Acta Geodaetica et Cartographica Sinica ›› 2017, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (2): 135-143.doi: 10.11947/j.AGCS.2017.20160375

    Next Articles

Estimation of BDS DCB Combining GIM and Different Zero-mean Constraints

YAO Yibin1,2,3, LIU Lei1, KONG Jian4, FENG Xinying1   

  1. 1. School of Geodesy and Geomatics, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China;
    2. Key Laboratory of Geospace Environment and Geodesy, Ministry of Education, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China;
    3. Collaborative Innovation Center for Geospatial Technology, Wuhan 430079, China;
    4. Chinese Antarctic Center of Surveying and Mapping, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China
  • Received:2016-07-29 Revised:2016-11-16 Online:2017-02-20 Published:2017-03-07
  • Supported by:
    The National Key Research and Development Program of China (No.2016YFB0501803),The National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.41574028),Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of Hubei Province of China (No.2015CFA036)

Abstract: As the limited number of the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) satellites and tracking stations currently, it's difficult to attain daily DCBs solution with precisely high accuracy based on BeiDou single system. In order to overcome the weakness above, two different zero-mean constraints for BDS satellites, called constraint one and constraint two, respectively, are used to estimate DCBs of BDS based on BeiDou observations from the multi-GNSS experiment (MGEX) network and global ionosphere maps (GIM) from the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe (CODE). The results show that the systematic difference of the overall trend under two different constraints is consistent, and the systematic difference of DCBC2I-C7I and DCBC2I-C6I is -3.3 ns and 1.2 ns, respectively. The systematic difference between BDS satellite DCBs and receiver DCBs has the same absolute value, but opposite signs instead. Compared to constraint one, The DCBs estimation of IGSO/MEO satellites under constraint two are more stable (the improvement of satellites DCBC2I-C7I and DCBC2I-C6I STD are up to 21%, 13%, respectively), the stability of IGSO and MEO satellites (STDs are within 0.1 ns, 0.2 ns, respectively) is better than that of GEO satellites (STDs are 0.15~0.32 ns). DCB estimation of constraint one is not only consistent with the CAS/DLR products (Bias:-0.4~0.2 ns), but also takes into account the stability of BDS satellites DCB. Under the two different constraints, there is no obvious change in BDS receiver DCBs, meaning that the selection of constraints has no obvious influence on the stability of BDS receivers DCBs. The overall stability of BDS receiver DCBs is better than 1 ns. Due to the accuracy discrepancy of GIM in different latitudes, the stability of BDS receiver DCBs in the middle-high latitude (STDs are within 0.4 ns) is better than that in low latitude region (STDs are 0.8~1 ns).

Key words: differential code bias (DCB), BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS), global Ionosphere maps (GIM), zero-mean constraint

CLC Number: