Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DOI 10.1007/s10291-006-0041-9
O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E
Received: 23 June 2006 / Accepted: 22 August 2006 / Published online: 19 September 2006
Springer-Verlag 2006
Abstract Within the regional EUREF Permanent all coordinate estimates have been based on only GPS
Network (EPN) all positioning is purely based on GPS. data and no GLONASS data is used. However with
This paper investigates, using the Bernese GNSS
• the growing number of commercially available
analysis software, the influence of adding GLONASS
GPS + GLONASS receivers;
observations to the EPN processing using fixed orbits
• the recent revitalization of GLONASS (with a
from the International GNSS Service (IGS) as well as
constellation of 18 satellites expected in 2007) and
from the CODE analysis centre. The GPS-only coor-
• the availability of short latency combined IGS or-
dinates and GPS + GLONASS coordinates will be
bits for GLONASS and consistent GPS + GLON-
compared and the change in their repeatabilities will
ASS CODE orbits
be investigated. The influence of the used orbits will
also be outlined. The results show that a combined it has become worthwhile to assess the advantages
GPS + GLONASS data analysis can be set up without and disadvantages of adding GLONASS data to the
major efforts and that it will not degrade the positions routine data analysis of the EPN network. For this
obtained within the EPN. investigation, two networks of GNSS stations belong-
ing to the EPN have been analyzed: a first network
Keywords Glonass Æ EPN Æ Positioning consisting of only GPS/GLONASS stations and a sec-
ond mixed network of GPS and GPS/GLONASS sta-
tions. For both networks, the station coordinates have
Introduction been estimated using GPS only observations and
GPS + GLONASS observations.
The EUREF Permanent Network (EPN) consists of Presently, with a constellation of 29 active GPS
190 permanent GPS stations from which 29 are also satellites and 13 GLONASS satellites, no significant
tracking GLONASS satellites. The primary purpose of improvement can be expected from adding GLONASS
the EPN is to maintain the European Terrestrial Ref- observations to GPS: the number of observations is
erence System (ETRS89) and EUREF does this by increased by a factor of 1.4, resulting in an expected
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
making available the tracking data of the EPN stations reduction of the formal errors by 1:45 ¼ 1:2: This
and by generating weekly coordinate estimates for all assumes that the number of parameters is not changed
of them (Adam et al. 2002; Bruyninx 2004). Up to now, by the introduction of the GLONASS data. As we will
see later, this is not the case.
In addition, the exercise to process observations
from a mixed GPS and GPS/GLONASS network in
C. Bruyninx (&) which one of the two GNSS has an incomplete con-
Royal Observatory of Belgium, Av. Circulaire 3,
stellation is a worthwhile exercise when preparing for
1180 Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: C.Bruyninx@oma.be the future GALILEO system.
123
98 GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106
Set-up of the data processing Table 1 GPS/GLONASS equipment used within the EPN
(January 2006)
Networks analyzed Station Receiver Antenna + radome
Data processing (Weber and Fragner 2000; Gendt 2006). As we can see
in Fig. 2, recently the latency of the combined IGS
When processing a regional network, such as the two GLONASS orbits has been significantly reduced. Since
networks considered, precise a priori orbit information the analysis centres BKG and ESA use the final IGS
in needed. The IGS makes separately combined orbits GPS orbits as input for the computation for their
available for GPS and GLONASS. The GLONASS GLONASS orbits, the combined IGS GLONASS or-
orbits are based on the computations from four anal- bits are mostly available with a delay of a few days with
ysis centres: BKG, CODE, ESA/ESOC, and IAC respect to the final IGS GPS orbits. Following the
123
GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106 99
123
100 GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106
baseline-by-baseline GPS ambiguity resolution using GLONASS data also increases the number of param-
the QIF (Quasi Ionospheric Free) method (Beutler eters to be estimated considerably (by 47%). These
et al. 2006) supported by the CODE ionospheric model. additional parameters are the GLONASS ambiguities.
