See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263059587

Coordinate estimation accuracy of static precise point positioning using

on-line PPP service, a case study

Article  in  Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica · March 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s40328-013-0038-0

CITATIONS READS

15 544

2 authors:

Karol Dawidowicz Grzegorz Krzan

University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn
22 PUBLICATIONS   61 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   39 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Karol Dawidowicz on 18 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55
DOI 10.1007/s40328-013-0038-0

Coordinate estimation accuracy of static precise point

positioning using on-line PPP service, a case study

K. Dawidowicz · G. Krzan

Received: 3 September 2013 / Accepted: 14 December 2013 / Published online: 9 January 2014
© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Abstract Precise Point Positioning (PPP) is a combination of the original absolute posi-
tioning concept and differential positioning techniques. In PPP we use observation data
from a single receiver and additional information of GNSS biases and errors derived from
permanent networks. Since PPP was developed based only on GPS observations, the accu-
racy, availability and reliability of positioning is quite dependent on the number of visible
satellites. One possible way to increase the availability of satellites is to integrate GPS and
GLONASS observations. Nowadays such integration in PPP is available.
The PPP technique has an essential advantage over differential methods. The user needs
only a single receiver to obtain accurate position. Unfortunately, current commercial soft-
ware does not provide processing of measurements taken using the PPP technique. This
requires using scientific software or one of several on-line PPP services.
This paper presents an analysis of the position determination accuracy in PPP mode. We
processed 6 consecutive days of GPS+GLONASS data using the on-line PPP-CSRS service
to determine how the accuracy of derived three-dimensional positional coordinates depends
on the length of the observing session, the characteristics of horizon visibility on points and
the observations used in post-processing (GPS or GPS+GLONAS, L1 or L1+L2).
The PPP-CSRS results show that horizontal accuracies of about 5 cm and vertical accu-
racies of 10 cm are achievable provided 0.5 hours of open sky, low multipath dual frequency
GPS-only data. The accuracies clearly decrease for points measured under conditions of
limited availability of satellites. Unexpectedly, adding GLONASS observations generally
does not improve the results in this case.

Keywords PPP · CSRS · GPS · GLONASS · Static measurements accuracy

1 Introduction

The Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) generally provides two techniques: abso-
lute or differential (relative) positioning. Classical absolute positioning does not provide

B
K. Dawidowicz ( ) · G. Krzan
University of Warmia and Mazury, Oczapowskiego 1, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
e-mail: karol.dawidowicz@uwm.edu.pl
38 Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55

the accuracy required for surveying tasks. Highly accurate results can be obtained using
Differential GNSS (DGNSS). At least two simultaneously operating receivers are required
for differential positioning (Hofmann-Wellenhof et al. 2008; Parkinson and Spilker 1996;
Seeber 2003).
Currently, in many countries differential techniques are also supported by well-developed
reference station infrastructure (Dawidowicz 2013; Snay and Soler 2008; Nejat and Kiamehr
2013). Due to the high costs of establishing and maintaining a network of permanent sta-
tions, as well as the fact that highly precise satellite orbits, clock corrections or atmospheric
products are made available by such centers as the International GNSS Service (IGS), the
Center for Orbit Determination for Europe (CODE) or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL),
many research programs studying the Precise Point Positioning (PPP) technique have been
undertaken in recent years (Alcay et al. 2012a, 2012b; Rizos et al. 2012).
PPP, which is a relatively new category is a combination of the absolute positioning con-
cept and differential positioning techniques. It is based on the processing of observations
from a single GNSS receiver and employs a number of corrections (Kouba and Héroux 2001;
Rizos et al. 2012; Zumberge et al. 1997). In PPP, observations from a base station are not
used and the absence of differentiation of observations necessitates using precise satellite
orbits and clock corrections in the post-processing as well as modeling iono- and tropo-
spheric refractions, solid earth and ocean tides, antenna phase-center offsets and variations,
carrier-phase wind-up, relativistic effects, etc. (Rizos et al. 2012). To determine these fac-
tors, continuous satellite observations or laboratory tests are needed.
The mathematical model of static or kinematic PPP is widely described in the literature,
i.e.: Choy 2011; Cai and Gao 2007; Elsobeiey and El-Rabbany 2011; Gao et al. 2005. The
observational equations for code (1) and phase (2) measurements are:

