Factors affecting the estimation of GPS receiver instrumental biases

Abstract Global positioning system (GPS) has been widely used to investigate the ionosphere through the estimation of the total electron content (TEC) and its distributions in space. One of the important factors affecting the ionosphere TEC estimation accuracy is the hardware differential code biases (DCBs) inherited in both GPS satellites and receivers. This paper investigates various factors affecting GPS receiver instrumental bias estimation accuracy. Through a number of designed tests, we concluded that the most important factor is the ionosphere model accuracy. Some of large daily bias variations of receiver DCB detected by other studies, such as receivers in low latitude regions, are not due to the DCB changes, but the estimation errors. The DCB estimation values can vary significantly for different ionospheric models and different sizes of networks. For example, the receiver DCB values obtained from the global and the station- specific models exhibit difference from −2·5 to 14·3 TEC unit (TECU) for different stations. Different data processing methods also contribute to DCB estimation errors. The results from smoothing and non-smoothing GPS observation show that the difference of DCB reaches up to 6·8 TECU for some stations, with the mean difference of 3 TECU. On the other hand, the elevation cut-off angle does not play an import role in ionospheric delay estimation. For elevation cut-off angles from 10 to 30°, our tests show that the DCB estimation differences are <0·4 TECU.

[1]  Gregory Bishop,et al.  The effect of the protonosphere on the estimation of GPS total electron content: Validation using model simulations , 1999 .

[2]  A. Garcia-Rigo,et al.  The IGS VTEC maps: a reliable source of ionospheric information since 1998 , 2009 .

[3]  E. Sardón,et al.  Estimation of total electron content using GPS data: How stable are the differential satellite and receiver instrumental biases? , 1997 .

[4]  T. Springer.  Modeling and validating orbits and clocks using the Global Positioning System , 2002 .

[5]  Sandro M. Radicella,et al.  Calibration errors on experimental slant total electron content (TEC) determined with GPS , 2007 .

[6]  Claudio Brunini,et al.  GPS slant total electron content accuracy using the single layer model under different geomagnetic regions and ionospheric conditions , 2010 .

[7]  S. Kao,et al.  Factors affecting the estimation of GPS receiver instrumental biases , 2013 .

[8]  A. Rius,et al.  Estimation of the transmitter and receiver differential biases and the ionospheric total electron content from Global Positioning System observations , 1994 .

[9]  E. Kawai,et al.  Evaluation of GPS‐based ionospheric TEC map by comparing with VLBI data , 2003 .

[10]  Attila Komjathy,et al.  Space Weather and the Global Positioning System , 2008 .

[11]  Anthony J. Mannucci,et al.  A global mapping technique for GPS‐derived ionospheric total electron content measurements , 1998 .

[12]  Xiaoli Ding,et al.  Effects of ionospheric disturbances on GPS observation in low latitude area , 2008 .

[13]  Koji Matsumoto,et al.  Regional ionosphere map over Japanese Islands , 2002 .

[14]  Zuo Xiao,et al.  Accuracy analysis of the GPS instrumental bias estimated from observations in middle and low latitudes , 2010 .

[15]  Claudio Brunini,et al.  Accuracy assessment of the GPS-based slant total electron content , 2009 .

[16]  Aleksandar Jovancevic,et al.  Ionospheric measurement with GPS: Receiver techniques and methods , 2007 .

[17]  L. Mervart,et al.  Bernese GPS Software Version 5.0 , 2007 .

[18]  Leos Mervart,et al.  Global and regional ionosphere models using the GPS double difference phase observable , 1996 .

[19]  James R. Clynch,et al.  Variability of GPS satellite differential group delay biases , 1991 .