Evaluation and analysis on positioning performance of BDS/QZSS satellite navigation systems in Asian-Pacific region

By using the observation data and products of precise obit and clock offset from Multi-GNSS Experiment (MGEX) of the International GNSS Service (IGS) and GNSS Research Centre, Curtin University in this paper, the positioning performance of BDS/QZSS satellite navigation system has been analyzed and evaluated in aspects of the quantity of visible satellites, DOP value, multipath effect, signal-to-noise ratio, static PPP and kinematic PPP. The analysis results show that compared to BDS single system when the cutoff angle are 30°and 40°, the DOP value of BDS/QZSS combined system has decreased above 20%, and the quantity of visible satellites increased about 16–30% respectively, because of the improved spatial geometric configuration. The magnitude of satellite multipath effect of BDS system shows the trend of MEO?>?IGSO?>?GEO, which is consistent with that of QZSS satellite system, as the constellation structure of the two systems is similar. The variation tendencies of signal-to-noise ratio with respect to elevation angle of the two systems are almost the same at all frequencies, showing that at the same elevation angle the signal-to-noise ratio of MEO satellites is higher than that of IGSO satellites, as the higher obit is the lower transmitting power is obtained. For having a specially designed obit, the variation of signal-to-noise ratio of BDS system is more stable. However, the magnitude of signal-to-noise ratio of QZSS system appears the trend of frequency 3?>?frequency 2?>?frequency 1. The static PPP performance of the BDS/QZSS combination system has been improved more significantly than the BDS single system in E, N and U directions. When the cutoff angle are at 7°, 15° and 30°, the PPP accuracy is increased about 25–34% in U direction, 10–13% and 23–34% in E and N directions respectively. When the elevation angle is large (40°), compared to BDS single system at lower elevation angles (7° and 15°) the PPP accuracy of the BDS/QZSS combination system is improved above 30% in U direction. In kinematic PPP performance, compared to BDS single system, the accuracy, availability and reliability of the BDS/QZSS combination system has been improved too, especially at large elevation angles (30° and 40°), the kinematic PPP accuracy in E and U directions has been improved about 10–50%, and above 50% in U direction. It can be concluded that the combination with QZSS system can improve the positioning accuracy, reliability and stability of BDS system. In the future, with the improvement of the satellite construction of Japan’s QZSS system and the global networking of China’s BDS satellites, the QZSS satellites will contribute greatly to improve the positioning accuracy, reliability, availability and stability of GNSS systems in areas such as cities, mountains, densely-packed buildings and severely covered areas in Asian-Pacific region.     

Estimation of QZSS differential code biases using QZSS/GPS combined observations from MGEX

As an important error source in Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) positioning and ionospheric modeling, the differential code biases (DCB) need to be estimated accurately, e.g., the regional Quasi-Zenith satellite system (QZSS). In this paper, the DCB of QZSS is estimated by adopting the global ionospheric modeling method based on QZSS/GPS combined observations from Multi-GNSS experiment (MGEX). The performance of QZSS satellite and receiver DCB is analyzed with observations from day of year (DOY) 275–364, 2018. Good agreement between our estimated QZSS satellite DCB and the products from DLR and CAS is obtained. The bias and root mean square (RMS) of DCB are mostly within ±0.3 ns. The day-to-day fluctuation of the DCB time series is less than 0.5 ns with about 96% of the cases for all satellites. However, the receiver DCB is a little less stable than satellite DCB, and their standard deviations (STDs) are within 1.9 ns. The result shows that the stability of the receiver DCBs is not significantly related to the types of receiver or antenna.     

QZSS亚米级增强服务和MSAS增强定位性能评估

日本QZSS亚米级增强服务(SLAS)和多功能卫星增强系统(MSAS)均用于增强单点定位性能，但其服务范围和服务原理不尽相同。为了对这两种增强服务进行增强性能评估，以伪距单点定位结果为基础，比较在日本境内和中国及周边地区使用这两种增强服务增强后的定位结果，分析和评估不同地区两种增强服务的增强性能和适用性。结果表明：在日本境内，SLAS和MSAS均能显著实现定位增强效果，SLAS在水平和高程方向定位精度分别为0.55m和0.9m，提升约51.8%和73.8%；相应地，MSAS定位精度分别为0.69m和0.97m，提升约39.8%和71.8%；表明前者增强效果更好。在中国及周边地区，MSAS增强定位效果更好，但要求离中心服务区越近越好；SLAS也能增强定位效果，但提升效果较小，且当测站离中心服务区超过一定距离时，会出现定位精度负提升的情况。     

Performance assessment of RTPPP positioning with SSR corrections and PPP-AR positioning with FCB for multi-GNSS from MADOCA products

The state-space representation (SSR) product of satellite orbit and clock is one of the most essential corrections for real-time precise point positioning (RTPPP). When it comes to PPP ambiguity resolution (PPP-AR), the fractional cycle bias (FCB) matters. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has developed a multi-GNSS (i.e., global navigation satellite system) advanced demonstration tool for orbit and clock analysis (MADOCA), providing free and precise orbit and clock products. Because of the shortage of relevant studies on performance evaluation, this paper focuses on the performance assessment of RTPPP and PPP-AR by real-time and offline MADOCA products. To begin with, the real-time MADOCA products are evaluated by comparing orbit and clock with JAXA final products, which gives an objective impression of the correction. Second, PPP tests in static and simulated kinematic mode are conducted to further verify the quality of real-time MADOCA products. Finally, the offline MADOCA products are assessed by PPP and PPP-AR comparisons. The results are as follows: (1) Orbit comparisons produced an average error of about 0.04–0.13 m for the global positioning system (GPS), 0.14–0.16 m for the global navigation satellite system (GLONASS), and 0.07–0.08 m for the quasi-zenith satellite system (QZSS). The G15 satellite had the most accurate orbit, with a difference of 0.04 m between the JAXA orbit products and MADOCA’s counterpart, while the R07 satellite had the least accurate orbit with a difference of 0.16 m. Clock products had an accuracy of 0.4–1.3 ns for GPS, 1.4–1.6 ns for GLONASS, and 0.7–0.8 ns for QZSS in general. The G15 satellite had the most accurate clock with a difference of only 0.40 ns between the JAXA clock products and MADOCA products, and the R07 satellite had the least accurate clock with a difference of 1.55 ns. The orbit and clock products for GLONASS performed worse than those of GPS and QZSS. (2) After convergence, the positioning accuracy was 3.0–8.1 cm for static PPP and 8.1–13.7 cm for kinematic PPP when using multi-GNSS observations and precise orbit and clock products. The PFRR station performed the good performance both in static and kinematic mode with an accuracy of 2.99 cm and 8.08 cm, respectively, whereas the CPNM station produced the worst static performance with an error of 8.09 cm, and the ANMG station produced the worst kinematic performance with a counterpart of 13.69 cm. (3) The PPP-AR solution was superior to the PPP solution, given that, with respect to PPP, post-processing PPP-AR improved the positioning accuracy and convergence time by 13–32 % (3–89 %) in GPS-only mode by 2–15 % (5–60 %) in GPS/QZSS mode. Thus, we conclude that the current MADOCA products can provide SSR corrections and FCB products with positioning accuracy at the decimeter or even centimeter level, which could meet the demands of the RTPPP and PPP-AR solutions.