30.08.2013 Views

The GNSS integer ambiguities: estimation and validation

The GNSS integer ambiguities: estimation and validation

The GNSS integer ambiguities: estimation and validation

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>and</strong> difficult to predict. <strong>The</strong>refore, the wet delays are commonly mapped to zenith<br />

tropospheric delay (ZTD) parameters <strong>and</strong> these are then estimated. An overview of<br />

available mapping functions can be found in Kleijer (2004).<br />

For short time spans this ZTD parameter can be considered constant. <strong>The</strong> parameter<br />

vector T consists then of the ZTD parameter of one receiver. <strong>The</strong> mapping function is<br />

denoted as ψ s r. This gives for the partial design matrix related to the ZTD parameter:<br />

e2f ⊗ ψ 1 r · · · ψ m r<br />

T = e2f ⊗ Ψ (2.41)<br />

Note that the a priori tropospheric corrections <strong>and</strong> the ZTD of the reference station q<br />

are added to the approximate observation equations in (2.22).<br />

the ZTD is not estimated if it is assumed that the a priori model can be fully relied on.<br />

This is referred to as the troposphere-fixed approach. If, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, the ZTD is<br />

estimated, this is referred to as the troposphere-float approach.<br />

<strong>The</strong> rank deficiency caused by the phase receiver clocks δt s r <strong>and</strong> the <strong>ambiguities</strong> is solved<br />

by the following transformations:<br />

dtqr =<br />

cdtqr,1 + λ1M 1 qr,1 · · · cdtqr,f + λf M 1 T qr,f<br />

<br />

cδtqr,1 + λ1M 1 qr,1 · · · cδtqr,f + λf M 1 T qr,f<br />

a = N 12<br />

qr,1 · · · N 1m<br />

<br />

qr,1<br />

· · ·<br />

<br />

12 Nqr,f · · · N 1m<br />

T qr,f<br />

<br />

(2.42)<br />

(2.43)<br />

Due to this reparameterization, the single difference <strong>ambiguities</strong> are transformed to<br />

double difference <strong>ambiguities</strong> from which it is known that they are of <strong>integer</strong> nature<br />

since the initial phases in receiver <strong>and</strong> satellite are cancelled out: M ts ts<br />

qr,j = Nqr,j . Note<br />

that the code receiver clock parameters are not transformed.<br />

Finally, a rank deficiency is present due to the inclusion of the ionospheric parameters.<br />

In Odijk (2002) it is described how to set up the so-called ionosphere-weighted model.<br />

<strong>The</strong> approach is to include a vector of ionospheric pseudo-observations, consisting of a<br />

priori estimates, to the vector of observations:<br />

⎛ ⎞<br />

P<br />

y = ⎝Φ⎠<br />

(2.44)<br />

I<br />

If the a priori information is considered exact, the a priori estimates can simply be subtracted<br />

from the observations <strong>and</strong> there are no ionospheric parameters to be estimated.<br />

This is referred to as the ionosphere-fixed model. If the baseline is shorter than 10 km,<br />

it can be assumed that the ionospheric delay on the signal of one satellite to the two<br />

receivers is identical, i.e. I s r = I s q . Also then the ionospheric parameters can be removed<br />

from the single difference model. If, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, the ionospheric behavior must<br />

be considered completely unknown, e.g. when the baseline is very long, the weight of<br />

the ionospheric pseudo-observations is set equal to zero, which is equivalent to setting<br />

the st<strong>and</strong>ard deviation of the pseudo-observations to infinity. This is referred to as the<br />

ionosphere-float model.<br />

<strong>GNSS</strong> functional model 17

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!