GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106
DOI 10.1007/s10291-006-0041-9
O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E
Comparing GPS-only with GPS + GLONASS positioning
in a regional permanent GNSS network
Carine Bruyninx
Received: 23 June 2006 / Accepted: 22 August 2006 / Published online: 19 September 2006

Springer-Verlag 2006
Abstract Within the regional EUREF Permanent
Network (EPN) all positioning is purely based on GPS.
This paper investigates, using the Bernese GNSS
analysis software, the influence of adding GLONASS
observations to the EPN processing using fixed orbits
from the International GNSS Service (IGS) as well as
from the CODE analysis centre. The GPS-only coor-
dinates and GPS + GLONASS coordinates will be
compared and the change in their repeatabilities will
be investigated. The influence of the used orbits will
also be outlined. The results show that a combined
GPS + GLONASS data analysis can be set up without
major efforts and that it will not degrade the positions
obtained within the EPN.
Keywords Glonass Æ EPN Æ Positioning
Introduction
The EUREF Permanent Network (EPN) consists of
190 permanent GPS stations from which 29 are also
tracking GLONASS satellites. The primary purpose of
the EPN is to maintain the European Terrestrial Ref-
erence System (ETRS89) and EUREF does this by
making available the tracking data of the EPN stations
and by generating weekly coordinate estimates for all
of them (Adam et al. 2002; Bruyninx 2004). Up to now,
C. Bruyninx (&)
Royal Observatory of Belgium, Av. Circulaire 3,
1180 Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: C.Bruyninx@oma.be
all coordinate estimates have been based on only GPS
data and no GLONASS data is used. However with
• the growing number of commercially available
GPS + GLONASS receivers;
• the recent revitalization of GLONASS (with a
constellation of 18 satellites expected in 2007) and
• the availability of short latency combined IGS or-
bits for GLONASS and consistent GPS + GLON-
ASS CODE orbits
it has become worthwhile to assess the advantages
and disadvantages of adding GLONASS data to the
routine data analysis of the EPN network. For this
investigation, two networks of GNSS stations belong-
ing to the EPN have been analyzed: a first network
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
been estimated using GPS only observations and
GPS + GLONASS observations.
Presently, with a constellation of 29 active GPS
satellites and 13 GLONASS satellites, no significant
improvement can be expected from adding GLONASS
observations to GPS: the number of observations is
increased by a factor of 1.4, resulting in an expected
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
reduction of the formal errors by 1:45 ¼ 1:2: This
assumes that the number of parameters is not changed
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
which one of the two GNSS has an incomplete con-
stellation is a worthwhile exercise when preparing for
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

BISK ASHTECH Z18 ASH701946.2 NONE

Two networks have been analyzed in order to assess BOGI JPS E_GGD ASH701945C_M SNOW
the influence of adding GLONASS data to the GPS- CAGZ JPS E_GGD JPSREGANT_DD_E NONE
only analysis. The first network consists of stations all COMO TPS E_GGD TPSCR3_GGD CONE
equipped with combined GPS + GLONASS equip- GOPE ASHTECH Z18 ASH701946.3 SNOW
HELG JPS LEGACY ASH700936D_M SNOW
ment. It contains the 25 GPS/GLONASS stations in- HERT ASHTECH Z18 ASH701946.2 NONE
cluded in the EPN on January 2006. As can be seen in HOE2 JPS LEGACY TPSCR3_GGD CONE
Fig. 1 (left side) most of the GPS/GLONASS stations JOZ2 ASHTECH Z18 ASH701941.B SNOW
are located in central and northern Europe. The GPS/ KIR0 JPS E_GGD AOAD/M_T OSOD
MAR6 JPS LEGACY AOAD/M_T OSOD
GLONASS equipment used is given in Table 1. MARJ ASHTECH Z18 ASH701946.2 NONE
The second network corresponds to the network ONSA JPS E_GGD AOAD/M_B OSOD
who’s GPS data are routinely analyzed by the Royal POUS TPS GB-1000 TPSCR3_GGD CONE
Observatory of Belgium (ROB) and used to contribute SASS JPS LEGACY TPSCR3_GGD CONE
SKE0 JPS E_GGD AOAD/M_T OSOD
to the weekly coordinate solution of the EPN. The SNEC ASHTECH Z18 ASH701946.2 NONE
network is a mixture of stations, mostly located in and SOFI TPS E_GGD AOAD/M_T NONE
around Belgium, equipped with GPS-only and SPT0 JPS LEGACY AOAD/M_T OSOD
GPS + GLONASS receivers; it is shown on the right VACO ASHTECH Z18 ASH701946.2 NONE
VENE ASHTECH Z18 ASH701941.B NONE
side of Fig. 1. We are using this network in order to VILO JPS LEGACY AOAD/M_T OSOD
investigate whether the GPS-only ROB solution could VISO JPS E_GGD AOAD/M_T OSOD
be replaced by a GPS + GLONASS solution without WARN JPS LEGACY TPSCR3_GGD CONE
altering the station coordinate time series and the WTZR TPS E_GGD AOAD/M_T NONE
ROB contribution to the combined EPN solution.

