Elements of GPS Precise Point Positioning

ELEMENTS OF GPS PRECISE POINT POSITIONING
By
Boonsap Witchayangkoon
B.Eng. (Honors) King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, 1992
M.S. University of Maine, 1997
A THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(in Spatial Information Science and Engineering)
The Graduate School

The University of Maine
December, 2000
Advisory Committee:
Dr. Alfred Leick, Professor of Spatial Information Science and Engineering, Advisor
Dr. Neil Comins, Professor of Physics and Astronomy
Dr. Ray Hintz, Associate Professor of Spatial Information Science and Engineering
Dr. Richard B. Langley, Professor of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering,
University of New Brunswick
Dr. Charles Mundo, Adjunct Professor of Spatial Information Science and Engineering
Copyright 2000 Boonsap Witchayangkoon
ii
LIBRARY RIGHTS STATEMENT
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced
degree at the University of Maine, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for
inspection. I further agree that permission for "fair use" copying of this thesis for scholarly
purposes may be granted by the Librarian. It is understood that any copying or publication of
this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Signature: Boon Witchayangkoon
Date: August 25, 2000

ELEMENTS OF GPS PRECISE POINT POSITIONING
By Boonsap Witchayangkoon
Thesis Advisor: Dr. Alfred Leick
An Abstract of Thesis Presented

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
(in Spatial Information Science and Engineering)
December, 2000
The International GPS Service (IGS) now regularly makes accurate GPS ephemeris
and satellite clock information available over the Internet. The satellite coordinates are given
in the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF).
This thesis investigates Precise Point Positioning (PPP) using dual and single-
frequency pseudorange and carrier phase observations. Both the static and kinematic modes
are investigated. The static PPP solution examples use six-hour data sets from four stations.
The observations were made while Selective Availability (SA) was active and after it had been
discontinued. The static solutions agree to within 10 cm with published coordinates or with
solutions obtained from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) PPP Internet service. The
kinematic solutions show a discrepancy of less than one meter, mostly around half a meter.
For observations with low multipath, the research shows that single-frequency
ionosphere-free PPP solutions are equivalent to the dual-frequency solutions. In case of
single-frequency observations the pseudorange dominates the solution.

Using a priori tropospheric information does not seem to improve dual-frequency PPP
solutions as compared to the case when the vertical tropospheric delay is estimated as part of
the Kalman filter solution. However, a priori tropospheric information seems to provide
benefits to single-frequency kinematic PPP. The Saastamoinen model is used when
computing the zenith tropospheric delay. In all cases, the Neill's mapping function is applied.
The studies show high correlation between receiver clock and the up coordinate. The
troposphere has a high negative correlation with receiver clock and the up coordinate.
However, the troposphere is more correlated with the receiver clock than the up component.
All solutions incorporate corrections for solid earth tides, relativity, and satellite
antenna phase center offsets. Corrections have not been applied for the phase wind-up angle.
The widelane and ionospheric functions are used to detect and fix cycle slips in a semi-
graphical manner. Since even a single cycle slip significantly falsifies PPP solutions, it is
suggested that between-satellite carrier phases be used as another way of detecting slips (now
since SA has been discontinued). The software consists mostly of highly modular Mathcad
functions that form an excellent base for continued research of PPP.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude towards my thesis advisor Dr. Alfred Leick for his
support and guidance, and the members of my thesis advisory committee: Dr. Richard
Langley, Dr. Ray Hintz, Dr. Chales Mundo, and Dr. Neil Comins, for their cheerful guidance
and cooperation during this thesis.
My thanks also go to numerous of people whom I may not name all, for their grateful
and joyful support, encouragement and helpfulness, especially Dr. Paulo Cesar Lima
Segantine and his family, Dr. Lee YoungChan and his family, Dr. James Zumberge, Dr. Peter
Kuntu Mensah and his family, Dr. Kate Beard, Dr. Ed Ferguson, Dr. Ramesh Gupta, Dr. Roop
Goyal and his family, Dr. Kridayuth Choompooming, Dr. Carol Bult, Dr. Hans-Georg
Scherneck, Zuheir Altamimi, Dennis Manning, Karen Kidder, Troy Jordan, Haci Mustafa
Palancioglu, Sharron J. Macklin, Dilnora Azimova, Jeanne Timmons, Karen and Robert
Liimakka, Mike Pearson, Teresa Cail, Puttipol Dumrongchai, Nakarin Satthamnuwong,
Balkaran Samaroo, Edward P. Wells, Brian J. Naberezny, Stephanie Sturtevant, Tom Noonan,
Carolyn Leick, Haci Mustafa Palancioglu, Samantha and Kurt Wurm, Pratya Levan, Wararat
Sophanowong, Ramaswamy Hariharan, Sawat Pararach, Taweesak Kijkanjanarat, Cheng Tee
Tang, Cynthia Henny, Jake Bogar, Tracey Nightingale, Young Su Kim, Saharat
Buddhawanna, Shinsuke Sasanawin, Auay Wanasen, Piriya Panwichai, Angsana Tokitkla,
Sunisa and Wattanachai Smittakorn, and Premwadee Furodchanakul.
I thank the Fogler Library for an excellent source of references for this research. I
also thank the Mathcad technical support for programming debug helps.
iii
Very special thanks are due to my parents for providing me excellent upbringing,
education, and guidance, which helped me reaching at this point in my life. Heartfelt thanks
go to my uncles, my aunts, my cousins, my sister, and my brothers, for their unconditional
support and understanding that always encouraged me to follow the path I have chosen.