P = ρ + cdtr + cdtb + trp + ion + ε (1)

Φ = ρ + cdtr + cdtb + λN + trp − ion + ε (2)

where P is the pseudo-range between satellite and receiver, Φ is the difference between
the phases of signals in the moment t , ρ is the geometric distance between satellite and
receiver, c is the speed of light, dtr is the difference between time of signal transmission
and signal reception, dtb is the difference between satellite and receiver clock biases, trp
is the tropospheric delay, ion is the ionospheric delay, λ is the wavelength, N is the phase
ambiguity and ε means other errors.
In PPP, the symbol ε includes many more bases and errors than in DGNSS. The complete
comparison of the corrections that need to be applied in PPP and DGNSS is presented in
Table 1 (Rizos et al. 2012).
Orbital errors in the PPP are reduced using precise orbits.
Because the GNSS satellite clocks are difficult to model, appropriate corrections have to
be applied. This data can be obtained, for example, from the IGS (Gao and Kongzhe 2004;
Kouba and Héroux 2001).
The most common method to eliminate first-order, ionospheric error is to use a combi-
nation of dual frequency observations (Cai and Gao 2007; Elsobeiey and El-Rabbany 2011;
Moreno et al. 2011).
Single frequency PPP is one of the most challenging research topics. The effect of
the ionosphere remains the dominant error source for GNSS data processing on a single
frequency. The difference between single frequency and dual frequency processing is the
method in which the ionospheric delay can be mitigated.
Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55 39

Table 1 Correction comparison in PPP and DGNSS

Group of correction Correction type PPP DGNSS

√
Satellite specific errors Precise satellite clock corrections –
√ √
Satellite antenna phase centre offset and variations
√ √
Precise satellite orbits /–
√
Relativity term –
√
Satellite antenna phase wind-up error –
√ √
Receiver specific errors Receiver antenna phase centre offset and variations
√
Receiver antenna phase wind-up –
√
Geophysical models Solid earth tide displacements –
√
Ocean loading –
√
Polar tides –
√
Plate tectonic motion –
√ √
Atmospheric modelling Tropospheric delay
√
Ionospheric delay (L1 only) –

When we use a two-frequency receiver, an ionosphere-free linear combination for code

(3) and phase (4) measurements can be created:

R1 f12 − R2 f22
PIF = = ρ + cdtr + trp (3)
f12 − f22

λ1 Φ1 f12 − λ2 Φ2 f22 λ1 N1 f12 − λ2 N2 f22

ΦIF = = ρ + cdtr +  trp + (4)
f12 − f22 f12 − f22
The ionosphere-free linear combination makes it possible to completely eliminate the first
order ionosphere delay. The effect of the ionosphere, if a measurement is performed at one
frequency, can be reduced by two methods. The first is the creation of a linear combination
of code and phase measurements:
1
ΦIF = 0.5 · P1 + 0.5 · Φ1 = ρ + cdtr + trp + λ1 N1 + ε (5)
2
which eliminates the ionospheric delay and reduces the noise of code observations by half.
The ionospheric delays can be also determined from ionospheric maps, e.g. Global Iono-
sphere Maps (GIM) developed by IGS. Generally, the positioning estimates using single
frequency PPP are expected to be less accurate, typically in the height solution due to the
ionospheric range delay.
The total tropospheric delay is expressed as the sum of the hydrostatic and wet compo-
nents. The hydrostatic component can be computed using empirical models (e.g. Saastamio-
nen, Hopfield, etc.). The wet part of the troposphere (approximately 2–10 % of the total) is
difficult to model, thus is taken as an additional unknown (Gao 2006; Hadaś et al. 2013;
Wielgosz et al. 2011).
The estimation of un-differenced ambiguities in PPP is generally carried out using an
on-the fly approach in the standalone mode. The non-zero initial phase bias as a result of
the un-synchronization of the satellite-transmitted and receiver-generated signals causes that
the ambiguities are real numbers and a long time is thus needed for their reliable estimation
(Gao 2006; Ge et al. 2008; Geng et al. 2010).
40 Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55

Additional biases and errors that have to be estimated in the PPP include:
– the Sagnac effect caused by the Earth’s rotation during the transmission of the signal,
– phase wind up, due to the relative motion and rotation of the satellite and receiver,
– relativity error, which is a function of the satellite motion and the Earth’s gravity,
– inter-frequency bias, appears when using a single frequency.
PPP was developed based on only GPS observations. The accuracy, availability and re-
liability of positioning are, however, quite dependent on the number of visible satellites.
In environments of urban canyons, nearby buildings and trees, the number of visible GPS
satellites is often insufficient for accurate position determination. Even if there are sufficient
GPS satellites available, the PPP accuracy and reliability may still be insufficient due to
poor satellite geometry. One possible way to increase the availability, reliability and accu-
racy is to integrate GPS and GLONASS observations. Nowadays, such integration in PPP is
available.
Since the International GLONASS Experiment (IGEX-98) and the GLONASS Service
Pilot Project (IGLOS) conducted in 1998 and 2000, respectively (Weber et al. 2005), the
precise GLONASS orbit and clock data have become available. Currently, four IGS anal-
ysis centers are routinely providing GLONASS precise orbit products with an accuracy
level of about 10–15 cm. They are the Center of Orbit Determination in Europe (CODE),
Information—Analytical Center (IAC), European Space Operations Center (ESOC) and
Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie (BKG). Two data analysis centers (IAC and
ESOC) provide post-mission GLONASS satellite clock data with an accuracy level of about
1.5 ns (Oleynik et al. 2006; Rizos et al. 2012). This provides opportunities to use GLONASS
observations to improve precise point positioning accuracy. Although the GPS/GLONASS
observations processing creates some additional difficulties, e.g. a system time difference
unknown parameter should be introduced for observation processing. A receiver clock error
can be described as:
dt = t − tsys (6)
where tsys denotes either GPS system time (tGPS ) for GPS observations or GLONASS sys-
tem time (tGLONASS ) for GLONASS observations. Since the receiver clock error is related to
a system time, the combined GPS and GLONASS processing includes two receiver clock
offset unknown parameters, one for the receiver clock offset with respect to the GPS time
and one for the receiver clock offset with respect to the GLONASS time. Additionally, in
GPS/GLONASS observations processing, ambiguity parameters equal to the number of ob-
served GPS and GLONASS satellites. The problem of combined GPS/GLONASS process-
ing was described in detail, for example, in: Alcay et al. (2012a, 2012b), Bruyninx (2007),
Dodson et al. (1999), Cai and Gao (2007).
The main focus of this study was an investigation on the coordinates estimation accuracy
of static Precise Point Positioning using on-line PPP services. Seven days GNSS obser-
vations were made at 3 points with different characteristics of horizon visibility. Recently
several PPP software packages have been developed by different research centers and it has
been proven that centimeter-level point positioning is achievable in post-processed, static
dual-frequency mode (e.g. Choy 2011; Gao and Kongzhe 2004; Zumberge et al. 1997).
It was found (Ebner and Featherstone 2008) that post-processed PPP offers very compa-
rable accuracies to the DGNSS technique. Comparing free PPP post-processing services
results from 1-hour and longer observations with coordinates derived from a Bernese soft-
ware (Grinter and Janssen 2012) it was proven that we can obtain solutions not significantly
differing.
Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55 41

In our study, we shortened the minimum time of observation to 30 min. Shortening the
observation time hinders the resolution of integer ambiguities and also provides less data for
estimating the parameters associated with tropospheric refraction. Additionally, we analyze
accuracy depending on satellites visibility on points—two receivers collected observations
under conditions of limited satellite availability. Comparison also include the analysis of re-
sult differences between GPS only and combined GPS/GLONASS observations processing
as well as the analysis of the position determination accuracy using one and two measure-
ment frequencies.
For processing, the Canadian Spatial Reference System—Precise Point Positioning
(CSRS-PPP) service was chosen.

2 Research area

Web-based PPP services are a practical alternative for software used for the post-processing
of satellite observations by a user. Additionally, since current commercial software pack-
ages do not provide the processing of measurements done using PPP, it is necessary to use
scientific software or one of several online services. These services differ in processing al-
gorithms, the origin of the error models used as well as the form of making the processing
results available. The most popular PPP services are briefly described below.
APPS provided by JPL California Institute of Technology (https://apps.gdgps.net/),
which uses models of orbits and clock errors from its own system. The service allows users
to perform the post-processing of static and kinematic observations at two frequencies; ob-
servations from the GLONASS system are not used in post-processing.
CSRS-PPP provided by Natural Resources Canada (http://www.geod.nrcan.gc.ca/),
which uses models of orbits and clock errors developed by the IGS services. CSRS-PPP
allows post-processing static and kinematic observations and uses observations from the
GPS and GLONASS systems.
Examples of other systems include: GAPS (http://gaps.gge.unb.ca/indexv2.php),
AUSPOS—Online GPS Processing Service (http://ga.gov.au/bin/gps.pl), Trimble Center-
Point RTX (http://trimblertx.com/).
For our analysis the Canadian Spatial Reference System—Precise Point Positioning
(CSRS-PPP) service was chosen. We chose the CSRS-PPP service due to the fact that ob-
servations files can be uploaded from the website or through the PPP Direct software. Addi-
tionally CSRS-PPP is one of the few services which allows L1-only data processing. After
post-processing, the user receives not only the coordinates and their sigmas in the ITRF2008
or NAD83 system, but also diagrams of the visibility of satellites, the temporal convergence
of coordinates, the estimated tropospheric delay and clock offset as well as detailed obser-
vational data from each measurement epoch, etc. Additionally, as was mentioned earlier,
CSRS-PPP allows post-processing observations from the GPS and GLONASS system.
Seven days of static measurements from three GNSS stations are used in this report
to evaluate the accuracy of position determination in PPP-CSRS services. As a point A,
the ASG-EUPOS reference station KROL in Olsztyn was adopted, assuming that this is
the point with optimal observing conditions without any obstructions. Points B and C are
marked in an urban area, where trees or buildings limit the number of observed satellites
and increase the risk of multipath (Table 2).
Measurements were carried out for seven days (from 20 to 26 November 2012) using
GPS/GLONASS receivers. The sessions started and ended at 17:00, thus we finally obtained
six 24-hour measurement data. The GNSS parameters we adopted for measurement sessions
42 Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55

Table 2 Test points

Point name A B C

Localization

Receiver type JAVAD TRE_G3TH SIGMA TOPCON HiperPRO TOPCON HiperPRO

Antenna type JAV_GRANT-G3T JAVC TPSHIPER_PLUS TPSHIPER_PLUS

Table 3 Observations variants sent to GNSS services

Observations combinations variant

I II III IV
GPS/GLONASS GPS/GLONASS GPS GPS
L1+L2 L1 L1+L2 L1

included: the minimum height of satellites above the horizon 10◦ (point B and C; for point
A as for all the ASG-EUPOS stations the 0◦ degrees elevation cutoff angle is adopted),
measurement interval 1 s. Using two frequency GPS/GLONASS receivers allowed us to
divide the observations into 4 variants depending on the observed signals: observations at
frequencies L1 and L1+L2 and using signals from the GPS and GPS/GLONASS systems
(Table 3).
The 24-hour data were also subdivided into 6 time variants (0.5 h, 1 h, 2 h, 3 h, 4 h
and 6 h) using TEQC software and own scripts, written in C # language. This resulted in
288 half-hour, 144 hour, 72 two-hour, 48 three-hour, 36 four-hour and 24 six-hour sessions
for each measurement point.
Prepared in this way, the observations were sent to the CSRS-PPP service. Post-
processing was performed using the most precise IGS final orbit and satellite clock cor-
rections (http://www.geod.nrcan.gc.ca). Table 4 contains the most important NRCan PPP
software processing options and parameters.
Some characteristics of selected to measurements points are presented below. Figure 1
presents the visibility of the horizon from points A, B and C.
As a consequence, satellites visibility (Fig. 2) and PDOP coefficient (Fig. 3) noticeably
differ on measured points during the same time.
Analyzing Fig. 2 it is visible that the number of the satellites observed at point A is up to
three times larger than at point C for the same measurement epoch. The average number of
satellites observed at points A, B and C was 8, 7, 6 for variant GPS only and 16, 13, 12 for
variant GPS/GLONASS, respectively.
The effect of terrain obstacles on the PDOP coefficient can be seen in Fig. 3. The worst
situation, as expected, occurred at point C, where in some periods the PDOP coefficient
exceeded 10. The PDOP values clearly improve by adding GLONASS observations. In the
Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55 43

Table 4 NRCan PPP software processing options and parameters

Option L1 L1&L2

User Selected
User dynamics Static or Kinematic Static or Kinematic
Reference frame ITRF or NAD83(CSRS) ITRF or NAD83(CSRS)
From RINEX Header
Frequency observed as defined by the RINEX RECORD ‘# / TYPES OF OBSERV’
Marker to ARP distance as defined by the RINEX RECORD ‘ANTENNA: DELTA H/E/N’
Type of Antenna as defined by the RINEX RECORD ‘ANT # / TYPE’
Preset by application
Observation processed Code Code and Phase
Satellite orbits Precise Precise
Satellite clocks 5-minute(∗ ) 5-minute(∗ )
Ionospheric model IONEX L1 and L2
Marker coordinates Estimated Estimated
Tropospheric delay Modeled Estimated
Clock interpolation Yes Yes
Parameter smoothing No Yes if kinematic
Coordinate system Ellipsoidal Ellipsoidal
Pseudorange A-PRIORI sigma 2.000 m 2.000 m
Carrier phase A-PRIORI sigma 0.100 m 0.010 m
Cutoff elevation 10.000 deg 10.000 deg

Fig. 1 Obstacles on the measured points: (a) A point, (b) B point, (c) C point

worst cases, the PDOP did not exceed 6. It is the minimum appropriate for making sur-
veys. On the other hands measurements when PDOP value is larger than 6 (Fig. 3a) are not
recommended for any precise positioning.

3 Analysis of the results

To assess the obtainable coordinates estimation accuracy based on combined GPS and
GLONASS single receiver observations, computations in CSRS-PPP service were con-
ducted and the obtained results are presented in this section. The following figures and
44 Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55

Fig. 2 Satellites visibility on measured points: (a) GPS only, (b) GPS+GLONASS

Fig. 3 PDOP coefficient on measured points: (a) GPS only, (b) GPS+GLONASS

tables are presented to provide some insight into the accuracy of the estimated solutions
from different processing variants.
Figures 4–9 present the distribution of differences between estimated positions of the
“unknown” points and their corresponding “true” position. The average position from the
six 24-h L1+L2 sessions was adopted as the ‘true’ position. All solution variants were
respectively grouped and presented below.
In Figs. 4–9 the offsets from 24-hour means are presented. It is visible that the largest
differences occurred for short sessions and, as expected, for variants using only the L1 fre-
quency (code-only observations processed). In comparing corresponding figures it is visible
that the largest offsets for Up component occurred. It is also shown, especially for short
sessions, that the values of offsets increases for points where observations were done un-
Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55 45

Fig. 4 Offsets between estimated positions and “true” position for NORTH L1 variants: (a) 0.5 h session,
(b) 1.0 h session, (c) 2.0 h session, (d) 3.0 h session, (e) 4.0 h session, (f) 6.0 h session
46 Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55

Fig. 5 Offsets between estimated positions and “true” position for NORTH L1+L2 variants: (a) 0.5 h ses-
sion, (b) 1.0 h session, (c) 2.0 h session, (d) 3.0 h session, (e) 4.0 h session, (f) 6.0 h session
Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55 47

Fig. 6 Offsets between estimated positions and “true” position for EAST L1 variants: (a) 0.5 h session,
(b) 1.0 h session, (c) 2.0 h session, (d) 3.0 h session, (e) 4.0 h session, (f) 6.0 h session
48 Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55

Fig. 7 Offsets between estimated positions and “true” position for EAST L1+L2 variants: (a) 0.5 h session,
(b) 1.0 h session, (c) 2.0 h session, (d) 3.0 h session, (e) 4.0 h session, (f) 6.0 h session
Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55 49

Fig. 8 Offsets between estimated positions and “true” position for UP L1 variants: (a) 0.5 h session,
(b) 1.0 h session, (c) 2.0 h session, (d) 3.0 h session, (e) 4.0 h session, (f) 6.0 h session
50 Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55

Fig. 9 Offsets between estimated positions and “true” position for UP L1+L2 variants: (a) 0.5 h session,
(b) 1.0 h session, (c) 2.0 h session, (d) 3.0 h session, (e) 4.0 h session, (f) 6.0 h session
Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55 51

