Dach, R.

Dilssner, F.

Jäggi, A.

Kuhlmann, H.

Rebischung, P.

Villiger, A.

Zimmermann, F.

English

Bern Open Repository and Information System (BORIS)

A. Villiger1, F. Dilssner2, P. Rebischung3, R. Dach1, F. Zimmermann4,H. Kuhlmann4, A. Jäggi11 Astronomical Institute of the University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland2 European Space Operations Centre (ESOC), Germany3 Institut National de l’Information Géographique et Forestière, Laboratoire LAREG, France 4 Institut für Geodäsie und Geoinformation, Universität BonnContact: arturo.villiger@aiub.unibe.ch10. July 2018, Montreal, CanadaPotential for a GNSS-based Determination of the Terrestrial Scalesource: https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.143223 | downloaded: 13.5.20202Why do we need calibrated antennas?Scale determination3Overview IGS14Current status of antenna calibrations4Overview chamber calibrationsCurrent status of antenna calibrationsUsedforthisstudyReprocessing 3: will include multi-GNSS calibrations from roboter calibrations- In June 2019 GSA released the chamber calibrated PV and PCO for the last 8 Galileo FOC satellites full constellation with calibrated PV and PCOs available!- Galileo shall be included into IGS reprocessing effort for the next ITRF solution:- What about the receiver antenna calibrations?- Are the estimated PCO for GPS and GLONASS compatible with the Galileo PCOs?- If not, how can we address this issue? Can we use Galileo to define a GNSS scale?Motivation6- For the IGS AC Workshop 2019 dedicated test solutions were created to address those issues- Based on:- Chamber calibrated receiver antennas- The final reprocessing will be based mainly on robot calibration provided by Geo++ and extended by chamber calibrations (they were not available at the time of the test solution)- Test solutions:- COD: 2017 / 2018 (GE, G, E)- ESA: 2017 / 2018 (GE, G, E)OverviewDedicated test campaings7• Creation of type-mean antenna pattern from chamber calibrations(more than 250 individual calibrations) 37 type-mean calibrations(covering   ~49% of the IGS network)• Differences between robot and chamber calibrations?• Comparison of satellite PCO and scale determination usingrobot or chamber calibrated ground antennasCase study:• Study on the scale determination using data from 2017-2018• GPS/Galileo solution (COD / ESA)TRF scale contribution from GNSS?Chamber calibrated receiver antennas8Comparison: GPS PV: BONN – Geo++Chamber vs. robot calibrations2mm 3mm5mm5mm2mmG01 G02 GIFG05 EIFPCO IF IGS14 Geo++ BONNGPS 150.96 150.07 150.77GAL 152.05 146.47 148.319ETH Zürich1 IGS14 (L1/L2) BONNJAV_GRANT-G37 NONE 6.7 -1.3JAV_RINGANT_G3T NONE -10.6 +1.2 -7.6SEPCHOKE_B3E6 SPKE -8.0 +4.7TRM57971.00 NONE -2.94 -1.7 -5.2Geo++ IGS14 (L1/L2) BONNLEIAR25.R4 LEIT -3.6 1.09 -2.45IF Galileo - GPS (PCO up [mm])Comparison receiver antenna PCOs1 [Willi et al. 2019, open access, https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000332282]10Based on ESA solutionsConsistency of antenna calibrationsSystematic errors between GPS and Galielo (E1/E5a) only solutions:• Systematic differences for some receivers• Robot calibrations have to be tested and, if needed, to be adjusted!NB: The solutions were differenced after having brought them to a common origin, orientation and scale.Station position differences are thus shown up to an unknown global translation, rotation and scale factor.11Robot calibrations [cm] Chamber calibrations [cm]GPS Galileo GPS GalileoGPS PCO fixed - -0.2 ± 1.8 - +24.7 ± 1.3PCO (system-wise, Z-component)Scale study CODE (2017-2018)GPS GALstation12Robot Calibration [cm] Chamber Calibration [cm]GPS Galileo GPS GalileoGPS PDO fixed - -0.2 ± 1.8 - +24.7 ± 1.3Gal PCO fixed -0.6 ± 2.5 - -22.0 ± 2.1 -PCO (system-wise, Z-component)Scale study (2017-2018)GPS GALstation13Robot Calibration [cm] Chamber Calibration [cm]GPS Galileo GPS GalileoGPS PCO fixed - -0.2 ± 1.8 - +24.7 ± 1.3Gal PCO fixed -0.6 ± 2.5 - -22.0 ± 2.1 -ITRF 2014 fixed +1.4 ± 3.6 +1.9 ± 4.7 -10.9 ± 3.4 +12.7 ± 4.6PCO (system-wise, Z-component)Scale study (2017-2018)GPS GALstation14Impact of IF-PCO valuesScale study (2017-2018)ITRFGPSGAL GPSGALROBOT (E5=L2) CHAMBER (E5)IGS14 ANTEX+ 3.4 mm - 3.9 mmIGS14 BONN, ETHZ, Geo++15Solution IGS14 ANTEX ChamberGPS PCO fixed 2.58 mm -3.00 mmGALILEO PCO fixed 2.09 mm 7.27 mmDifference GAL-GPS +0.49 mm +10.27 mmVLBI SLRITRF 20141 +4.4 mm -4.4 mmScale w.r.t ITRF 2014 – GAL/GPS fixedScale study (2017-2018) Chamber calibrations: scale of +4.7 mm (+7.3 with a priori value 0)1 [Altamimi et al. 2016, J. Geophys. Res.]1 ppb ≅ 6.4𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚16ESA / COD (2017 & 2018)SINEX combination— ESA GE5c solutions— ESA GE7c solutions— CODE GE5c solutions≈ 3.6 cm   ↔   0.28 ppb / 1.8 mmin terresrial scaleFix Galileo satellite z-PCOs; solve for an average correction to igs14.atx GPS satellite z-PCOs17Based on ESA solutionConsistency of antenna calibrationsSystematic errors between GPS and Galielo (E1/E5a) only solutions:• Systematic differences for some receivers• Robot calibrations have to be tested and, if needed, to be adjusted!NB: The solutions were differenced after having brought them to a common origin, orientation and scale.Station position differences are thus shown up to an unknown global translation, rotation and scale factor.18Calibrations:• Reprocessing will be based mainly on robot calibrations• Including E1/E5 calibrations• Chamber calibrations for GalileoSatellite PCO• GPS/GLO PCO (z-component) rescaled to Galileo• Based on SINEX combination from various AC contributionsReceiver PCO• Comparison of GPS and Galileo only solutions• Adjustment of PCO (z-component) if needed for GalileoOutcome / outlook

Potential for a GNSS-based Determination of the Terrestrial Scale

https://boris.unibe.ch/143223/1/AV_IUGG2019.pdf

Potential for a GNSS-based Determination of the Terrestrial Scale

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Bern Open Repository and Information System (BORIS)