Finally I would like to thank the Royal Thai Government and the Thammasat
University for financial assistance.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................III
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................XII
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... XIV
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 RESEARCH GOALS ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 MOTIVATION....................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 PREVIOUS RELEVANT WORKS .............................................................................................. 4
1.4 APPROACH .......................................................................................................................... 9
1.5 THESIS ORGANIZATION........................................................................................................ 9
2 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 THE GPS SYSTEM ............................................................................................................. 12
2.1.1 General Information ................................................................................................... 12
2.1.2 The Undifferenced Observation Equations .................................................................. 14
2.2 THE GLONASS SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 16
2.3 COMPONENTS OF PPP........................................................................................................ 18
2.3.1 Geophysical Models ................................................................................................... 19
2.3.2 Atmosphere................................................................................................................ 20
2.3.3 Reference Frames....................................................................................................... 23
2.3.4 IGS ............................................................................................................................ 23
2.3.5 Phase Wind-up Error .................................................................................................. 24
2.3.6 Receiver Antenna Phase Center Offset........................................................................ 27
2.3.7 Satellite Antenna Phase Center Offset and Satellite Orientation................................... 29
2.3.8 Satellite Clocks .......................................................................................................... 31
v
2.3.9 Group Delay Differential............................................................................................ 32
2.3.10 Relativity ................................................................................................................... 34
3 GEOPHYSICAL MODELS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 36
3.1 DEFORMABLE E ARTH ........................................................................................................ 36
3.2 SOLID E ARTH TIDES .......................................................................................................... 37
3.2.1 Brief History .............................................................................................................. 37
3.2.2 The Tidal Potential..................................................................................................... 39
3.2.3 Solid Earth Tide Displacements .................................................................................. 42
3.3 OCEAN LOADING ............................................................................................................... 43
3.4 PLATE TECTONIC MOTION ................................................................................................. 46
3.5 ATMOSPHERIC TIDES ......................................................................................................... 49
4 INTERNATIONAL TERRESTRIAL REFERENCE FRAME (ITRF)................................ . 51
4.1 GENERAL STATEMENTS ON REFERENCE FRAMES ................................................................ 51
4.2 THE ITRF ......................................................................................................................... 53
4.3 TRANSFORMATION BETWEEN ITRFS .................................................................................. 53
4.4 ORIENTATION AND ORIGIN OF THE ITRF ............................................................................ 55
4.4.1 Orientation................................................................................................................. 55
4.4.2 Origin ........................................................................................................................ 56
4.5 THE DRAFT ITRF-2000 REFERENCE FRAME ....................................................................... 56
4.6 GPS WGS-84 ................................................................................................................... 57
4.7 AGREEMENT BETWEEN WGS-84 AND ITRF ....................................................................... 58
5 TROPOSPHERE AND IONOSPHERE................................ ................................ ................. 59
5.1 STANDARD ATMOSPHERE .................................................................................................. 60
5.2 TROPOSPHERE ................................................................................................................... 64
vi
5.2.1 Tropospheric Models.................................................................................................. 66
5.2.1.1 Hopfield Model ..................................................................................................... 67
5.2.1.2 Saastamoinen Model.............................................................................................. 69
5.2.2 Mapping Functions..................................................................................................... 72
5.2.2.1 Marini Mapping Function ...................................................................................... 73
5.2.2.2 Marini & Murray Mapping Function...................................................................... 73
5.2.2.3 Chao Mapping Function......................................................................................... 74
5.2.2.4 Lanyi Mapping Function (Lanyi) ........................................................................... 75
5.2.2.5 Davis Mapping Function (CfA-2.2)........................................................................ 76
5.2.2.6 Herring Mapping Function (MTT) ......................................................................... 78
5.2.2.7 Niell Mapping Function (NMF) ............................................................................. 78
5.3 IONOSPHERE...................................................................................................................... 81
5.3.1 Spatial and Temporal Variations................................................................................. 81
5.3.2 Ionospheric Range Delay............................................................................................ 85
5.3.3 Ionosphere Models ..................................................................................................... 87
5.3.4 Functions of Observables............................................................................................ 87
5.3.4.1 Dual-Frequency Ionosphere-free ............................................................................ 88
5.3.4.2 Dual-Frequency Ionosphere ................................................................................... 88
5.3.4.3 Single-Frequency Ionosphere-free Code and Phase................................................. 89
6 PRECISE IGS ORBIT AND SATELLITE CLOCK................................ ............................. 91
6.1 IGS ORBITAL ANALYSIS AND ITS PRODUCTS ...................................................................... 91
6.1.1 IGS Structure and Operation....................................................................................... 91
6.1.2 Products ..................................................................................................................... 92
6.2 THE SP3 EPHEMERIS ......................................................................................................... 98
6.2.1 The SP3 GPS Orbital Format and Data Accuracy........................................................ 98
6.2.2 Precise Satellite Clock Information............................................................................. 99
6.3 LAGRANGE INTERPOLATION .............................................................................................. 99
vii
7 MATHEMATICAL IMPLEMENTATIONS................................ ................................ ....... 101
7.1 DILUTION OF PRECISION .................................................................................................. 101
7.2 CYCLE SLIP DETECTION AND REMOVAL ........................................................................... 102
7.2.1 Multipath ................................................................................................................. 103
7.2.2 Widelane.................................................................................................................. 104
7.2.3 Cycle Slips ............................................................................................................... 105
7.2.3.1 Between Satellite Differences .............................................................................. 105
7.2.3.2 Undifferenced Observation Cycle Slip Detection and Fixing ................................ 110
7.2.3.1.1 Cycle Slip Detection in the Widelane Combination........................................ 110
7.2.3.1.2 Cycle Slip Detection in the Ionospheric Combination .................................... 111
7.2.3.1.3 Fixing Cycle Slip of Undifferenced Observation............................................ 112
7.3 KALMAN FILTER ............................................................................................................. 113
7.3.1 Extended Kalman Filter............................................................................................ 116
7.3.2 Discrete Gauss-Markov Process................................................................................ 118
7.3.3 PPP Implementation................................................................................................. 119
7.3.3.1 Partial Derivatives ............................................................................................... 119
7.3.3.2 Receiver Clock Estimation................................................................................... 120
7.3.3.3 Ambiguity Estimation.......................................................................................... 120
7.3.3.4 Observation Weighting Schemes.......................................................................... 121
7.3.4 Computational Flow and Software Components........................................................ 124
8 NUMERICAL STUDY AND RESULTS................................ ................................ .............. 127
8.1 DATA SETS ..................................................................................................................... 127
8.2 A PRIORI KALMAN FILTER SETTINGS ............................................................................... 129
8.3 ANALYSIS E XAMPLE........................................................................................................ 130
8.3.1 Widelane.................................................................................................................. 131
8.3.2 Ionospheric Carrier Phase......................................................................................... 132
8.3.3 Multipath ................................................................................................................. 132
viii
8.3.4 OMC for P1 ............................................................................................................. 133
8.3.5 OMC for P2 ............................................................................................................. 134
8.3.6 OMC Pseudorange Ionosphere-free .......................................................................... 135
8.3.7 Pseudorange OMC Difference Between Satellites ..................................................... 136
