Precise Point Positioning with Almost Fully Deployed BDS-3, BDS-2, GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and QZSS Using Precise Products from Different Analysis Centers

An Overview of a Special Issue on Upcoming Positioning, Navigation, and Timing: GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou

In recent decades, global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs) have experienced significant changes [...]

Evaluating the Performance of Two Inter-Frequency Code Bias (IFCB) Models in Combined Precise Point Positioning (PPP)

The main purpose of this article is to evaluate the comprehensive performance of two inter-frequency code bias (IFCB) models using undifferenced and uncombined observations. These two IFCB models estimate IFCB parameters for each GLONASS satellite (EG model) and IFCB parameters using a quadratic function of frequency channels K (K = −7…6) (QF model). The data sampled in 30 s from 140 stations of the IGS network on 1–7 September 2021, are used for this study. We analyze all the combinations, including the GLONASS data, from the perspective of positioning accuracy, convergence time, and data utilization. The results show that the positioning accuracy of these two IFCB models for the same combination is comparable in three directions in both static and kinematic modes under long-term observation; the positioning accuracies of each IFCB model for all the combinations are almost the same in three directions in static mode, and the positioning accuracy of the combinations including the GPS data in three directions is better than that of the combinations not including the GPS data for kinematic mode. For some combinations, such as GLONSS-only and GPS/GLONASS, the convergence time of the EG model is better than that of the QF model, but the improvement rate does not exceed 22%. However, for other combinations, such as GLONASS/BDS and GLONASS/BDS/GALILEO, the convergence time of the QF model is better than that of the EG model, and the improvement rate in some directions is more than 50%. For the combinations including GPS data, the data utilization of the EG and QF models are almost the same for both static and kinematic modes; however, for combinations without GPS data, the data utilization of the QF model is better than that of the EG model. For these two IFCB models (EG and QF models), all combinations can achieve the set accuracy thresholds in three directions, but the EG model has more parameters to estimate than the QF model. From the perspectives of positioning accuracy, solution convergence time, data utilization, and the number of estimated parameters for each IFCB model, we suggest that the IFCB should be estimated using the QF model when performing combined PPP for different combinations.