Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T22:32:46.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Real-Time Estimation and Calibration of GLONASS Inter-Frequency Phase and Code Bias

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 December 2019

Zhixin Yang
Affiliation:
(GNSS Research Center, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China)
Hui Liu
Affiliation:
(GNSS Research Center, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China)
Yidong Lou*
Affiliation:
(GNSS Research Center, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China)
Bao Shu
Affiliation:
(GNSS Research Center, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China)
Longwei Xu
Affiliation:
(GNSS Research Center, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China)
Yifei Wang
Affiliation:
(GNSS Research Center, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China)
Baofei Xie
Affiliation:
(GNSS Research Center, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China)
*
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The frequency division multiple access (FDMA) strategy used in GLONASS causes inter-frequency phase bias (IFPB) and inter-frequency code bias (IFCB) between receivers from different manufacturers. The existence of IFPB and IFCB significantly increases the difficulties of fixing GLONASS ambiguity and limits the accuracy and reliability of GLONASS positioning. Moreover, the initial value of IFPB and IFCB may be unavailable or unreliable with the increasing number of receivers from different manufacturers in recent years. In this study, a real-time and reliable calibration algorithm of IFPB and IFCB based on multi-GNSS assistance is proposed by providing a fixed solution. Real-time IFPB rate and IFCB can be obtained using this algorithm without the initial IFPB and IFCB. The IFPB rate for all GLONASS satellites and IFCB for each GLONASS satellite are estimated due to different characteristics of IFPB and IFCB. IFPB calibration can be divided into constant and real-time IFPB calibrations to meet the different positioning requirements. Results show that constant IFPB rate has only 2 mm difference from the mean value of real-time IFPB rate. The IFPB rate and IFCB estimated by this algorithm have excellent stability, and the change in reference satellite cannot affect the results of IFPB rate and the stability of IFCB. The centimetre-level positioning results can be obtained using two calibration methods, and the positioning results with real-time calibration method are 10%–20% better than those with the constant calibration method. Under satellite-deprived environments, the improvements of multi-GNSS positioning accuracy with constant inter-frequency bias calibration gradually increase as the satellite cut-off elevation angle increases compared with GPS/BDS, which can reach up to 0·9 cm in the vertical direction.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2019
Figure 0

Figure 1. Flow chart of IFPB estimation and calibration.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Flow chart of IFCB estimation and calibration.

Figure 2

Table 1. Baseline information of experiments.

Figure 3

Figure 3. IFPB rate and IFCB for zero baselines (CUT0-CUT1 and CUT0-CUT2).

Figure 4

Figure 4. IFPB rate and IFCB for ultra-short baselines (WUS1-WUU1 and WUS1-WUS2).

Figure 5

Figure 5. IFPB rate and IFCB for short baselines (HKWS-HKKS and HKWS-HKSS).

Figure 6

Figure 6. IFPB rate and IFCB for medium baselines (HKKT-HKKKS and HKKT-HKWS).

Figure 7

Figure 7. IFPB rates for the four types of baselines (zero, ultra-short, short and medium baselines).

Figure 8

Figure 8. IFPB rate STD for all types of baselines (zero, ultra-short, short and medium baselines).

Figure 9

Table 2. Average initialisation time of IFPB estimation for four types of baselines.

Figure 10

Figure 9. IFCB for four types of baselines.

Figure 11

Figure 10. IFCB STD for four types of baselines.

Figure 12

Figure 11. IFPB rate and IFCB for baseline CUT0-CUT1 with 3 h observations.

Figure 13

Figure 12. Position errors with IFB calibration compared with no IFB calibration and GPS/BDS for baseline CUT0-CUT1 (top three subgraphs) and baseline HKWS-HKKS (bottom three subgraphs).

Figure 14

Figure 13. Influence of IFPB accuracy on the positioning results and ambiguity fixed rates for baselines CUT0-CUT1 and HKWS-HKK.

Figure 15

Table 3. Position RMS and ambiguity fixed rate with two IFPB and IFCB calibration methods compared with GPS/BDS.

Figure 16

Figure 14. Number of GLONASS satellites with different satellite cut-off elevation angles for baselines CUT0-CUT1 and HKWS-HKKS (from 10° to 40°).

Figure 17

Figure 15. Position RMS of multi-GNSS and GPS/BDS with different cut-off elevation angles for baselines CUT0-CUT1 and HKWS-HKKS.

Figure 18

Figure 16. The improvement of multi-GNSS positioning accuracy with IFB calibration compared with GPS/BDS with different satellite cut-off elevation angles for baselines CUT0-CUT1 and HKWS-HKKS.