8.3.8 Pseudorange Ionospheric Variations ......................................................................... 137
8.3.9 Elevation Angle and Azimuth................................................................................... 138
8.3.10 Sky Plot ................................................................................................................... 139
8.3.11 North East & Up ...................................................................................................... 141
8.3.12 Receiver Clock Error Estimate.................................................................................. 142
8.3.13 Ionosphere-free Pseudorange OMC (Innovation) ...................................................... 142
8.3.14 Ionosphere-free Carrier Phase OMC (Innovation) ..................................................... 143
8.3.15 Reparameterized Ambiguity Estimates...................................................................... 144
8.3.16 Variance of Estimated Ambiguity ............................................................................. 145
8.3.17 Number of Satellites Used in Kalman Filter and DOPs.............................................. 146
8.3.18 Relativistic Correction.............................................................................................. 147
8.3.19 Approximated Tropospheric Effect Using Saastamoinen Model ................................ 148
8.3.20 Estimated Tropospheric Zenith Delay ....................................................................... 149
8.3.21 Correlation of the Estimated Parameters ................................................................... 149
8.4 EXPERIMENTS ................................................................................................................. 152
8.4.1 Discrepancies With Respect to Published Coordinates............................................... 152
8.4.2 Verification of Solid Earth Tides .............................................................................. 155
8.4.3 Estimated Troposphere vs. Saastamoinen Model....................................................... 156
8.4.4 Impact of Satellite Antenna Offset ............................................................................ 157
8.4.5 Impact of Relativity.................................................................................................. 158
8.4.6 Impact of Single Cycle Slip ...................................................................................... 159
8.4.7 Using A Priori Tropospheric Information.................................................................. 162
ix
8.4.8 Kinematic Positioning .............................................................................................. 164
8.4.8.1 Dual-Frequency Kinematic Positioning ................................................................ 164
8.4.8.2 Single-Frequency Kinematic Positioning.............................................................. 169
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................ ................................ 172
9.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 172
9.1.1 Dual-Frequency Solutions ........................................................................................ 173
9.1.2 Impact of IGS Products and Service.......................................................................... 173
9.1.3 Single-Frequency PPP .............................................................................................. 174
9.1.4 Correlation Between the Up Coordinate, Zenith Tropospheric Delay, Receiver
Clock, and Ambiguities ............................................................................................ 174
9.1.5 A Priori Tropospheric Information............................................................................ 175
9.1.6 Kinematic PPP ......................................................................................................... 175
9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 176
9.2.1 Cycle Slip ................................................................................................................ 176
9.2.2 Phase Wind-up Error ................................................................................................ 176
9.2.3 Receiver Antenna Phase Center Offset...................................................................... 177
9.2.4 A Priori Tropospheric Information............................................................................ 177
9.2.5 GLONASS............................................................................................................... 177
REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 179
APPENDIX A: SP3 EPHEMERIS FORMAT................................ ................................ ............. 191
APPENDIX B: RELEVANT MATHCAD FUNCTIONS................................ ........................... 197
B.1 CYCLE SLIP DETECTION AND FIXING .................................................................................... 197
B.2 OMC COMPUTATIONS ......................................................................................................... 217
B.3 GRAPHING AND DATA EDITING ............................................................................................ 238
B.4 KALMAN ESTIMATION.......................................................................................................... 245
x
APPENDIX C: PSEUDORANGE PERFORMANCE USING PRECISE EPHEMERIS........... 263
APPENDIX D: HOURLY JUMPS IN RINEX FILES................................ ................................ 264
BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR................................ ................................ ............................... 265
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2. 1 GPS satellite antenna phase center offset adopted by IGS
(Kouba and Springer, 1998) ..............................................................................29
Table 2. 2 Typical sample of TGD (extracted from the GPS broadcast navigation
message DOY2(2000))......................................................................................33
Table 3. 1 Relative contributions to tidal potential from various celestial bodies...................41
Table 3. 2 Sample of ocean loading file ................................................................................44
Table 3. 3 Cartesian rotation vector for each plate using the NNR-NUVEL1A
kinematic plate model (IERS Conventions (1996, p. 14). The units are
radians per million years.).................................................................................49
Table 4. 1 Transformation parameters from ITRF-94 to other ITRFs....................................55
Table 5. 1 Sea level standard values.....................................................................................60
Table 5. 2 The fundamental seven layers of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976 .................62
Table 5. 3 Frequently used refractivity constants..................................................................66
Table 5. 4 Coefficients of the hydrostatic NMF mapping function (Niell, 1996) ...................79
Table 5. 5 Coefficients of the wet NMF mapping function (Niell, 1996) ..............................80
Table 6. 1. The current IGS structure/components................................................................93
Table 6. 2 Approximate Availability and Accuracy of the IGS Products...............................94
Table 6. 3 Comparisons of IGS Rapid and IGS Final combined EOP with the IERS
Bulletin A for 1997 (units: mas – milli-arc-sec.; ms - millisec.) (Kouba et
al., 1998) ..........................................................................................................97
Table 6. 4 Pre-computed denominators of li for the standardized fixed nodes....................100
xii
Table 8. 1 Station hardware ...............................................................................................128
Table 8. 2 Published coordinates of ARP ...........................................................................128
Table 8. 3 RINEX data sets................................................................................................129
Table 8. 4 Correlation coefficients of the estimated parameters [WES2,
DOY2(2000)] .................................................................................................150
Table 8. 5 The difference between the PPP solutions and the published coordinates
for station WES2 (cm) ....................................................................................153
for station NJIT (cm).......................................................................................153
for station USNO (cm) ....................................................................................154
for station TSEA (cm).....................................................................................154
Table 8. 9 Averaged discrepancies before and after SA-off (cm) for dual-frequency
solutions .........................................................................................................154
Table 8. 10 The impact of satellite antenna offset on the station solutions (3D errors) ........158
Table 8. 11 Station coordinates offset due to ignoring relativistic effect .............................158
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2. 1 Instantaneous positioning error before and after SA (available from the US
Space Command (IGEB, 2000) ).......................................................................14
Figure 2. 2 Troposphere and other atmospheric layers...........................................................20
Figure 2. 3 Ionosphere regions..............................................................................................22
Figure 2. 4 Geometric effect on phase (Wu et al., 1993).......................................................25
Figure 2. 5 GPS satellite clock correction for PRN5 prior to and after SA
discontinuation..................................................................................................32
Figure 2. 5 Relativity corrections .........................................................................................35
Figure 2. 6 Plate tectonics....................................................................................................46
Figure 3. 1 Schematic of lunar tidal force (Vaní¹ek and Krakiwsky, 1982)...........................40
Figure 3. 2 Tidal Potential ...................................................................................................41
Figure 3. 3 Graphic representation of the M2 loading effect in vertical displacement
(Courtesy of Hans-Georg Scherneck, Onsala Space Observatory,
Chalmers University of Technology).................................................................45
Figure 3. 4 Major tectonic plates of the world .......................................................................48
Figure 5. 1 Hopfield single-layer polytropic model atmosphere............................................67
Figure 5. 2 Schematic of Saastamoinen tropospheric and stratospheric spherical
layered dry atmosphere .....................................................................................70
Figure 5. 4 Sunspot count 1700-1800 (top), 1800-1900 (middle), and 1900-2000
(bottom) (NOAA, 2000)....................................................................................82
Figure 5. 5 Sunspot number prediction for cycle 23 (NASA, 2000b) ....................................83
Figure 5. 6 Monthly mean sunspot numbers (NOAA, 2000).................................................84
Figure 5.7 shows GPS ionospheric range errors as functions of TECU and frequency. .........86
xiv
Figure 5. 7 GPS Ionospheric range errors as functions of TECU and frequency....................86
Figure 7. 1 Multipath on P1 and P2 for PRN29 [NJIT, DOY137(2000)].............................104
Figure 7. 2 Phase OMC between satellites without satellite clock correction applied.
L1 (top), L2 (middle), and ionosphere-free (bottom). The base satellite is
PRN25. [WES2, DOY138(2000)] ..................................................................107
Figure 7.3 Phase OMC between satellites with satellite clock correction applied.
L1 (top), L2 (middle), and ionosphere-free (bottom). The base satellite is
PRN25. [WES2, DOY138(2000)] ...................................................................108
Figure 7. 4 Phase OMC between satellite ionosphere-free PRN21-PRN25 without
(top) and with (middle) satellite clock correction applied, and satellite
