English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

For the same antenna type, numerical differences among the phase center correction (PCC) models released by different institutes can reach several millimeters, which is far beyond the nominal calibration accuracy. This contribution introduces a new method to evaluate the consistency of these PCC models. We first investigated the coupling of phase center offset (PCO) and phase center variation (PCV) through simulation experiments, and the results show that the calibrated PCO values under different strategies may result in large differences, and so do PCV values due to strong coupling with PCO. This is further confirmed by field calibration experiments. Moreover, a new datum parameter is introduced to equivalently transform the PCC models to assess the consistency of PCC models of the same antenna type calibrated under different strategies or by different facilities. It is also essential to perform consistency analysis of PCC models in the coordinate domain. We further investigated these PCC models through a simulated positioning experiment. The results show that millimeter-level consistency of PCC models will lead to the same level of positioning precision in the coordinate domain. Moreover, as a comparison, both baseline positioning and PPP were performed with an antenna-type JAV_RINGANT_G3T NONE based on real observations. Multiday results showed that the average RMS of the positioning differences between PCC models from robot and anechoic chamber calibration is less than 1 mm for the baseline solution and 4 mm for the PPP solution, although the PCC model differences can reach 6 mm in L1 and 4 mm in L2, respectively. Finally, we also investigated the distribution of position biases without PCC or with inaccurate PCC. Considering the actual GPS constellation, we found that position biases have a strong correlation with latitude, if PCV values fluctuate greatly with the users’ elevation angle.

Consistency Analysis of the GNSS Antenna Phase Center Correction Models