Author Contributions
Conceptualization, W.J. and W.Z.; methodology, W.Z., X.L. and Q.C.; software, W.Z., H.C. and X.L.; validation, W.Z., X.L. and X.A.; formal analysis, W.Z.; investigation, W.Z.; resources, X.L.; data curation, X.L.; writing—original draft preparation, W.Z.; writing—review and editing, W.J. and H.C.; visualization, X.L. and X.A.; supervision, W.J.; project administration, Q.C.
Figure 1.
The fractional parts of WL and NL DD ambiguities for GEO and non-GEO satellites at zero-baseline ZIM2-ZIM3.
Figure 1.
The fractional parts of WL and NL DD ambiguities for GEO and non-GEO satellites at zero-baseline ZIM2-ZIM3.
Figure 2.
The fractional parts of WL and NL DD ambiguities for GEO and non-GEO Satellites at zero-baseline CUCC-CUTC.
Figure 2.
The fractional parts of WL and NL DD ambiguities for GEO and non-GEO Satellites at zero-baseline CUCC-CUTC.
Figure 3.
The M-W variation of C01, C02 at XMIS, on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 3.
The M-W variation of C01, C02 at XMIS, on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 4.
The M-W variation of C06 at XMIS, on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 4.
The M-W variation of C06 at XMIS, on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 5.
The M-W variation of C11 at XMIS, on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 5.
The M-W variation of C11 at XMIS, on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 6.
The corrected M-W variation of C06 at XMIS, on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 6.
The corrected M-W variation of C06 at XMIS, on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 7.
The corrected M-W variation of C11 at XMIS, on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 7.
The corrected M-W variation of C11 at XMIS, on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 8.
Distribution of MGEX network stations to calculate BDS FCB. The green stars represent the station selected to evaluate the accuracy.
Figure 8.
Distribution of MGEX network stations to calculate BDS FCB. The green stars represent the station selected to evaluate the accuracy.
Figure 9.
The variation of BDS WL FCB by the traditional strategy from DOY 061 to 090, 2018.
Figure 9.
The variation of BDS WL FCB by the traditional strategy from DOY 061 to 090, 2018.
Figure 10.
The variation of BDS WL FCB by the new strategy from DOY 061 to 090, 2018.
Figure 10.
The variation of BDS WL FCB by the new strategy from DOY 061 to 090, 2018.
Figure 11.
The distribution of BDS WL fractional parts after removal of FCBs estimated by the traditional strategy for 103 MGEX stations during DOY 061-090, 2018.
Figure 11.
The distribution of BDS WL fractional parts after removal of FCBs estimated by the traditional strategy for 103 MGEX stations during DOY 061-090, 2018.
Figure 12.
The distribution of BDS WL fractional parts after removal of FCBs estimated by the new strategy for 103 MGEX stations during DOY 061-090, 2018.
Figure 12.
The distribution of BDS WL fractional parts after removal of FCBs estimated by the new strategy for 103 MGEX stations during DOY 061-090, 2018.
Figure 13.
The variation of BDS NL FCB by the traditional strategy on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 13.
The variation of BDS NL FCB by the traditional strategy on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 14.
The variation of BDS NL FCB by the new strategy on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 14.
The variation of BDS NL FCB by the new strategy on DOY 083, 2018.
Figure 15.
The distribution of BDS NL fractional parts after removal of FCBs estimated by the traditional strategy for 103 MGEX stations during DOY 061-090, 2018.
Figure 15.
The distribution of BDS NL fractional parts after removal of FCBs estimated by the traditional strategy for 103 MGEX stations during DOY 061-090, 2018.
Figure 16.
The distribution of BDS NL fractional parts after removal of FCBs estimated by the new strategy for 103 MGEX stations during DOY 061-090, 2018.
Figure 16.
The distribution of BDS NL fractional parts after removal of FCBs estimated by the new strategy for 103 MGEX stations during DOY 061-090, 2018.