Fig. 10 RMS positioning statistics for the GPS/GLONASS L1+L2 processing variant

Fig. 11 RMS positioning statistics for the GPS/GLONASS L1 processing variant

der conditions of limited satellite availability. Additionally two interesting trends can be
observed. For all L1 variants, some systematic behaviour is visible. Generally offsets are ar-
ranged similar to a sine line with a period of about 12 hours which coincides approximately
with the GPS and GLONASS satellites constellations repeatability (11 hours 58 minutes
and 11 hours 15 minutes respectively). In the author’s opinion, the problem is very inter-
esting and is worth further study. For L1+L2 variants, especially for results obtained using
short sessions made at point C, it is visible that in the middle period of observation some
larger offsets occurred. As can be seen in Fig. 3 during this time, the worse measurement
conditions occurred—the PDOP coefficient was the largest.
Generally, processing two hours or longer sessions using the CSRS-PPP service (L1+L2
processing variants) guarantees that offsets will be below 0.2 m. For point A with the best
measurement conditions, even 0.5 hour sessions were sufficient to keep this condition. Even
a six hour L1 observation does not guarantee differences being less than 0.5 m.
Figures 10, 11, 12 and 13 show the north, east and up RMS errors as a function of session
duration and observing conditions at the point. The positioning RMS errors are calculated
from the differences between the ‘true’ coordinates with the estimated values.
In analyzing the results presented in Figs. 10, 11, 12 and 13, it is clear that both the
length of the sessions and observation conditions significantly affect the position determi-
nation accuracy. Point C is characterized by the largest RMS errors. The impact of obstacles
is especially visible in the case of processing short L1+L2 observation sessions (0.5 and
52 Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55

Fig. 12 RMS positioning statistics for the GPS L1+L2 processing variant

Fig. 13 RMS positioning statistics for the GPS L1 processing variant

1.0 hours). For longer sessions, RMS differences between the selected measurements points
was clearly reduced. Processing two frequency observations gave a similar accuracy for
North, East and Up coordinates.
Code-only PPP results are characterized by very low accuracy. This is especially visible
for the Up component. The North and East coordinates clearly have been estimated more
precisely. Single frequency PPP’s low-accuracy results from used to processing observations
type as well as from the method of atmospheric error reduction (Table 4).
In Tables 5 and 6, the mean 3D positioning error is presented. The results obtained us-
ing GPS and GPS/GLONASS observations were compared. Additionally, those variants for
which an improvement of the accuracy was achieved were marked in bold.
In analyzing the results presented in Tables 5 and 6, it can be seen that signif-
icant improvement of the positioning accuracy, comparing GPS-only and combined
GPS/GLONASS observations processing results, were found only for the selected L1+L2
solutions, i.e. for all the 0.5 and 1.0 hour sessions. It is difficult to say why not for all. Pos-
sibly this can be due to the lower accuracy of GLONASS corrections that have to be applied
in post-processing. For example GLONASS precise orbits are at 10–15 cm and clock data at
the 1.5 ns level of accuracy. For GPS these values are respectively: less than 5 cm for precise
orbits and 0.1 ns for clock data. When code-only variants were compared no improvements
were found. Studies show (Wanninger and Wallstab-Freitag 2007) that difference lies in
the code observation quality, i.e. the GLONASS code observables have lower quality as
compared to GPS. These problems are very interesting and are worthy of further study.
Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55 53

Table 5 Mean 3D positioning error for L1+L2 variants

Session duration [h] Mean 3D positioning error [m]

Point A Point B Point C
GPS GPS+GLONASS GPS GPS+GLONASS GPS GPS+GLONASS

0.5 0.101 0.078 0.187 0.138 0.431 0.243

1.0 0.053 0.050 0.095 0.072 0.203 0.121
2.0 0.026 0.032 0.048 0.035 0.081 0.072
3.0 0.020 0.017 0.027 0.026 0.051 0.055
4.0 0.015 0.022 0.021 0.025 0.039 0.037
6.0 0.011 0.010 0.014 0.020 0.026 0.026

Table 6 Mean 3D positioning error for L1 variants

Session duration [h] Mean 3D positioning error [m]