When processing GPS and GLONASS observations, Consequently no significant improvement in terms of
the double difference GLONASS ambiguities are esti- formal errors can be expected from adding GLONASS
mated but no attempt is made to fix them to their data to GPS.
integer value. Since double differences are used, there During the period that we analysed, several of the
is no need for a priori information on the satellite GPS/GLONASS stations provided data of degraded
clocks, which are eliminated by the double differencing. quality. The most striking example is the station SNEC
After fixing the GPS ambiguities to their integer values, (Snezka, Czech Republic) whose coordinates wan-
the ionospheric free L3 double differences are formed dered away (see Fig. 5), especially in the height com-
and the station coordinates are estimated together with ponent, because of a receiver malfunctioning. The
the troposphere. The troposphere is modelled as piece- SNEC data have therefore been eliminated starting
wise linear functions using the dry-Niell a priori from GPS week 1349 at the first symptoms of the
mapping function, and estimating each hour the tro- receiver error.
posphere using the wet-Niell mapping function. Starting 1 January 2006 the data from the ASH-
The GPS-only analysis is preformed using IGS final TECH Z-18 receivers at JOZ2 (Jozefoslaw, Poland)
orbits/clocks while the GPS + GLONASS analysis is and GOPE (Ondrejov, Czech Republic) became
done using on one hand the final IGS GPS orbits/ unusable. After the midnight epoch these two receivers
clocks and GLONASS orbits (which we merged at the started tracking all GLONASS satellites with a 1-s
SP3 level) and on the other hand the fully consistent delay causing the pseudoranges to be increased by
GNSS orbits from CODE (Ineichen et al. 2001). 300,000 km. As a leap second was introduced at this
For the first network, the data were analysed from 1 date, a link to this event was suspected. The other
October 2005 to 28 February 2006. The second net- ASHTECH Z-18 receivers in the EPN behaved nor-
work was analysed form 5 February until 1 April 2006. mally. The problem at JOZ2 and GOPE was narrowed
For each day a set of coordinates was determined. The down to the TEQC (GNSS Translating, Editing, and
datum of the coordinates was defined by applying three Quality Checking) software (Estey and Meertens 1999)
translation conditions (minimal constraint) to the EPN used to convert the native data to the RINEX format.
realization of the ITRF2000. The problem was solved by updating TEQC to its
latest version from 15 December 2005.
The data from the station SOFI (Sofia, Bulgaria)
Results had to be discarded from the processing because of a
lack of reliable data caused by a malfunction of the
GPS/GLONASS network station PC.
As can be seen in Fig. 6, in addition to the problems
When processing the network of 25 GPS/GLONASS mentioned above, the three Italian GPS/GLONASS
stations, the additional GLONASS satellites increase stations (CAGZ, COMO and VENE) are missing in
the number of observations by 47%. The associated almost 20% of the final solutions. The data of these
maximal reduction of the formal errors has a factor of stations are regularly missing at all the Data Centers
1.2. However, in our case, the introduction of the (without correlation between the missing days from the
123
GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106 101
Fig. 6 Percentage of
observation days included for
each station in the data
processing
different stations). Note that in Fig. 6 as well as the Figure 9 shows that adding GLONASS data to the
following graphs, the stations are ordered according to GPS-only analysis changes the coordinates up to
increasing latitude. 2.5 mm in the horizontal components. However, as can
Following the scheme displayed in Fig. 4, daily be seen from Fig. 10, these differences are mainly due
coordinates have been estimated for the remaining to differences in the reference frame. After a Helmert
stations in the network: first using only GPS data (and transformation, the horizontal differences are below
final IGS orbits/clocks), and secondly using GPS as 1.5 mm, with a general RMS of 0.4 mm. In the up-
well as GLONASS data. The last processing was done component, the coordinate differences between GPS
once using IGS orbits and once using CODE orbits. and GPS + GLONASS are mostly below 4 mm, but
Figure 7 shows no significant differences in the reach for one station (POUS) up to 6 mm.
repeatabilities of the station coordinates depending on The 3D RMS of the coordinate differences is
the observations and orbits used. An exception is the 1.8 mm, which is reduced to 1.4 mm by the Helmert
station SNEC with a significant degradation of the Up- transformation. In all cases, the GPS + GLONASS-
RMS caused by the introduction of GLONASS data. based coordinates obtained using IGS or CODE orbits,
The inspection of the coordinate time series of agree at the 1-mm level.
SNEC (Fig. 8) shows that the degradation of the RMS The origin of the difference between the GPS-only
is the caused by a few outliers in the GPS + GLON- and GPS + GLONASS estimates for the up-compo-
ASS solution of GPS week 1345. nents of POUS (6 mm) is unclear.
