The GNSS integer ambiguities: estimation and validation
The GNSS integer ambiguities: estimation and validation
The GNSS integer ambiguities: estimation and validation
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