Point A Point B Point C
GPS GPS+GLONASS GPS GPS+GLONASS GPS GPS+GLONASS

0.5 0.954 0.917 1.146 1.179 1.452 1.488

1.0 0.882 0.889 1.019 1.064 1.241 1.304
2.0 0.729 0.749 0.843 0.877 1.128 1.166
3.0 0.662 0.685 0.846 0.841 1.098 1.093
4.0 0.555 0.577 0.710 0.752 0.992 1.024
6.0 0.419 0.435 0.590 0.619 0.903 0.928

Fig. 14 Mean 3D-positioning accuracy comparison

For comparison the mean positioning accuracy (depending on satellite visibility on

points), the mean 3D positioning errors, respectively regrouped, are presented in Fig. 14.
In analyzing the results presented in Fig. 14, it is clear that the mean 3D positioning
error increases when measuring conditions become worse. However, the measurement ses-
sion duration as well as the post-processing type observations (L1 or L1+L2) have a larger
impact on accuracy.
54 Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55

4 Conclusions

In this paper, we analyzed the accuracy of the position determination using single-receiver
GNSS measurements taken on points with different observing conditions. The compar-
ison also includes the analysis of result differences between GPS only and combined
GPS/GLONASS observations processing as well as an analysis of the position determi-
nation accuracy using one and two measurement frequencies. The analysis was based on
seven days of data from three GNSS stations. To process the observations, the PPP-CSRS
service was chosen.
The results show that both the length of sessions and observing conditions significantly
affect the position determination accuracy. The impact of obstacles is especially visible in
the case of processing short observation sessions. For longer sessions, the influence of ob-
serving conditions on the accuracy of the position determination was clearly reduced.
Code-only PPP results are characterized by very low accuracy. This is especially visible
for the Up component. The North and East coordinates have been estimated more precisely.
When observations were performed at one frequency in 30 minutes sessions, the precision
of 0.30–0.50 m was achieved for the horizontal coordinates and 0.80–1.30 m for the Up
component (RMS). The values improved slightly when the session duration became longer
and clearly depend on observing conditions. Adding signals from the GLONASS system
to the post-processing of observation generally worsened the results obtained in all three
points. This may be due to the lower accuracy of GLONASS code observables as compared
to GPS. Additionally, for all L1 variants some systematic behavior is visible. The calculated
offsets, in most cases, are arranged similar to a sine line with a period of about 12 hours. In
the author’s opinion these two problems are worth further study.
In analyzing the results of L1+L2 observations processing, it is clear that under good ob-
servation conditions (an unobscured horizon), it is possible to achieve a precision of several
centimeters after 2 hours of observation. The error for the northing coordinate obtained in the
post-processing of L1+L2 observations is approximately twice smaller than the easting and
the elevation. This occurs in each time variant and it is manifest mainly at point A with the
best measurement conditions and slightly less at point B. In analyzing the results obtained
using short sessions made at point C, it is clear that in the middle period of observation
(the biggest PDOP coefficient values) some larger offsets between estimated positions and
“true” position for all coordinates occurred. In comparing GPS-only and GPS/GLONASS
solutions, noticeable improvements for the selected solutions (i.e. for all 0.5 and 1.0 hour
sessions) were observed. This is especially true at points with limited horizon visibility
(B, C). On the basis of these results, it can be concluded that using GPS/GLONASS obser-
vations in PPP may be especially important in processing short static sessions conducted
under conditions of limited satellite availability.

References

Alcay S, Inal C, Yigit CO (2012a) Contribution of GLONASS observations on precise point positioning. In:
FIG working week 2012, Rome, Italy, 6–10 May 2012
Alcay S, Inal C, Yigit CO, Yetkin M (2012b) Comparing GLONASS-only with GPS-only and hybrid posi-
tioning in various length of baselines. Acta Geod Geophys Hung 47(1):1–12
Bruyninx C (2007) Comparing GPS-only with GPS+GLONASS positioning in a regional permanent GNSS
network. GPS Solut 11(2):97–106
Cai C, Gao Y (2007) Precise point positioning using combined GPS and GLONASS observations. J Glob
Position Syst 6(1):13–22
Acta Geod Geophys (2014) 49:37–55 55

