Remote Sensing (Jul 2021)

Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Precise Positioning and Time-Frequency Transfer with Galileo Five-Frequency Observations

  • Wei Xu,
  • Wen-Bin Shen,
  • Cheng-Hui Cai,
  • Li-Hong Li,
  • Lei Wang,
  • Zi-Yu Shen

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13152972
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 15
p. 2972

Abstract

Read online

The present Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) can provide at least double-frequency observations, and especially the Galileo Navigation Satellite System (Galileo) can provide five-frequency observations for all constellation satellites. In this contribution, precision point positioning (PPP) models with Galileo E1, E5a, E5b, E5 and E6 frequency observations are established, including a dual-frequency (DF) ionospheric-free (IF) combination model, triple-frequency (TF) IF combination model, quad-frequency (QF) IF combination model, four five-frequency (FF) IF com-bination models and an FF uncombined (UC) model. The observation data of five stations for seven days are selected from the multi-GNSS experiment (MGEX) network, forming four time-frequency links ranging from 454.6 km to 5991.2 km. The positioning and time-frequency transfer performances of Galileo multi-frequency PPP are compared and evaluated using GBM (which denotes precise satellite orbit and clock bias products provided by Geo Forschung Zentrum (GFZ)), WUM (which denotes precise satellite orbit and clock bias products provided by Wuhan University (WHU)) and GRG (which denotes precise satellite orbit and clock bias products provided by the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES)) precise products. The results show that the performances of the DF, TF, QF and FF PPP models are basically the same, the frequency stabilities of most links can reach sub10−16 level at 120,000 s, and the average three-dimensional (3D) root mean square (RMS) of position and average frequency stability (120,000 s) can reach 1.82 cm and 1.18 × 10−15, respectively. The differences of 3D RMS among all models are within 0.17 cm, and the differences in frequency stabilities (in 120,000 s) among all models are within 0.08 × 10−15. Using the GRG precise product, the solution performance is slightly better than that of the GBM or WUM precise product, the average 3D RMS values obtained using the WUM and GRG precise products are 1.85 cm and 1.77 cm, respectively, and the average frequency stabilities at 120,000 s can reach 1.13 × 10−15 and 1.06 × 10−15, respectively.

Keywords