Data processing
When processing a regional network, such as the two
networks considered, precise a priori orbit information
in needed. The IGS makes separately combined orbits
available for GPS and GLONASS. The GLONASS
orbits are based on the computations from four anal-
ysis centres: BKG, CODE, ESA/ESOC, and IAC
(Weber and Fragner 2000; Gendt 2006). As we can see
in Fig. 2, recently the latency of the combined IGS
GLONASS orbits has been significantly reduced. Since
the analysis centres BKG and ESA use the final IGS
GPS orbits as input for the computation for their
GLONASS orbits, the combined IGS GLONASS or-
bits are mostly available with a delay of a few days with
respect to the final IGS GPS orbits. Following the

Fig. 1 Left GPS/GLONASS

stations belonging to the EPN
on 1 January 2006; right
mixed GPS and GPS/
GLONASS network (GPS/
GLONASS stations are
indicated with station name
label)

123
GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106 99

Fig. 2 Latency of precise IGS orbits and CODE orbits

Products web-page at the IGS Central Bureau, the

accuracy of the final IGS orbits is less than 5 cm for
GPS and less than 15 cm for GLONASS.
The CODE analysis centre is presently the only
analysis centre generating fully consistent GPS
+ GLONASS orbits, meaning that both orbits result
from the same simultaneous processing of GPS and
GLONASS observations. Figure 3 shows that the
GLONASS orbits from CODE agree with the IGS
orbits at the 5 cm level. Following work from Urschl, Fig. 4 GNSS data processing
based on an SLR validation, the CODE orbits have an
accuracy of 2.5 cm for GPS and 5 cm for GLONASS
(Urschl, in press). The IGS and CODE orbits are ex- compute the receiver clocks. This is done using only the
pressed in the IGb00 reference frame, which is the IGS GPS data as no GLONASS satellite clocks are avail-
realization of the ITRF2000. able. Then, baselines are formed between stations with
Neither IGS nor CODE make available GLONASS a maximum number of common dual frequency
satellite clock information. As we will show later, this GPS + GLONASS carrier phase observations. In the
will cause no problem for the data analysis. first test only GPS observations are considered, later
The GPS and GPS + GLONASS data analysis has both GPS and GLONASS observations are used. In
been done using the Bernese 5.0 software (Beutler et al. both cases, identically the same baselines are formed.
2006) following the scheme displayed in Fig. 4. In a first After the creation of the independent baselines, phase
step, the ionospheric free P3 GPS code is analyzed to double differences are created in order to perform

Fig. 3 Agreement of CODE

orbits with IGS GLONASS
orbits (source http://www.gfz-
potsdam.de). The SLR orbits
from MCC (Mission Control
Centre Moscow) do not
contribute to the IGS
combined GLONASS orbits,
but it is only shown as
comparison

