Performance of Galileo products determined from multi-frequency measurements

Kurzfassung

Each Galileo satellite provides coherent navigation signals in four distinct frequency bands. International GNSS Service (IGS) analysis centers (ACs) typically determine Galileo satellite products based on the E1/E5a dual-frequency measurements due to the software limitation and the limited tracking capability of other signals in the early time. The goal of this contribution is to evaluate the quality of Galileo satellite products determined by using different dual-frequency (E1/E5a, E1/E5b, E1/E5, E1/E6) and multi-frequency (E1/E5a/E5b/E5/E6) measurements based on different sizes of ground networks. The performance of signal noise, the consistency of frequency-specific satellite phase center offsets and the stability of satellite phase biases are assessed in advance to confirm preconditions for multi-frequency processing. Orbit results from different dual-frequency measurements show that orbit precision determined from E1/E6 is clearly worse (about 35%) than that from other dual-frequency solutions. In view of a similar E1, E5a, E5b and E6 measurement quality, the degraded E1/E6 orbit performance is mainly attributed to the unfavorable noise amplification in the respective ionosphere-free linear combination. The advantage of using multi-frequency measurements over dual-frequency for precise orbit determination is clearly visible when using small networks. For instance, the ambiguity fixing rate is 80% for the multi-frequency solution while it is less than 40% for the dual-frequency solution if 150 s data sampling is employed in a 15-station network. Higher fixing rates result in better (more than 30%) satellite orbits and more robust satellite clock and phase bias products. In general, satellite phase bias products determined from a 20-station (or more) network are precise enough to conduct precise point positioning with ambiguity resolution (PPP-AR) applications. Multi-frequency kinematic PPP-AR solutions always show 5–10% precision improvement compared to those computed from dual-frequency observations.