Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep 27;20(19):5536.
doi: 10.3390/s20195536.

Impact of Using GPS L2 Receiver Antenna Corrections for the Galileo E5a Frequency on Position Estimates

Andrzej Araszkiewicz  1 , Damian Kiliszek  1
Affiliations

Impact of Using GPS L2 Receiver Antenna Corrections for the Galileo E5a Frequency on Position Estimates

Andrzej Araszkiewicz et al. Sensors (Basel). .

Abstract

Knowledge of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) antenna phase center variations plays a key role in precise positioning. Proper modeling is achieved by accessing antenna phase center corrections, which are determined in the calibration process. For most receiver antenna types, the International GNSS Service provides such corrections for two GPS and GLONASS carrier signals. In the case of Galileo, access to phase center corrections is difficult; only antennas calibrated in the anechoic chambers have available corrections for Galileo frequencies. Hence, in many of the studies, GPS-dedicated corrections are used for these Galileo frequencies. Differential analysis was conducted in this study to evaluate the impact of such change. In total, 25 stations belonging to the EUREF Permanent Network and equipped with individual calibrated antennas were the subject of this research. The results for both the absolute and relative positioning methods are clear: using GPS L2 corrections for Galileo E5a frequency causes a bias in the estimated height of almost 8 mm. For the horizontal component, a significant difference can be noticed for only one type of antenna.

Keywords: Galileo frequency; coordinates; phase center variations; receiver antenna calibrations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
EPN stations providing the Galileo (GAL) observations between 30 June and 6 July 2019 (GPS week 2060) used in this study. NYA200NOR is outside of the presented area and is not plotted on the map.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Coordinate repeatability of the GPS and Galileo solutions for the DD approach.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Differences in PCC (dPCC) between the E05 and G02 tables. Source: University of Bonn calibrations.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Coordinate differences between the E1 and E2 solutions and their standard deviations. Darker columns refer to the DD approach. Values are presented in Table A1 (Appendix A).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Differences in PCV between the E05 and G02 values for the LEIAR25.R4 LEIT antennas (on the left) and the resulting height differences for the DD approach (E2–E1).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Coordinate differences between solutions E1 and G1 for the DD approach.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Coordinate differences between the E1 and G1 solutions and their standard deviations. Darker columns refer to the DD approach. Values are presented in Table A3.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Coordinate differences between the E2 and G1 solutions and their standard deviations. Darker columns refer to the DD approach. Values are presented in Table A4.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Coordinate differences between the E3 and G2 solutions and their standard deviations. Darker columns refer to the DD approach. Values are presented in Table A5.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Coordinate differences between the G2 and G1 solutions and their standard deviations. Darker columns refer to the DD approach. Values are presented in Table A6.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Dependence between height differences (G2–G1) and time of the calibrations.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kiliszek D., Kroszczynski K. Performance of the Precise Point Positioning method along with the development of GPS, GLONASS and Galileo systems. Measurement. 2020;164:108009. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2020.108009. - DOI
    1. Steigenberger P., Montenbruck O. Galileo status: Orbits, clocks, and positioning. GPS Solut. 2017;21:319–331. doi: 10.1007/s10291-016-0566-5. - DOI
    1. Montenbruck O., Steigenberger P., Prange L., Deng Z., Zhao Q., Perosanz F., Romero I., Noll C., Stürze A., Weber G., et al. The Multi-GNSS Experiment (MGEX) of the International GNSS Service (IGS)—achievements, prospects and challenges. Adv. Space Res. 2017;59:1671–1697. doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2017.01.011. - DOI
    1. Li X., Zhu Y., Zheng K., Yuan Y., Liu G., Xiong Y. Precise Orbit and Clock Products of Galileo, BDS and QZSS from MGEX Since 2018: Comparison and PPP Validation. Remote Sens. 2020;12:1415. doi: 10.3390/rs12091415. - DOI
    1. Prange L., Orliac E., Dach R., Arnold D., Beutler G., Schaer S., Jaggi A. CODE’s five-system orbit and clock solution—the challenges of multi-GNSS data analysis. J. Geod. 2017;91:345–360. doi: 10.1007/s00190-016-0968-8. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources