Page 159 - 卫星导航2021年第1-2合期

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

Hourly positioning RMS (cm) 20 Fixing rate 100% Ambiguity success fixing rate 10 8 6 PPP float
E float
80%
E AR
15
PPP AR
N float
60%
N AR
10
U float
40%
U AR
5
20%
0
10
20
30
15
Time (min) 40 50 60 00% Dynaic PPP RMS (cm) 4
Fig. 12 Hourly static positioning errors and ambiguity success fxing
rate 2
0
Table 1 Hourly static PPP positioning RMS and ambiguity East North Up
success fxing rate Fig. 14 Average position errors RMS of Kinematic PPP at 24 stations
Items Results of diferent directions
East North Up
Table 2 Average position errors RMS of Kinematic PPP at 24
RMS of foat solutions (cm) 1.83 1.21 2.93 stations
RMS of fxed solutions (cm) 1.00 0.54 1.77
Items Results of diferent directions
Improvements rates (%) 45.5 55.1 39.7
East North Up
RMS of foat solutions (cm) 2.46 1.53 4.15
RMS of fxed solutions (cm) 1.75 1.39 3.79
10 East Improvements rates (%) 28.9 9.1 8.7
5 0 PPP float PPP AR
Dynamic PPP RMS (cm) −10 5 0 North 72.3%. For the observations of 15 min, the 3D RMS is
−5
10
10.37 and 8.41 cm for the respective ambiguity-foat and
-fxed solutions, and the ambiguity success fxing rate is
82.4%. Finally, in hourly static solutions, the 3D RMS is
−5
−10
20
PPP AR, improved by 42.6%, and the ambiguity success
10 Up 3.66 cm for ambiguity-foat solutions and 2.10 cm for the
0 fxing rate is 97.7%. Te positioning RMSs and improve-
−10 ments for respective east, north, and up directions are
−20 presented in Table 1.
0 1 2 3
Time (h) Te performance of the kinematic PPP with GPS/
Fig. 13 Kinematic PPP positioning errors at YARR station BDS-2/Galileo data is also analyzed at the 24 stations. In
Fig. 13, the initial 3-h kinematic positioning errors from
the one-day solutions of station YARR show that the
ambiguity-fxed solutions reduce signifcantly the fuc-
ambiguity-foat and -fxed solutions have comparable tuation, realizing stable positioning services. In Fig. 14,
accuracy with one-day observations. the average position errors RMS of Kinematic PPP show
Hourly solutions are obtained for the PPP AR in a short that slight improvements are achieved for the PPP AR,
period of time, shown in Fig. 12. compared with the ambiguity-foat solutions. In Table 2,
Te ambiguity success fxing rate is defned as the ratio the RMS of kinematic mode is 2.46, 1.53, and 4.15 cm for
of number of fxed solutions to that of all solutions. At the ambiguity-foat solutions in respective east, north,
diferent epochs, signifcant improvements in position- and up directions, while that is 1.75, 1.39, and 3.79 cm
ing RMS are achieved with the PPP AR. With the obser- for the PPP AR. Te obvious improvement by 28.9% is in
vations of 10 min, the Tree-Dimensional (3D) RMS is the east component. Hence, the kinematic PPP AR can
12.72 cm for the ambiguity-foat solutions, and 11.65 cm
for the PPP AR. Te ambiguity success fxing rate is only