Abstract
AbstractPrecise values for absolute receiver antenna phase centre corrections (PCC) are one prerequisite for high-quality GNSS applications. Currently, antenna calibrations are performed by different institutes using a robot in the field or in an anechoic chamber. The differences between the antenna patterns are significant and require a sound comparison concept and a detailed study to quantify the impact on geodetic parameters, such as station coordinates, zenith wet delays (ZWDs) or receiver clock estimates. Furthermore, a discussion on acceptable pattern uncertainties is needed. Therefore, a comparison strategy for receiver antenna calibration values is presented using a set of individually and absolutely calibrated Leica AR25 antennas from the European Permanent Network (EPN), both from the robot (Geo++ company) and from the chamber approach (University of Bonn). Newly developed scalar metrics and their benefits are highlighted and discussed in relation to further structural analysis. With our metrics, properties of 25 patterns pairs (robot/chamber) could be used to successfully assign seven individual groups. The impact of PCC on the estimated parameters depends on the PCC structure, its sampling by the satellite distribution and the applied processing parameters. A regional sub-network of the EPN is analysed using the double difference (DD) and the precise point positioning (PPP) methods. For DD, depending on the antenna category differences in the estimated parameters between 1 and 12 mm are identified also affecting the ZWDs. For PPP, the consistency of the observables, i.e. potential differences in the reference point of carrier phase and code observations, additionally affects the distribution among the different parameters and residuals.
Funder
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Computers in Earth Sciences,Geochemistry and Petrology,Geophysics
Reference68 articles.
1. Aerts W (2011) Comparison of UniBonn and Geo++® calibration for LEIAR25.R3 antenna 09300021. Technical report, Royal Observatory of Belgium
2. Aerts W, Baire Q, Bilich A, Bruyninx C, Legrand J (2013) On the error sources in absolute individual antenna calibrations. In: Geophysical research abstracts volume 15, EGU2013-6113. EGU General Assembly, Vienna. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258776343_On_the_Error_Sources_in_Absolute_Individual_Antenna_Calibrations
3. Araszkiewicz A, Völksen C (2016) The impact of the antenna phase center models on the coordinates in the EUREF permanent network. GPS Solut 21(2):747–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-016-0564-7
4. Baire Q, Bruyninx C, Legrand J, Pottiaux E, Aerts W, Defraigne P, Bergeot N, Chevalier J (2014) Influence of different GPS receiver antenna calibration models on geodetic positioning. GPS Solut 18(4):529–539
5. Becker M, Zeimetz P, Schönemann E (2010) Anechoic chamber calibrations of phase center variations for new and existing GNSS signals and potential impacts in IGS processing. In: IGS workshop 2010 and vertical rates symposium, June 28–July 2. Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom of Great Britain
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献