Figure 17.
The skyplot of station: (a) KAT1; (b) XMIS.
Figure 17.
The skyplot of station: (a) KAT1; (b) XMIS.
Figure 18.
The results of BDS static PPP AR at KAT1, on DOY 083 of 2018.
Figure 18.
The results of BDS static PPP AR at KAT1, on DOY 083 of 2018.
Figure 19.
The results of BDS static PPP AR at XMIS, DOY 083 of 2018.
Figure 19.
The results of BDS static PPP AR at XMIS, DOY 083 of 2018.
Figure 20.
Average convergence time of float and fixed solutions, and TTFFs of 10 selected stations in static PPP processing from DOY 061 to 090, 2018.
Figure 20.
Average convergence time of float and fixed solutions, and TTFFs of 10 selected stations in static PPP processing from DOY 061 to 090, 2018.
Figure 21.
The results of BDS kinematic PPP AR at KAT1, on DOY 083 of 2018.
Figure 21.
The results of BDS kinematic PPP AR at KAT1, on DOY 083 of 2018.
Figure 22.
The results of BDS kinematic PPP AR at XMIS, DOY 083 of 2018.
Figure 22.
The results of BDS kinematic PPP AR at XMIS, DOY 083 of 2018.
Figure 23.
Average convergence time of float and fixed solutions, and TTFFs of 10 selected stations in kinematic PPP processing from DOY 061 to 090, 2018.
Figure 23.
Average convergence time of float and fixed solutions, and TTFFs of 10 selected stations in kinematic PPP processing from DOY 061 to 090, 2018.
Table 1.
Receiver information of ZIM2 and ZIM3 on DOY 150, 2015.
Table 1.
Receiver information of ZIM2 and ZIM3 on DOY 150, 2015.
Station | Receiver Type | Version |
---|
ZIM2 | TRIMBLE NETR9 | 4.85 |
ZIM3 | TRIMBLE NETR9 | 4.93 |
Table 2.
Receiver information of CUCC and CUTC on DOY 151, 2018.
Table 2.
Receiver information of CUCC and CUTC on DOY 151, 2018.
Station | Receiver Type | Version |
---|
CUCC | JAVAD TRE_G3T DELTA | 3.73 |
CUTC | TRIMBLE NETR9 | 5.30 |
Table 3.
Frequency 1 with half-cycle jump (Unit: cycle).
Table 3.
Frequency 1 with half-cycle jump (Unit: cycle).
| | | | | |
---|
0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 or 1 | | |
−0.5 | 0 | −0.5 | 0 or −1 | | |
Table 4.
Frequency 1 and 2 all with half-cycle jump (Unit: cycle).
Table 4.
Frequency 1 and 2 all with half-cycle jump (Unit: cycle).
| | | | | |
---|
0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | | 0.5 |
0.5 | −0.5 | 1 | 1 | | 0.5 |
−0.5 | 0.5 | −1 | −1 | | −0.5 |
−0.5 | −0.5 | 0 | 0 | | −0.5 |
Table 5.
The average accuracy of BDS static PPP for 10 stations (Unit: cm).
Table 5.
The average accuracy of BDS static PPP for 10 stations (Unit: cm).
Direction | Fix | Float | Accuracy Improvement (%) |
---|
E | 1.79 | 2.15 | 16.7 |
N | 0.97 | 1.26 | 23.0 |
U | 5.81 | 6.23 | 6.7 |
Table 6.
The average accuracy of BDS kinematic PPP for 10 stations (Unit: cm).
Table 6.
The average accuracy of BDS kinematic PPP for 10 stations (Unit: cm).
Direction | Fix | Float | Accuracy Improvement (%) |
---|
E | 4.80 | 5.86 | 18.1 |
N | 3.13 | 3.97 | 21.2 |
U | 12.17 | 13.21 | 7.9 |