clock correction difference (bottom). [WES2, DOY138(2000)] ......................109
Figure 7. 5 The Kalman filter computation recursive scheme .............................................115
Figure 7. 6 The EKF computation recursive scheme...........................................................117
Figure 7. 7 Potential weighting functions, comparison between cosecant and
cosecant-squared.............................................................................................122
Figure 7. 8 Potential step function weightings, comparison between equations 7. 33
(line) and 7. 34 (dotted line) ............................................................................124
Figure 7. 9 PPP Algorithm.................................................................................................126
Figure 8. 1 Widelane before and after cycle slip detection (top) and the
difference(bottom) for PRN5 [WES2, DOY2(2000)].......................................131
Figure 8. 2 Ionospheric carrier phase for PRN5 [WES2, DOY2(2000)] ..............................132
Figure 8. 3 Multipath on P1 and P2, for PRN5 [WES2, DOY2( 2000)] ..............................133
Figure 8. 4 OMC for P1 for PRN5 (top) and all satellites (bottom) [WES2,
DOY2(2000)] .................................................................................................134
xv
Figure 8. 5 OMC for P2 for PRN5 (top) and all satellites (bottom) [WES2,
DOY2(2000)] .................................................................................................135
Figure 8. 6 OMC for pseudorange ionosphere-free for PRN5 (top) and all satellites
(bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)] ......................................................................136
Figure 8. 7 OMC difference between satellites for P1 (top) and pseudorange
ionosphere-free (bottom). The base satellite is PRN5 [WES2,
DOY2(2000)] .................................................................................................137
Figure 8. 8 Pseudorange ionospheric variations PRN5 [WES2, DOY2(2000)]....................138
Figure 8. 9 Elevation and azimuth for PRN5 [WES2, DOY2(2000)] ..................................139
Figure 8. 10 Sky plot for PRN5 (top) and all satellites (bottom) [WES2,
DOY2(2000)] .................................................................................................140
Figure 8. 11 North (top), east (middle) and up (bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]..................141
Figure 8. 12 Receiver clock estimate(top) and its variance (bottom) [WES2,
DOY2(2000)] .................................................................................................142
Figure 8. 13 Ionosphere-free pseudorange OMC (innovation) for PRN5 (top) and all
satellites (bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]........................................................143
Figure 8. 14 Ionosphere-free carrier phase OMC (innovation) for PRN5 (top) and all
satellites (bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]........................................................144
Figure 8. 15 Reparameterized ambiguity estimates PRN5 (top) and all satellites
(bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)] ......................................................................145
Figure 8. 16 Variance of estimated ambiguity PRN5 (top) and all satellites (bottom)
[WES2, DOY2(2000)] ....................................................................................146
Figure 8. 17 Number of SV used in the computation (top) and the respective DOPs
(bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)] ......................................................................147
Figure 8. 18 Relativistic correction for PRN5 [WES2, DOY2(2000)].................................148
xvi
Figure 8. 19 Approximated tropospheric error PRN5 (top) [WES2, DOY2(2000)] .............148
Figure 8. 20 Estimated zenith tropospheric error [WES2, DOY2(2000)] ............................149
Figure 8. 21 Correlation coefficients between the estimated parameters: clock-up-
troposphere (top), north-east-up(second from top), ambiguities (second
from bottom), ambiguity-north-east-up-troposphere (bottom) [WES2,
DOY2(2000)] .................................................................................................151
Figure 8. 22 Station solution (top) compared with the solid earth tides corrections
(bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)] ......................................................................155
Figure 8. 23 Comparison of tropospheric zenith delay between the estimated value
and the Saastamoinen model [WES2, DOY136(2000)]....................................156
Figure 8. 24 Adding a slip of one cycle to PRN29 at epoch 300 [USNO,
DOY138(2000)]..............................................................................................160
Figure 8. 25 Subtracting a slip of one cycle to PRN29 at epoch 300 [USNO,
DOY138(2000)]..............................................................................................161
Figure 8. 26 Solutions comparison between zenith troposphere estimated and
approximated [WES2, DOY136(top), 137(middle), and 138(bottom)
(2000)]............................................................................................................163
Figure 8. 27 Dual-frequency kinematic solutions comparison between troposphere
estimated and approximated (top) with the associated DOPs (middle) and
SV used (bottom) [WES2, DOY136(2000)] ....................................................165
Figure 8. 28 Horizontal offset comparison of kinematic solutions between zenith
troposphere estimated (top) and approximated (bottom) [WES2,
DOY136(2000)]..............................................................................................166
xvii
estimated and approximated (top) with the associated DOPs (middle) and
SV used (bottom) [USNO, DOY137(2000)] ....................................................167
troposphere estimated (top) and approximated (bottom) [USNO,
DOY137(2000)]..............................................................................................168
Figure 8. 31 Single-frequency kinematic solutions comparison between troposphere
estimated (top) and approximated (second from top) with SV used
(second from bottom) and DOPs (bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)] ...................170
DOY2(2000)] .................................................................................................171
Figure C. 1 Pseudorange performance [WES2, DOY136 (top) and 137 (bottom)
(2000)]............................................................................................................263
Figure D. 1 Hourly jumps in pseudorange P1+P2 (top), but not carrier phase L1 + L2
(bottom) for PRN4 [GAIT, DOY2(2000)] .......................................................264
xviii
1 Introduction
1.1 Research Goals
The most popular GPS technique currently in use for accurate positioning is double
differencing. This technique is popular because common mode errors cancel for short
baselines or their impact is drastically reduced in the case of long baselines. This is
particularly true for satellite orbital errors and receiver clock errors. Another distinguishing
characteristic of double differencing is the relative ease of constraining double difference
ambiguities to integer values. Several ambiguity fixing strategies have become available that
typically rely on statistical tests and search strategies. The least squares ambiguity
decorrelation adjustment (LAMBDA) developed at the Delft University of Technology
(Teunissen, 1994) seems to enjoy an ever increasing popularity.
Single differencing has recently found a new value in connection with the processing
of GLONASS observations (Leick et al., 1998a and 1998b). Since GLONASS satellites
transmit generally at different frequencies, the receiver clock errors do not cancel in the
double difference carrier phase equations. Appropriate scaling prior to forming the double
differences results in cancellation of the receiver clock errors, but introduces a non-integer
double difference ambiguity. These difficulties can be avoided when processing single
differences and fixing double difference ambiguities implicitly.
1
Little emphasis has thus far been given to undifferenced processing of carrier phases,
i.e. using observation from one receiver only. The reason being is that common mode errors
do not cancel in this case. However, this situation is likely to change as highly accurate orbital
positions AND satellite clock data become available from the IGS (International GPS
Service). See Neilan et al. (1997) and Kouba et al. (1998) for a brief description of these
services. The availability of very accurate satellite clock data is of fundamental importance for
the undifferenced processing technique (the GPS satellite clock stability is intentionally
degraded when Selective Availability is active). The maturing of the IGS products makes it
opportune to subject precise point positioning (PPP) to a rigorous scientific study and analysis.
Per definition, PPP uses accurate orbital data AND accurate satellite clock data as provided
e.g. by the IGS, and DUAL-frequency pseudorange AND carrier phase observations collected
by the user, and uses the ionosphere-free function of the observables. PPP implies single
receiver positioning (as far as the user is concerned). The second receiver, needed in the
double difference approach, is essentially replaced by the collection of continuously operating
receivers around the world. The achievable accuracy of PPP approaches that for the
underlying network of receivers, i.e. we expect centimeter position accuracy.
The research addresses the following:
• Investigate the performance of PPP as a function of the accuracy of IGS orbits and
IGS satellite clock data. This research is expected to provide recommendations for
the design of future IGS products and services.
• Investigate the correlations between vertical coordinate, tropospheric zenith delay,
receiver time, and ambiguities. The research will shed light on the minimum
requirements to make the vertical parameter, the tropospheric zenith delay, the
receiver clock and the ambiguities independent (separable). The research will focus on
the accuracy of the vertical coordinate and on limitations resulting from biases that
2
might be unavoidable. The latter aspect is of particular interest for vertical
deformation applications.
• The performance of PPP will be investigated as a function of the length of
observations ranging from single epoch solutions (kinematic mode) to six hours.
• Investigate the possible contribution of connecting an atomic clock to the receiver.
Such a combination could be particularly useful for kinematic application.
• Clarify and investigate limitations and constraints of the PPP technique that may still
be caused by lingering Selective Availability.
• Investigate the utility of L1-only receivers for PPP (single-frequency PPP). In this
case the ionospheric correction requires special considerations.
• Study and document existing "geo" models that must be incorporated to make
centimeter positioning meaningful. Examples include solid earth tides, ocean loading,
plate tectonic motion, and atmospheric models.
• Develop Mathcad software to test components of PPP and support future research.
1.2 Motivation
Algorithmic developments as well as hardware developments have steadily improved since
about 1982 when civil applications of GPS positioning began. Highlights in these
developments include the introduction of dual-frequency receivers, narrow correlation
receivers, the antenna swap method, and OTF (ambiguity fixing On-the-Fly). The IGS has
quietly but effectively contributed to bringing GPS applications to a higher level of accuracy.
By virtue of having observation stations distributed worldwide and having organized
an efficient data management and analysis operation, the IGS now provides GPS orbital
accuracy at the 5 cm level (1σ). Equally important, it makes satellite clock information
3
available with correspondingly high accuracy. This is a major accomplishment that potentially
makes single receiver positioning competitive with relative positioning between two receivers.
Accomplishing one's high-accuracy "positioning mission" with just one receiver is probably as
revolutionary as the introduction of GPS itself. The major advantage of course is that the user
has to operate only one receiver at a time.