Choy S (2011) High accuracy precise point positioning using a single frequency GPS receiver. J Appl Geod
5:59–69
Dawidowicz K (2013) Impact of different GNSS antenna calibration models on height determination in the
ASG-EUPOS network—a case study. Surv Rev 45(332):386–394
Dodson AH, Moore T, Baker FD, Swann JW (1999) Hybrid GPS+GLONASS. GPS Solut 3(1):32–41
Ebner R, Featherstone WE (2008) How well can online GPS PPP post-processing services be used to establish
geodetic survey control networks? J Appl Geod 2(3):149–157
Elsobeiey M, El-Rabbany A (2011) Impact of second-order ionospheric delay on GPS precise point position-
ing. J Appl Geod 5:37–45
Gao Y (2006) Precise point positioning and its challenges, aided-GNSS and signal tracking. Inside GNSS
1(8):16–18
Gao Y, Kongzhe C (2004) Performance analysis of precise point positioning using real-time orbit and clock
products. J Glob Position Syst 3(1–2):95–100
Gao Y, Abdel-Salam M, Chen K, Wojciechowski A (2005) Point real-time kinematic positioning. In: A win-
dow on the future of geodesy. International association of geodesy symposia, vol 128, pp 77–82
Ge M, Gendt G, Rothacher M, Shi C, Geng J, Liu J (2008) Resolution of GPS carrier-phase ambiguities in
PPP with daily observations. J Geod 82(7):389–399
Geng J, Meng X, Dodson AH, Teferle FN (2010) Integer ambiguity resolution in precise point positioning:
method comparison. J Geod 84(9):569–581
Grinter T, Janssen V (2012) Post-processed precise point positioning: a viable alternative? In: Proc
APAS2012, Wollongong, Australia, 19–21 March, pp 83–92
Hadaś T, Kaplon J, Bosy J, Sierny J, Wilgan K (2013) Near-real-time regional troposphere models for
the GNSS precise point positioning technique. Meas Sci Technol 24(5). doi:10.1088/0957-0233/
24/5/055003
Hofmann-Wellenhof B, Lichtenegger H, Wasle E (2008) GNSS–GPS, GLONASS, Galileo & more. Springer,
Wien
Kouba J, Héroux P (2001) Precise point positioning using IGS orbit and clock products. GPS Solut 5(2):12–
28
Moreno B, Radicella SC, de Lacy S, Herraiz M, Rodriguez-Caderot G (2011) On the effects of the ionospheric
disturbances on precise point positioning at equatorial latitudes. GPS Solut 15:381–390
Nejat D, Kiamehr R (2013) An investigation on accuracy of DGPS network-based positioning in moun-
tainous regions, a case study in Alborz network. Acta Geod Geophys 48:39–51. doi:10.1007/
s40328-012-0003-3
Oleynik EG, Mitrikas VV, Revnivykh SG, Serdukov AI, Dutov EN, Shiriaev VF (2006) High-accurate
GLONASS orbit and clock determination for the assessment of system performance. In: Proceedings of
ION GNSS 2006, Fort Worth, TX, September 26–29
Parkinson B, Spilker JJ (1996) Global positioning system: theory and applications, vol I. American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc, Washington
Rizos C, Janssen V, Roberts C, Grinter T (2012) Precise point positioning: is the era of differential GNSS
positioning drawing to an end? In: FIG working week 2012, Rome, Italy
Seeber G (2003) Satellite geodesy. de Gruyter, Berlin
Snay RA, Soler T (2008) Continuously operating reference station (CORS): history, applications, and future
enhancements. J Surv Eng 134(4):95–104
Wanninger L, Wallstab-Freitag S (2007) Combined processing of GPS, GLONASS and SBAS code phase and
carrier phase measurements. In: Proc ION GNSS 2007, Fort Worth, Tx, September 25–28, pp 866–875
Weber R, Slater JA, Fragner E, Glotov V, Habrich H, Romero I, Schaer S (2005) Precise GLONASS orbit
determination within the IGS/IGLOS pilot project. Adv Space Res 36:369–375
Wielgosz P, Cellmer S, Rzepecka Z, Paziewski J, Grejner-Brzezinska D (2011) Troposphere modeling for
precise GPS rapid static positioning in mountainous areas. Meas Sci Technol 22(4):45101–45109
Zumberge JF, Heflin MB, Jefferson DC, Watkins MM, Webb FH (1997) Precise point positioning for the
efficient and robust analysis of GPS data from large networks. J Geophys Res 3(102):5005–5017

View publication stats