We have also drawn the coordinates time series of the As a by-product of our analysis tropospheric Zenith
nearby station POUS, which, as can be seen in Fig. 9, Total Delays (ZTD) are estimated each hour. As can
shows an offset in its height-component when the GPS- be seen in Fig. 11, GPS + GLONASS underestimates,
only results are compared to the GPS + GLONASS for all stations except POUS (!), the ZTDs compared
estimates. However, in these coordinate time series, no to GPS only. It is clear that the station POUS is
special events are noted. showing an atypical response to the introduction of
0 0
RMS Up
7 7
6 6
5 5
[mm]
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
CAGZ
COMO
BISK
SNEC
JOZ2
HELG
HOE2
ONSA
VIS0
SPT0
MAR6
VIL0
SKE0
KIR0
Average
VENE
VACO
WTZR
GOPE
MARJ
HERT
BOGI
WARN
SASS
POUS
123
102 GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106
GLONASS. Figures 12 and 13 show examples of the In addition, Fig. 15 shows that no significant changes
ZTD behavior for the stations VACO and JOZ2. in the coordinates can be seen. We can therefore con-
clude that, for this specific network, GLONASS data
Results for mixed network can be introduced in the data analysis without any
problems. However, to avoid influencing the site
In the network of mixed GPS and GPS/GLONASS velocities, the introduction of GLONASS should be
receivers, the introduction of the GLONASS data done simultaneously with the introduction of the abso-
increases the amount of used observations by 14%. A lute phase centre variations and the switch to ITRF2005.
similar increase is also noted in the number of esti-
mated parameters. As we can see in Fig. 14, as ex-
pected, the repeatabilities of the estimated coordinates Conclusion
are independent of the introduction of the GLONASS
data (GPS/GLONASS stations are: HELG, HERT, The goal of this study was to investigate the advanta-
HOE2, KARL, ONSA, SPT0, WARN, WTZR). ges/disadvantages of analyzing combined GPS/
123
GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106 103
[mm]
orbits 0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
East
3 3
2 2
1 1
[mm]
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
Up
8 8
6 6
4 4
[mm]
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
HOE2
CAGZ
VENE
COMO
VACO
WTZR
GOPE
POUS
BISK
MARJ
SNEC
HERT
JOZ2
BOGI
WARN
HELG
SASS
ONSA
VIS0
SPT0
MAR6
VIL0
SKE0
KIR0
Fig. 10 Residuals of GPS versus GPS+GLONASS using IGS orbits
7-parameter Helmert GPS versus GPS+GLONASS using CODE orbits
transformation between GPS- North
GPS+GLONASS using IGS or CODE orbits
only coordinates and 3 3
coordinates obtained using 2 2
1 1
GPS + GLONASS data,
[mm]
0 0
computed respectively with -1 -1
IGS orbits and with CODE -2 -2
orbits -3 -3
East
3 3
2 2
1 1
[mm]
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
Up
8 8
6 6
4 4
[mm]
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
HOE2
BISK
MARJ
BOGI
WARN
HELG
SASS
ONSA
VIS0
SPT0
MAR6
VIL0
SKE0
KIR0
CAGZ
VENE
COMO
VACO
WTZR
GOPE
POUS
SNEC
HERT
JOZ2
GPS + GLONASS 0
-0,5
-1
-1,5
-2
-2,5
CAGZ
VENE
COMO
VACO
WTZR
GOPE
POUS
BISK
MARJ
SNEC
HERT
JOZ2
BOGI
WARN
HELG
SASS
HOE2
ONSA
VIS0
SPT0
MAR6
VIL0
SKE0
KIR0
123
104 GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106
[mm ZTD ]
[mm ZTD ]
2200 2200
2100 2100
2350 2350
2300 2300
2250 2250
2005.8 2005.9 2006
Epoch
10 10
5 5
[mm ZTD ]
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -10
2005.8 2005.9 2006
Epoch
GPS + GLONASS 3 3
observations 2 2
1 1
0 0
RMS East
3 3
2 2
[mm]
1 1
0 0
RMS Up
5 5
4 4
3 3
[mm]
2 2
1 1
0 0
HOE2
MORP
SPT0
KARL
WTZA
EUSK
BRUS
HERS
WSRT
HOBU
BORK
HELG
SMID
BUDP
ONSA
INVE
OSLS
Average
ZIMM
WTZR
REDU
KLOP
HERT
KOSG
PTBB
POTS
DARE
WARN
SULD
123
GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106 105
[mm]
GPS + GLONASS 0 0
observations -0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
East
1 1
0.5 0.5
[mm]
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
Up
2 2
1 1
[mm]
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
BORK
WARN
SMID
BUDP