It is a characteristic of GPS that applications are too numerous to be listed. Many
applications are still emerging. For example, PPP is useful to researchers for studying diurnal
tidal motions of the solid earth center (Scherneck and Webb, 1998). Tregoning et al. (1998)
attempt to measure isostatic rebound in Antarctica using continuous remote GPS observations.
No doubt, these and other applications can benefit from PPP, primarily because single-
receiver operation and expected simplicity in processing. Since positioning with certain
accuracy implies time transfer capability with comparable accuracy, PPP is becoming a
preferred candidate for accurate time transfer. Already a major international campaign is in
preparation by the BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Measures) and IGS (Ray, 1998).
Whereas research groups and research institutes are expected to pay increasing
attention to PPP and respective scientific applications, the proposed research specifically
keeps the needs of practicing surveyors in mind. Surveyors constitute a very large GPS user
group with specific needs. Not only will they appreciate operating only a single receiver, but
also the decreasing reliance on the CORS (Continuous Operating Reference Stations) and
other high accuracy reference networks.
1.3 Previous Relevant Works
Relevant work on PPP has been carried out primarily at JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory). In
fact the very term "Precise Point Positioning" seems to have its origin at JPL. There are two
4
publications from JPL researchers that are particularly relevant to PPP, indeed these papers
sparked the interested in the proposed research.
The theoretical foundation of PPP is documented in Zumberge et al. (1997a). They set
out to develop an efficient approach to make the "accuracy achieved at IGS for global
solutions" available to users. They recognized that various networks of stations have been
established around the world to satisfy the need for high accuracy positioning. An example is
the CORS network consisting of some 80 plus stations operated by the NGS (National
Geodetic Survey). These networks typically serve on the premise of relative positioning, i.e.
the user will position himself relative to the nearest CORS station. Sophisticated users might
reference to several CORS station. The JPL researchers state:
"To keep the computational burden associated with the analysis of such data
economically feasible, one approach is to first determine the precise GPS
satellite positions and clock corrections from a globally distributed network of
GPS receivers. Then, data from the local network are analyzed by estimating
receiver-specific parameters with receiver-specific data: satellite parameters
are held fixed at their values determined in the global solution. This 'precise
point positioning' allows analysis of data from hundreds or thousands of sites
every day with 40 Mflop computers, with results comparable in quality to
the simultaneous analysis of all data."
In order for users of PPP to achieve the highest possible accuracy, it is important that
the solution be "consistent." One not only must use their precise ephemeris and THEIR clock
data but also use the same "geo" models like earth tides, etc. to avoid a degradation of
achievable accuracy. Zumberge et al. (1997a) document the validity of their approach by
analyzing daily sets of carrier phase data achieving millimeter repeatability in the horizontal
components and centimeter precision in the vertical.
5
Even more astounding results are reported in Zumberge et al. (1997b). They
computed orbits and clock information solutions from the Flinn global network (this is a
subset of the IGS network). Many of the Flinn stations are equipped with a hydrogen maser or
a good quality rubidium or cesium clock. Thus a very stable time reference is available at the
receiver site. This is crucial when estimating high-rate satellite clock corrections (in
particular when SA is active). All Flinn network receivers record data at a 30 second interval.
GPS high-rate clocks are then estimated at the same respective 30-second epoch based on a
free-network solution for Flinn. They utilized such high rate clock information to analyze
carrier phase data from a single receiver for both static and kinematic mode. For the static
mode with 5 minutes of data, the 3-D positional accuracy was 0.44 cm, but with a daily
repeatability of 1.86 cm. The kinematic mode provided a 3-D positional accuracy of 3.4 cm.
This result is remarkable!
It seems clear that PPP constitutes a major step forward in the development of high
accuracy positioning, and that it is a complex technique. Zumberge and his colleagues are the
only researchers that have thus far reported PPP results of such a high accuracy. However,
there is no analysis of PPP reported in the literature and no explanation can be found why
other researchers seem to have failed to achieve comparable accuracy. The results reported
above were achieved with the software GIPSY/OASIS-II developed at JPL. Additional
information on this software is provided below. Currently, the Bernese software, but not
GAMIT, has PPP capability and the Bernese group is still experimenting with certain
components of PPP (Hugentobler, private communication). However, there is no evidence in
the literature.
Other researchers have previously reported results using PPP. However as we will see,
their results are at an order of magnitude worse than what has been achieved at JPL.
6
Hé roux et al. (1995) reported the accuracy of submeter for single point positioning
using pseudoranges in conjunction with the use of JPL's GIPSY/OASIS-II software and 30
second interval GPS orbits and clock corrections from the Geodetic Survey Division (GDS),
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan).
Lachapelle et al. (1996) applied kinematic single point positioning to the aircraft in
the post-processed mode. Single-frequency pseudoranges were used in the analysis and
precise ephemerides and clock corrections were also obtained from the NRCan. Using
GIPSY/OASIS-II software, the analytical results were then compared to DGPS and showed
consistent accuracy at 1 m (rms) in latitude and longitude and 2 m (rms) in height. They
concluded that the ionosphere degraded the accuracy, particularly in the height component
because a single frequency receiver was used.
Henriken et al. (1996) tested stand-alone positioning with single- and dual- frequency
pseudoranges. Using precise ephemerides and clock corrections from NRCan, the post-
processed analysis was conducted based on epoch-to-epoch solutions. The low passed
filtered Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) was then applied to remove high frequency receiver
noise. The results are accurate to 0.5-1.5 m horizontally and 1.5-3 m vertically depending
upon how one accounts for ionospheric corrections.
It must be noted that for the experiments listed above, the standard software was JPL's
GIPSY/OASIS-II. It should be noted that the Canadian experiments relied on pseudoranges
only. Pseudoranges are not as accurate as carrier phases; however carrier phases add
complexity because of additional ambiguity parameters and the possibility of cycle slips. The
Canadians apparently did not use a free-network solution, i.e. their results may have been
negatively affected by inaccuracies in the reference network. As IGS continuously improves
the solutions, the need for using a free-network solution as reference is expected to diminish.
7
In any case, PPP has been demonstrated by JPL at the couple of centimeter level and by
Canadian researchers at the sub-meter level. It is a technique to be reckoned with.
JPL's GIPSY/OASIS-II software has been developed typically in piecemeal fashion
over many years and by many people. Its primary purpose is satellite orbit and earth
orientation determination. It is the "working horse" for JPL's researchers. PPP capability has
been added apparently around 1994/95. The source code is Fortran that runs on UNIX. JPL
makes executables of GIPSY/OASIS-II available upon request. However, because GIPSY's
"shape and form" is that of an "internal research software", transporting it to other computers
and actually using it is no easy task. JPL has found it necessary to contract with Raytheon to
provide installation and consulting services to users (Zumberge, private communication). In
exceptional cases, the source code can be made available to researchers at universities or
government agencies. A formal contract between the University of California and the home
institute is required. The process can take up to several months (Zumberge, private
communication).
It appears that GIPSY/OASIS-II and the Bernese software are the only software
available that can deal with PPP. Even if the considerable effort is made to install
GIPSY/OASIS-II software package at the University of Maine, its value in terms of
supporting dissertation research is highly questionable. Dissertation research requires that the
source code is totally understood and modifications/additions to the program can be made
easily by the student. This does not seem to be the case with GIPSY/OASIS-II. It is,
therefore, unavoidable that a new, trimmed-down, dedicated PPP research software be
developed as part of this dissertation.
8
1.4 Approach
This research is involved with a study and utilization of existing geo-models to accomplish
centimeter positioning globally with GPS using IGS products. This study will further deal
with the current and planned IGS products to accomplish this goal. Respective software will
be developed and tested with real data. In order to facilitate the study, software components
developed by other researchers will be used. Examples are Neill’s tropospheric corrections
and the solid Earth tides software.
