Page 155 - 卫星导航2021年第1-2合期
P. 155

Wang et al. Satell Navig             (2021) 2:9                                        Page 5 of 11





                                                              estimate the precise real-value ambiguities on each fre-
                                      
                                     B 1
                                                              quency of observed satellites. In this study, the FCBs are
                                    . 
                                     .
                                    .                       estimated with an interval of 15 min. Hence, in the qual-
                                      
                                  B r  
                   1                                       ity checking of the foat ambiguity solutions, the ambigu-
                  n 1      R 1 S  1   
                   .       .       .                       ities estimated with the observations of less than 10 min
                                     .
                   .       .
                              .  . 
                  .        .  . .                        are deleted. After the quality checking, the ambiguities
                                B m  
                  n        R r S                       (12)
                   s   =     s                          are inputted into the FCB estimator. Ten, the individ-
                                  B  1 
                   .
                   r     .
                   .       .                                 ual  ambiguities  on each  frequency are combined  using
                              .    
                  .        .  . .  . 
                                     .
                                    . 
                 n n m    R m S  n                         Eq. (9). Te FCBs measurements in Eq. (11) are adopted
                                     B
                                                              in the FCBs estimation for the WL and NL combinations.
                                   
                                      s 
                                      
                                    .                       Finally, the inverse operation in Eq. (10) is conducted to
                                     .
                                    . 
                                     B n                      recover the individual FCBs on each frequency. Te raw
                                                              FCB on each frequency is fexible in the State Space Rep-
            In the coefcient vector R  , the rth element is 1 and the   resentation (SSR) of Radio Technical Commission for
                                  r
                                                s
            others are zero. In the coefcient vector S  , the sth ele-  Maritime service (RTCM) for users’ PPP AR (Shi 2012).
            ment is –1 and the others are zero. One satellite for each
            GNSS system and new combined WL or NL ambiguities,   PPP AR at the user terminal
            respectively, is selected as a datum whose FCB is fxed to   After correcting the satellite FCBs for the estimation of
            zero for resolving the rank defciency in Eq. (12).  foat ambiguities, the SD PPP ambiguities are proposed in
              For  the multi-GNSS data,  the FCBs  of new WL  and   the ambiguity resolution for removing the receiver FCB.
            NL combinations can be estimated together with GPS/  Additionally, the combined ambiguities, as shown in
            BDS-2/Galileo. To reduce the high computation load,   Eq. (9), are recommended for the FCB estimation. Hence,
            the FCBs of the WL and NL combinations are estimated   the WL and NL combinations of ambiguities are sequen-
            system by system. Te individual FCBs are recovered by   tially fxed. To eliminate the efects of measurement noise
            the inverse operation in Eq. (10). Te multi-GNSS FCBs   and multipath, the satellite elevation angle adopted in
            are integrated in one fle by the predefned formats. Te   the ambiguity resolution should not be less than 15°. Te
            detailed fowchart is presented in Fig. 1.        ambiguity fxing success rate can be further improved by
              Firstly, the static Uncombined PPP (UPPP) is processed   the partial ambiguity resolution method. Firstly, all avail-
            for  each  reference  station  with  its  coordinates  fxed  to   able  ambiguities are decorrelated. Te reformed ambi-
                                                              guities are reordered in the ascending order according to
                                                              their decorrelated variances. Tey can also be reordered
                                                              according to the satellite elevation angles. Secondly, the
                                                              Least-square AMBiguity Decorrelation Adjustment
                  Multi-GNSS   Static UPP   Precise orbit and
                    data                     clock products   (LAMBDA) method is adopted to search for the optimal
                                                              integer values. Tirdly, the bootstrapped success rate  P
                                 N 1′  N 2                    and the ratio test value R are calculated. If P<P 0 or R < R 0 ,
                              float ambiguity                 the last ambiguity with the lowest precision in the subset
                   Delete   No   Quality                      is removed and the second step is repeated. If the num-
                  ambiguity      check      Float ambiguity   ber of available ambiguities is less than four, the ambigu-
                                      Yes                     ity-fxed solution fails. Otherwise, the integer ambiguities
                                                              with a higher success rate and ratio value are confrmed
                                 Integer    FCB estimation    as true values. Generally, the thresholds for P 0 and R 0 are
                              transformation                  set 0.999 and 2.0 (Li and Zhang 2015).
                                                                Once the integer values of ambiguities are confrmed,
                              FCB estimation                  the tight constraint is imposed on the estimation of foat
                                                              ambiguities:
                 N 1′  N 2  integer  Inverse integer              0= (N   − N  ) − (N q,s  − N q,n ) + (B q,s  − B q,n )
                                                                      ˜ q,s
                                                                            ˜ q,n
                  ambiguity   transformation  FCB products             r     r       r    r       r    r  (13)
              Fig. 1  Flowchart of FCB estimation using the individual ambiguities   Using Eq. (13), the ambiguity-fxed solutions for posi-
              from the uncombined PPP model with the part of foat ambiguity   tioning can be obtained after the PPP reprocessing. Note
              solutions in the red rectangle and the FCB estimation in the blue   that the constraint of integer ambiguity can also increase
              rectangle
                                                              the precision of other estimated parameters.
   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160