hill, C. and Moore, T. (2016). Analysis of Multi-Constellation GNSS Signal Quality. International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, Monterey, CA, USA. 631–638.Google Scholar
Rizos, C., Montenbruck, O., Weber, R., Weber, G., Neilan, R. E. and Hugentobler, U. (2013). The IGS MGEX Experiment as a Milestone for a Comprehensive Multi-GNSS Service. ION Pacific PNT Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, 289–295.Google Scholar
Shen, X. and Gao, Y. (2006). Analyzing the Impacts of Galileo and Modernized GPS on Precise Point Positioning. National Meeting of the Institute of Navigation, Monterey, CA, USA. 837–846.Google Scholar
Simsky, A., Mertens, D., Sleewaegen, J.-M., Hollreiser, M. and Crisci, M. (2008). Experimental Results for the Multipath Performance of Galileo Signals Transmitted by GIOVE-A Satellite. International Journal of Navigation and Observation, 2008, 1–13.Google Scholar
Teunissen, P. J. G. and Montenbruck, O. (2017). Springer Handbook of Global Navigation Satellite Systems, Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Teunissen, P. J. G., Odijk, D. and Zhang, B. (2010). PPP-RTK: Results of CORS Network-Based PPP with Integer Ambiguity Resolution. Journal of Aeronautics, Astronautics and Aviation, 42, 223–230.Google Scholar
Wubbena, G., Schmitz, M. and Bagge, A. (2005). PPP-RTK: Precise Point Positioning Using State-Space Representation in RTK Networks. International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS), Long Beach, CA. 2584–2594.Google Scholar
Zhang, H., Gao, Z., Ge, M., Niu, X., Huang, L., Tu, R. and Li, X. (2013). On the convergence of ionospheric constrained precise point positioning (IC-PPP) based on undifferential uncombined raw GNSS observations. Sensors (Basel), 13, 15708–25.Google Scholar
Zumberge, J. F., Heflin, M. B., Jefferson, D. C., Watkins, M. M. and Webb, F. H. (1997). Precise point positioning for the efficient and robust analysis of GPS data from large networks. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 102, 5005–5017.Google Scholar