1.5 Thesis Organization
Chapter 2 provides background on the navigation satellite systems and the equations for the
basic undifferenced observables. Components of PPP are also summarized. The geophysical
models will be dealt with in detail in chapter 3. The treatment begins with the concept of
deformable earth followed by details on solid Earth tides, ocean loading, and plate tectonic
motion. Chapter 4 deals with the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF). This
encompasses the history of the development of geodetic reference frame, precise definition of
the current frame, and the effects of temporal variations. Chapter 5 discusses the tropospheric
and ionospheric effects on the GPS signals. The global mapping functions for tropospheric
corrections are given and the ionosphere-free functions of the observables are listed. Chapter
6 focuses on the precise IGS ephemeris and satellite clock information for GPS and gives the
Lagrange interpolation formulation. Chapter 7 addresses the mathematical implementation of
PPP. Two major sections deal with cycle slip detection for undifferenced observations and the
actual implementation of the Kalman filter. The numerical results are given in Chapter 8. This
is followed by conclusions and recommendations in Chapter 9. There are four appendices: the
9
SP3 ephemeris format, a collection of Mathcad functions developed for this study,
pseudorange solutions, and hourly jumps in RINEX files.
10
2 Background
The development of satellite-aided positioning or navigation is far from completed. While the
beginning of satellite positioning can be traced back to the days of the Sputnik satellite, the
Global Positioning System (GPS) has made satellite positioning available to a world-wide
community of users since the early eighties and is currently undergoing a modernization
phase. In the nineties the Russian GLObal NAvigation Satellite System (GLONASS)
commanded some attention. Combining the signals of both systems attracted the curiosity of
scientists to alleviate shortcomings of the individual systems. Since early 1998, the European
community has been planning to launch a similar satellite navigation system called Galileo.
This system is currently in the design phase (Hein, 2000).
In addition to paying attention to developing the space component of satellite systems
and refining positioning algorithms, a complete positioning infrastructure has been developed
consisting of world-wide and/or national reference networks, the IGS (International GPS
Service), and so on.
This chapter provides background on GPS and GLONASS and the various
components that are typical and essential for Precise Point Positioning.
11
2.1 The GPS System
2.1.1 General Information
GPS is a weather-independent 24-hour position and navigation system that is maintained and
operated by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). The first satellites of this system were
launched in 1978. The system achieved initial operability capability (IOC) in 1993 when the
orbital constellation reached 24 space vehicles orbiting at an altitude of about 20180 km and
55 degrees inclined orbital planes (Block I satellite at 64 degrees). The U.S. Air Force Space
Command (AFSC) announced full operational capability (FOC) in 1995 when the
constellation consisted of only Block II satellite.(USNO, 2000a). UTC(USNO) is the reference
for GPS time (not adjusted for leap seconds). The broadcast ephemeris refers to the WGS-84
geodetic reference frame.
The U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center maintains a GPS home page (Navcen, 2000)
that is the best source for current information. This web address contains many downloadable
papers and reports, among others the ICD-GPS-200 which contains system specifications.
Since the first satellite was launched in 1978, there have been three generations of
GPS satellites, so-called Block I, Block II/IIA, and Block IIR. Block I and II/IIA were
manufactured by the Rockwell company, whereas Block IIR by Lockheed Martin. The next
GPS generation is called Block IIF, which the U.S. Air Force awarded a contract to Rockwell
in 1996. The Block IIF satellite, the latest generation of GPS managed by the NAVSTAR
GPS Joint Program Office at the Space and Missile System Center (SMC), has improvements
over previous blocks of GPS satellites including a design life of 12.7 years, a dramatic
increase in the growth space for additional payloads and missions, and provision for a new
high accuracy civilian signal. The contract calls for 33 satellites and is valued at about $1.3
billion. The first delivery of the Block IIF satellites is expected in 2005 at the earliest.
12
Some components of the GPS signal structure will be changed and supplemented as
part of on-going modernization efforts which aim to make the system perform even better and
more reliable for the two major, and yet distinct user communities, i.e. military and civilians.
Currently GPS transmits two carriers, L1 = 10.23 x 154 = 1575.42 MHz (wavelength
λ1 ≈ 19.0 cm) and L2 = 10.23 x 120 = 1227.6 MHz (wavelength λ2 ≈ 24.4 cm). The carriers
are modulated with a precision (P) code (L1 & L2), and a coarse acquisition code C/A (L1).
The P(Y)-code has been encrypted (Anti Spoofing AS) and is henceforth referred to as Y-
code. The chipping rates for the P-code and C/A-code are 10.23 MHz and 1.023 MHz
respectively. The C/A-code is normally available on L1 only, but could be activated on L2 by
the ground control. Upon completion of the modernization phase, the GPS satellites are
expected to transmit the C/A-code on L2 and have a new (third) civil signal, called L5 at
1176.45 MHz. Of course, L1 also carries the navigation message modulated at 50 bps.
The GPS system has two levels of service, Standard Positioning Service (SPS) and
Precise Positioning Service (PPS). SPS is a positioning and timing service continuously
available to (civilian) users worldwide with no charge. SPS refers to L1 C/A-code positioning
whereas PPS refers to P-code positioning. Until the recent discontinuation of selective
availability (SA), the broadcast ephemeris (epsilon) and the satellite clock (dither) were
intentionally falsified. As a result stated SPS positioning accuracy was 100 m horizontally and
156 m vertically, and the time transfer accuracy was 340 ns (95% probability) (USNO,
2000b). The White House decision resulted in the discontinuation (setting to zero) of SA at
4.00 UTC on May 2, 2000. Consequently, civilian C/A-code users have immediate access to
accuracy better than 20 meters (95%). Figure 2.1 shows the impact of discontinuing SA.
13
Figure 2. 1 Instantaneous positioning error before and after SA (available from the US
Space Command (IGEB, 2000) )
PPS, which is highly accurate and based on cryptographic changes of P(Y)-code, is
available to only authorized (military) users. By having a military P(Y)-code capable receiver,
PPS yields positioning accuracy (95% probability) of 22 m horizontally, 27.7 m vertically, and
200 ns for the time transfer accuracy to UTC (USNO, 2000b). Anti-spoofing (AS) has been
implemented to guard against unauthorized transmissions of satellite data that mimic the
actual satellite signals via the encryption of the P-code to form the Y-code.
2.1.2 The Undifferenced Observation Equations
Both the carrier phase and pseudorange observables are important to PPP. The relevant
expressions are in units of distance (e.g., Leick, 1995; Hofmann-Wellenhof, 1997):
c p
Φ ip,k = ρ kp − cdt k + cdt p + N + I kp,i ,Φ + Tkp
f i i ,k 2. 1
+ d k ,i ,Φ + d kp,i ,Φ + d ip,Φ + ε kp,i ,Φ
14
Pi ,pk = ρ kp − cdt k + cdt p + I kp,i , P + Tkp
2. 2
+ d k ,i , P + d kp,i , P + d ip, P + ε kp,i , P
where
i = subscript identifying L1 or L2
fi = frequency
k= receiver station identifier
p = satellite identifier
Φ k = measured carrier phase scaled to distance (meters)

p
Pkp = measured pseudorange
ρkp = geometric topocentric distance
p
N k = integer ambiguity
dtk = receiver clock error
dt p = satellite clock error
I kk,i,Φ , I kk,i,P = ionosphere for phase and pseudorange and frequency fi
Tkp = troposphere
dk ,i,Φ , dk ,i,P = receiver hardware delay for phase or range respectively
dkp,i,Φ , dkp,i,P = multipath for phase or range respectively
di,pΦ , di,P
p
= satellite hardware delay for phase or range respectively
ε kp,i ,Φ ,ε kp,i , P = random measurement noise for phase or range respectively
The tropospheric and ionospheric effects are discussed in a later chapter.