INVE
ZIMM
KARL
WTZA
REDU
KLOP
BRUS
HERS
HERT
KOSG
WSRT
HOBU
DARE
HELG
HOE2
MORP
SULD
ONSA
SPT0
OSLS
WTZR
EUSK
PTBB
POTS
GLONASS data in a regional network of GPS and In the GPS/GLONASS network, the differences
GPS/GLONASS receivers. between the GPS-only coordinates and the GPS
For all tests, we used the Bernese 5.0 data analysis + GLONASS coordinates show that adding GLON-
software, which allows to process GPS-only or ASS data can change the coordinates at the level of
GPS + GLONASS observations using identically the 1–2 mm in the horizontal components and between 2
same processing strategy (except for the ambiguity and 6 mm for the vertical component. For the hori-
resolution). zontal components, the coordinate differences are
We have compared the GPS-only and GPS + mainly caused by reference frame differences between
GLONASS coordinates obtained in the two networks: the two regional networks. For the vertical component,
one of the stations in the network shows an offset of
• a regional network consisting of 25 GPS/GLON-
almost 6 mm when GPS-only coordinates are com-
ASS stations (all GPS/GLONASS included in the
pared to GPS + GLONASS coordinates. The cause of
EPN at January 2006)
this difference is not clear presently and will be subject
• a typical regional network of mixed GPS and GPS/
of further study.
GLONASS stations (20 GPS and 8 GPS/GLON-
In the mixed network, which corresponds to the
ASS stations).
reality, all coordinate differences are below the 1 mm
We compared the GPS + GLONASS coordinates level.
obtained from the GPS/GLONASS network using on
one hand the IGS orbits and on the other hand the Acknowledgment The author wishes to thank Dominique
Mesmaker for his help with the figures.
CODE orbits. The CODE orbits are consistent GNSS
orbits, while the IGS computes separately its combined
GPS and its GLONASS orbits. The GPS-only coordi-
References
nates were computed using the IGS final orbits. A first
conclusion is that the GPS + GLONASS-based coor- Adam J, Augath W, Boucher C, Bruyninx C, Caporali A, Gubler
dinates obtained using either IGS or CODE orbits E, Gurtner W, Habrich H, Harsson B, Hornik H, Ihde J,
agree in all three components at the 1-mm level after Kenyeres A, van der Marel H, Seeger H, Simek J, Stangl G,
Torres J, Weber G (2002) Status of the European Reference
applying a 7-parameter Helmert transformation.
Frame—EUREF. In: IAG Symposia 125:42–46
From the two networks processed, we can see that Beutler G, Bock H, Brockmann E, Dach R, Fridez P, Gurtner
adding GLONASS data to the GPS data does not W, Habrich H, Hugentobler U, Ineichen D, Jaeggi A, Me-
significantly change the repeatabilities of any of the indl M, Mervart L, Rothacher M, Schaer S, Schmid R,
Springer T, Steigenberger P, Svehla D, Thaller D, Urschl C,
station coordinates. For some stations, the repeatabil-
Weber R (2006) Bernese GPS software version 5.0 (draft)
ities are slightly better using GPS-only, for others, the eds Urs Hugentobler, R. Dach, P. Fridez, M. Meindl, Univ.
repeatabilities improve when adding GLONASS. Bern, 464 pp
123
106 GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106
Bruyninx C (2004) The EUREF Permanent Network a multi- Urschl C, Beutler G, Gurtner W, Hugentobler U, Schaer S
disciplinary network serving surveyors as well as scientists. (in press) GPS/GLONASS orbit determination based on
GeoInformatics 7:32–35 combined microwave and SLR data analysis. In: Proceed-
Estey LH, Meertens C (1999) TEQC: the multi-purpose toolkit ings of IAG, IAPSO, IABO Joint Conference, Dynamic
for GPS–GLONASS data. GPS Solut 3(1):42–49 Planet 2005, 22–26 August 2005, Cairns, Australia
Gendt G (2006) IGSREPORT-14104: Wk 1383 IGLOS Final Orbits. Weber R, Fragner E (2000) IGEX Analysis. In: IGS 1999
http://www.igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsreport/2006/msg00751.html Technical Reports, pp 273–278
Ineichen D, Springer T, Beutler G (2001) Combined processing
of the IGS and IGEX network. J Geod 75:575–586
123