123
100
baseline-by-baseline GPS ambiguity resolution using
the QIF (Quasi Ionospheric Free) method (Beutler
et al. 2006) supported by the CODE ionospheric model.
When processing GPS and GLONASS observations,
the double difference GLONASS ambiguities are esti-
mated but no attempt is made to fix them to their
integer value. Since double differences are used, there
is no need for a priori information on the satellite
clocks, which are eliminated by the double differencing.
After fixing the GPS ambiguities to their integer values,
the ionospheric free L3 double differences are formed
and the station coordinates are estimated together with
the troposphere. The troposphere is modelled as piece-
wise linear functions using the dry-Niell a priori
mapping function, and estimating each hour the tro-
posphere using the wet-Niell mapping function.
The GPS-only analysis is preformed using IGS final
orbits/clocks while the GPS + GLONASS analysis is
done using on one hand the final IGS GPS orbits/
clocks and GLONASS orbits (which we merged at the
SP3 level) and on the other hand the fully consistent
GNSS orbits from CODE (Ineichen et al. 2001).
For the first network, the data were analysed from 1
October 2005 to 28 February 2006. The second net-
work was analysed form 5 February until 1 April 2006.
For each day a set of coordinates was determined. The
datum of the coordinates was defined by applying three
translation conditions (minimal constraint) to the EPN
realization of the ITRF2000.
Results
GPS/GLONASS network
When processing the network of 25 GPS/GLONASS
stations, the additional GLONASS satellites increase
the number of observations by 47%. The associated
maximal reduction of the formal errors has a factor of
1.2. However, in our case, the introduction of the
Fig. 5 Estimated coordinates
for the station SNEC
123
GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106
GLONASS data also increases the number of param-
eters to be estimated considerably (by 47%). These
additional parameters are the GLONASS ambiguities.
Consequently no significant improvement in terms of
formal errors can be expected from adding GLONASS
data to GPS.
During the period that we analysed, several of the
GPS/GLONASS stations provided data of degraded
quality. The most striking example is the station SNEC
(Snezka, Czech Republic) whose coordinates wan-
dered away (see Fig. 5), especially in the height com-
ponent, because of a receiver malfunctioning. The
SNEC data have therefore been eliminated starting
from GPS week 1349 at the first symptoms of the
receiver error.
Starting 1 January 2006 the data from the ASH-
TECH Z-18 receivers at JOZ2 (Jozefoslaw, Poland)
and GOPE (Ondrejov, Czech Republic) became
unusable. After the midnight epoch these two receivers
started tracking all GLONASS satellites with a 1-s
delay causing the pseudoranges to be increased by
300,000 km. As a leap second was introduced at this
date, a link to this event was suspected. The other
ASHTECH Z-18 receivers in the EPN behaved nor-
mally. The problem at JOZ2 and GOPE was narrowed
down to the TEQC (GNSS Translating, Editing, and
Quality Checking) software (Estey and Meertens 1999)
used to convert the native data to the RINEX format.
The problem was solved by updating TEQC to its
latest version from 15 December 2005.
The data from the station SOFI (Sofia, Bulgaria)
had to be discarded from the processing because of a
lack of reliable data caused by a malfunction of the
station PC.
As can be seen in Fig. 6, in addition to the problems
mentioned above, the three Italian GPS/GLONASS
stations (CAGZ, COMO and VENE) are missing in
almost 20% of the final solutions. The data of these
stations are regularly missing at all the Data Centers
(without correlation between the missing days from the
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
following graphs, the stations are ordered according to
increasing latitude.
Following the scheme displayed in Fig. 4, daily
coordinates have been estimated for the remaining
stations in the network: first using only GPS data (and
final IGS orbits/clocks), and secondly using GPS as
well as GLONASS data. The last processing was done
once using IGS orbits and once using CODE orbits.
Figure 7 shows no significant differences in the
repeatabilities of the station coordinates depending on
the observations and orbits used. An exception is the
station SNEC with a significant degradation of the Up-
RMS caused by the introduction of GLONASS data.
The inspection of the coordinate time series of
SNEC (Fig. 8) shows that the degradation of the RMS
is the caused by a few outliers in the GPS + GLON-
ASS solution of GPS week 1345.
We have also drawn the coordinates time series of the
nearby station POUS, which, as can be seen in Fig. 9,
shows an offset in its height-component when the GPS-
only results are compared to the GPS + GLONASS
estimates. However, in these coordinate time series, no
special events are noted.
Figure 9 shows that adding GLONASS data to the
GPS-only analysis changes the coordinates up to
2.5 mm in the horizontal components. However, as can
be seen from Fig. 10, these differences are mainly due
to differences in the reference frame. After a Helmert
transformation, the horizontal differences are below
1.5 mm, with a general RMS of 0.4 mm. In the up-
component, the coordinate differences between GPS
and GPS + GLONASS are mostly below 4 mm, but
reach for one station (POUS) up to 6 mm.
The 3D RMS of the coordinate differences is
1.8 mm, which is reduced to 1.4 mm by the Helmert
transformation. In all cases, the GPS + GLONASS-
based coordinates obtained using IGS or CODE orbits,
agree at the 1-mm level.
The origin of the difference between the GPS-only
and GPS + GLONASS estimates for the up-compo-
nents of POUS (6 mm) is unclear.
As a by-product of our analysis tropospheric Zenith
Total Delays (ZTD) are estimated each hour. As can
be seen in Fig. 11, GPS + GLONASS underestimates,
for all stations except POUS (!), the ZTDs compared
to GPS only. It is clear that the station POUS is
showing an atypical response to the introduction of