15
2.2 The GLONASS System
GLONASS is a Russia-based positioning system managed and maintained by the Russian
Space Forces. GLONASS is very similar to GPS. The full GLONASS constellation also calls
for 24 satellites. While FOC has briefly been achieved, there are currently only 10 GLONASS
healthy satellites (SFCSIC, 2000). The satellites are located in three orbital planes with 64.8
degrees inclination. At 19100 km orbital altitude their period is 11 hours and 15 minutes.
General information about GLONASS can be obtained from the Coordinated Scientific
Information Center, the Russian Space Forces web site (SFCSIC, 2000), and the ICD-
GLONASS (1998).
The GLONASS carriers L1 and L2 are also modulated with P-codes and C/A-codes.
In contrast to GPS, each L-band frequency is different for each GLONASS satellite as given
below (some GLONASS satellites on opposite sides of the orbit use the same frequency). For
satellite p being the GLONASS almanac number, and frequency channel number n, frequency
allocation for L1 and L2, respectively (ICD-GLONASS, 1998):
f1 p = (2848 + n) 0.5625 MHz , 2. 3
f 2p = (2848 + n) 0.4375 MHz . 2. 4
During 1998-2005, GLONASS applies frequency channels n = 0...12 without any restrictions,
but n = 0 and n = 13 are intended for technical purposes. Beyond 2005, GLONASS will use n
= (-7…+6), but n = +5 and +6 will be for technical purposes.
The GLONASS observation equations are similar to those of GPS, except that proper
identification of the carrier frequency now requires a subscript to identify the carrier and a
superscript to identify the satellite.
The reference frame for the broadcast ephemeris is PZ-90. Over the last 10 years
much effort has been made to relate the PZ-90 and WGS-84 coordinate systems. Typically
16
seven parameters were estimated to locate the origin (∆u, ∆v, ∆w), determine the orientation
(ε, β, ω) and scale (s). For example, Misra et. al. (1996) used
 u   ∆u   1 ω − β  x
 v  =  ∆v  + (1 + s ) − ω 1 ε   y  2. 5
    
 w ∆w  β −ε 1   z 
and obtained ∆u = 0, ∆v = 2.5 m., ∆w = 0, s = 0, ε = 0, β = 0, and ω = -1.9x10-6 radians.
GLONASS time is UTC(SU) and accounts for leap seconds according to the IERS
notification. Users are usually notified in advance of the planned corrections. During the leap
second correction, GLONASS time is also corrected by changing enumeration of second
pulses of all onboard cesium clocks. Difference between GLONASS time and UTC(SU) is
expected to be within 1 millisecond. Like GPS, GLONASS satellite clock correction is
included in the navigation message. Recent efforts to increase the GLONASS time
synchronization is reported in Mikhail (2001).
A systematic effort has been made through the International GLONASS EXperiment
(IGEX) campaign in 1998 to study and test the GLONASS system in general, derive the best
transformation parameters between PZ-90 and WGS-84, and to relate GLONASS time and
GPS time (Slater et al., 2000). Integrity monitoring of IGEX-98 data is reported by Jonkman
and Jong (2000a, 2000b, and 2000c).
After ending the experiment the participants agreed on a continuation. In late May,
2000, the campaign evolved into the International GLONASS Service Pilot Project (IGLOS-
PP), sponsored by the International GPS Service (IGS) (Slater, 2000). The pilot service will
operate for a period of up to four years, from 2000-2003. The combined GLONASS orbits
(IGEX-solution) as well as weekly summaries for the entire year of 1999 have been uploaded
17
to the CDDIS which is available on anonymous logon (CDDIS, 2000a). More information
about IGLOS-PP can be found at IGLOS-PP (2000).
The different frequencies of GLONASS cause extra complication when attempting to
fix double difference ambiguities (Leick and Mundo, 1997; Wang et al., 2000). These
difficulties are not relevant to PPP because one never attempts to fix undifferenced
ambiguities. The combined GPS/GLONASS PPP solution, however, would require separate
receiver clock parameters for GPS and GLONASS (even though the same receiver observes
the signals from both satellite systems). The research described in this thesis did not use
GLONASS observations.
2.3 Components of PPP
Unlike in relative positioning, common mode errors do not cancel in PPP. Station movements
that result from geophysical phenomena such as tectonic plate motion, Earth tides and ocean
loading enter the PPP solution in full, as do observation errors resulting from the troposphere
and ionosphere. Relevant satellite specific errors are satellite clocks, satellite antenna phase
center offset, group delay differential, relativity and satellite antenna phase wind-up error.
Receiver specific errors are receiver antenna phase center offset and receiver antenna phase
wind-up.
This section contains a brief description of these error sources and of other
components that are parts of PPP. Critically important components will be amplified in the
next chapters.
18
2.3.1 Geophysical Models
Tidal deformations occur in the solid Earth, in the oceans, and in the atmosphere, and all
three interact in different ways with the Earth’s rotation. In addition to causing the Earth's
rotation axis to precess and nutate in space, the gravitational lunar and solar attractions, in
combination with inertial force (centrifugal force) resulting from the orbital movement of the
Earth around the common gravity center of the Earth-Moon or Earth-Sun system, cause the
tides (Lambeck, 1980). The Earth deforms because it has a certain degree of elasticity. This
tidal component, called solid Earth tides, is accurately computable. The Earth tides are similar
to ocean tides, however the latter are strongly affected by coastal geography and ocean
topography. There are four measurable tidal constituents large enough for geodetic
consideration. These are the lunar diurnal, the lunar semidiurnal, the solar diurnal, and the
solar semidiurnal tides. Diurnal tides have a period of about 1-day (24 hours and 50 minutes)
whereas semidiurnal tides are about half a day (12 hours and 25 minutes).
Ocean loading, i.e. primarily vertical variation of the crust in primarily coastal areas,
is caused by sea level fluctuations due to the tides. In order to achieve truly centimeter-level
global geodesy, ocean loading must be included in the site positional analysis.
Tectonic plate motions have been the subject of intense geodetic research for several
decades using Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR), Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI),
GPS, and other space geodetic systems. Normally, tectonic plate motion is detected by using
regional or global tectonic networks. Data tracking of observations over a long period of time
from one station to another yield vectors of plate tectonic displacements.
Currently, there are hundreds of IGS sites around the world recording daily data for
analyzing plate motion. In addition, there are 64 GPS sites in California which are being
applied to study earthquakes in the Los Angeles area. For each site, data is analyzed into time
19
series to see movement trends in terms of latitude, longitude and height. This shows the
evolution of positions and best-fitting velocities as can be examined over the Internet (JPL,
2000b).
2.3.2 Atmosphere
The tropospheric and ionospheric regions of the atmosphere affect the propagation of GPS
signals. The troposphere is the bottom portion of the Earth’s atmosphere, which is the layer
of weather on the Earth. The thickness varies between 8 - 16 km from pole to equator. The
tropospheric temperature normally varies inversely with height, approximately −6.5°C per km
(NOAA/NASA/USAF, 1976).
Figure 2. 2 Troposphere and other atmospheric layers
The troposphere normally has about 75% of the atmosphere’s mass and most of the
water vapor in the atmosphere. High water vapor concentration ranges from 4% in the
tropical regions (humidity about 60-80% or more), but diminishes to just trace amounts in the
polar areas. The average atmospheric pressure is 1.03 kg/cm2 holding nitrogen 78%, oxygen
21%, and other gases 1% (e.g., argon, hydrogen, ozone, and methane). There is a small
20
amount of carbon dioxide, but the concentration has doubled since 1900. Water cycling takes
place in the troposphere as the exchange and movement of water between the Earth's surface
and atmosphere. Solar energy causes water to evaporate, and wind circulates the moisture.