Fig. 7 Coordinate RMS North

3 3
repeatabilities obtained using
GPS-only, GPS + GLONASS 2 2
[mm]

with IGS orbits,

GPS + GLONASS with 1 1
CODE orbits
0 0
RMS East
3 3
GPS only
2 GPS+GLONASS using IGS orbits 2
[mm]

GPS+GLONASS using CODE orbits

1 1

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

Fig. 8 Coordinate time series

for SNEC (top) and POUS
(bottom) obtained using a
GPS-only and a
GPS + GLONASS analysis
using IGS orbits

GLONASS. Figures 12 and 13 show examples of the
ZTD behavior for the stations VACO and JOZ2.
Results for mixed network
In the network of mixed GPS and GPS/GLONASS
receivers, the introduction of the GLONASS data
increases the amount of used observations by 14%. A
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
are independent of the introduction of the GLONASS
data (GPS/GLONASS stations are: HELG, HERT,
HOE2, KARL, ONSA, SPT0, WARN, WTZR).
In addition, Fig. 15 shows that no significant changes
in the coordinates can be seen. We can therefore con-
clude that, for this specific network, GLONASS data
can be introduced in the data analysis without any
problems. However, to avoid influencing the site
velocities, the introduction of GLONASS should be
done simultaneously with the introduction of the abso-
lute phase centre variations and the switch to ITRF2005.
Conclusion
The goal of this study was to investigate the advanta-
ges/disadvantages of analyzing combined GPS/

123
GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106 103

Fig. 9 Coordinate differences +

between GPS-only
coordinates and coordinates
obtained using
GPS + GLONASS data,
computed respectively with
IGS orbits and with CODE
GPS versus GPS+GLONASS using IGS orbits
GPS versus GPS+GLONASS using CODE orbits
GPS+GLONASS using IGS or CODE orbits
North
3 3
2 2
1 1

[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

Fig. 11 Mean bias between 1,5

ZTDs from GPS and 1
0,5
ZTD [mm]

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

2350 2350 2280

GPS
2300 2300
GPS + GLONASS
2250 2250 2240

[mm ZTD ]
[mm ZTD ]

2200 2200

2150 2150 2200

2100 2100

2050 2050 2160

2005.8 2005.9 2006 2006.1 2005.94 2005.941 2005.942
Epoch Epoch

Fig. 12 Comparison of ZTDs based on GPS-only and on GPS + GLONASS observations

Fig. 13 Top ZTDs from GPS 2500 2500

and GPS + GLONASS; GPS
bottom 2450 GPS + GLONASS 2450
ZTD(GPS + GLONASS) –
[mm ZTD ]

ZTD(GPS) 2400 2400

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

Fig. 14 Coordinate RMS North

6 6
repeatabilities obtained using GPS only
5 5
GPS-only and 4 GPS+GLONASS, with IGS orbits 4
[mm]

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

Fig. 15 Coordinate North

1 GPS versus GPS+GLONASS 1
differences obtained using
GPS-only and 0.5 0.5

[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
Bruyninx C (2004) The EUREF Permanent Network a multi-
disciplinary network serving surveyors as well as scientists.
GeoInformatics 7:32–35
Estey LH, Meertens C (1999) TEQC: the multi-purpose toolkit
for GPS–GLONASS data. GPS Solut 3(1):42–49
Gendt G (2006) IGSREPORT-14104: Wk 1383 IGLOS Final Orbits.
http://www.igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsreport/2006/msg00751.html
Ineichen D, Springer T, Beutler G (2001) Combined processing
of the IGS and IGEX network. J Geod 75:575–586
123
GPS Solut (2007) 11:97–106
Urschl C, Beutler G, Gurtner W, Hugentobler U, Schaer S
(in press) GPS/GLONASS orbit determination based on
combined microwave and SLR data analysis. In: Proceed-
ings of IAG, IAPSO, IABO Joint Conference, Dynamic
Planet 2005, 22–26 August 2005, Cairns, Australia
Weber R, Fragner E (2000) IGEX Analysis. In: IGS 1999
Technical Reports, pp 273–278