Air rises, then expands and cools down condensing water vapor and thus developing clouds.
Various types of precipitation happen depending upon size and temperature of water particles.
Consequently, the troposphere is changing according to temporal and seasonal variations.
Stratosphere layer and tropopause are above the troposphere. The stratosphere,
tropopause, and troposphere are considered the electrically neutral atmosphere, which is a
non-dispersive medium for radio waves at frequency less than about 20 MHz. The influence
of troposphere refraction on both the carrier phases and code modulation is identical.
However, a part of the signals’ energy is absorbed by non-ionized gases (e.g., carbon dioxide)
and water molecules. Consequently, these matters delay the signal up to 2.5 meters in the
zenith direction and 30 meters close to a horizon angle causing a longer signal travel time
from satellite to receiver as compared to vacuum. These delays vary with temperature,
pressure, and humidity as well as spatial and physical location of the receiver. Tropospheric
refraction cannot be eliminated with dual-frequency observation.
The ionosphere is a layer or layers of ionized air surrounding the Earth extending
from almost 80 km above the Earth’s surface to altitudes of 1000 km or more. The air is
extremely thin at these altitudes. When the atmospheric particles are ionized by radiation
(e.g., ultraviolet radiation and X-rays from the Sun), they tend to remain ionized due to few
collisions between free negatively charged electrons and positively charged atoms and
molecules called ions. These ions characterize the ionosphere. The free electrons affect the
propagation of radio waves, thus the GPS signals. Unlike the troposphere, the ionosphere is a
dispersive medium for radio waves, which means that the modulations on the carrier and
carrier phases are affected differently and this effect is a function of carrier frequency. The
21
impact decreases with the increased frequency. Normally, the radiated energy from a
transmitter gets through the ionosphere, in part absorbed by the ionized air, and in part
refracted or bent downward again towards the Earth’s surface. Further, carrier frequencies
below about 30 MHz are reflected by the ionosphere, thus only higher frequencies, such as
GPS signals, television and frequency-modulation (FM) radio, can normally penetrate the
ionosphere.
Figure 2. 3 Ionosphere regions
There are two distinct regions in the nomenclature of ionization as shown in Figure 2.3 . The
magnetosphere refers to the outermost region where the particle motion is controlled by the
geomagnetic field. The ionosphere can be divided into two main layers called the E layer
(sometimes called the Heaviside layer or Kennelly-Heaviside layer, from about 80 to 113 km.)
and the F layer (sometimes called the Appleton layer, which is above the E layer). The E
layer reflects low frequency radio waves while the F layer reflects higher-frequency radio
signals. The F layer is composed of two layers: the F1 and F2 layers, which start
approximately at 180 and 300 km above the Earth’s surface, respectively. The thickness of
the F layer changes at night, thus altering its reflecting characteristics (Jursa, 1985).
22
The dispersive characteristics of the ionosphere closely follows the 11-year cycle of
sunspots (see e.g. Knight et al., 1996; Klobuchar and Doherty, 1998; Kunches and Klobuchar,
1998).
2.3.3 Reference Frames
Many reference systems and frames have been introduced and made available to users.
Examples are WGS-84 and PZ-90 used by GPS and GLONASS respectively for the broadcast
ephemerides. The International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF) has been established by
the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS). The ITRF frame is frequently updated
according to the new data obtained from various geodetic observation systems, thus producing
a time series of reference frames. The transformation from one reference frame to another is
generally accomplished with a seven-parameter transformation. This will be discussed in
Chapter 4. The IGS precise ephemeris is referenced to the ITRF.
2.3.4 IGS
The International GPS Service (IGS) was formally established by the International
Association of Geodesy (IAG) in 1993 and officially started its operations on January 1, 1994
after a successful pilot phase of more than one year (IGS 1997; Neilan et al., 1997). IGS is
composed of more than 200 globally distributed permanent GPS tracking sites, three Global
Data Centers, five Operational or Regional Data Centers, seven Analysis Centers, an Analysis
Center Coordinator, and a Central Bureau (IGS, 1998). Each IGS site of the global network
operates a dual-frequency GPS receiver that records measurements at 30-second intervals
(Zumberge et al., 1997b; and Neilan et al., 1997). The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) serves
as the Central Bureau and, since 1999, the Center of Orbit Determination in Europe (CODE)
23
serves as the Analysis Center Coordinator (Kouba et al., 1998). IGS is a member of the
Federation of Astronomical and Geophysical Data Analysis Services (FAGS) and it operates
in close cooperation with the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS). The IGS service
and its products are described in Chapter 6.
2.3.5 Phase Wind-up Error
Phase wind-up problem is associated with the antenna orientation, both at the satellite and at
the receiver. This is due to the electromagnetic nature of circularly polarized waves intrinsic
in the GPS signals. Ideally, at the receiver the measured angle of carrier phase equals the
geometric angle between the instantaneous electric field and a reference direction at the
receiving antenna. Thus, when the antenna orientation changes, so does the reference
direction, and subsequently the measured phase. Likewise, the change of satellite antenna
orientation changes the direction of the electric field at the transmitting antenna and, as a
result, the change at the receiving antenna, thus the measured phase.
Wu et al. (1993) derived the phase wind-up correction for a crossed dipole antenna,
but is applicable to more general cases. A crossed dipole antenna consists of two equal-gain
dipole elements perpendicular to each other. Let x̂ and ŷ be the unit vectors in the directions
of the two dipole elements at the receiver antenna (horizontal plane), see Figure 2.4.
Similarly, let x̂ ′ and ŷ ′ be the unit vectors in the directions of the two dipole elements at the
transmitting antenna. Symbol φ is a azimuth angle from the receiver antenna x-dipole
direction to the satellite and θ is a satellite zenith angle. Angles φ′ and θ ′ are at the satellite,
measured similar to that at the receiver.
24
At the receiving antenna, let the phase signal from the x-dipole be received 90° earlier
relative to that from the y-dipole element. The signals from both dipoles are added to form the
antenna output.
Figure 2. 4 Geometric effect on phase (Wu et al., 1993)
25
Undifferenced observation: The phase wind-up correction is given as
∆φ = φ + φ ′ + π 2. 6
π refers to the ground receiver pointing upward away from the center of the Earth.
Phase wind-up for single difference: Let the receiver apparatuses be set such that the x-axes
of the two antennas, k and m, point horizontally in the azimuthal direction along the baseline,
observing satellite p which is on the left of m when looking at k. The phase wide-up for single
difference is the difference of the phase wide-up of the two receivers:
∆φ SD = ∆φ mp − ∆φ kp 2. 7
Apply the associated phase wind-up corrections:
∆φ SD = φ mp − φ kp + (φ ' mp −φ ' mp )
= β1 − (π − α1 ) + γ 2. 8
= Ω1
in which α1, β1, and γ are the three inner spherical triangle angles formed by projecting k, m,
and p onto a unit sphere concentric with the earth. This result indicates that phase wind-up
correction for a single difference is equal to the inner area Ω1 of spherical triangle on a unit
sphere. If the satellite is on the other side of the baseline, the phase wind-up will have the
same magnitude, but opposite sign.
Phase wind-up for double difference: Similar to the single difference case, by adding
satellite q, the double difference phase-wind-up correction is
∆φ DD = ±Ω
2. 9
Ω = α + β + γ + δ − 2π
26
where α, β, δ, and γ are the inner angles of the spherical quadrilateral formed by the projection
of the two satellites and the two receivers onto the unit sphere.
Effect of carrier phase wrap-up induced by rotating GPS antennas has been studied by
Tetewsky and Mullen (1997).
2.3.6 Receiver Antenna Phase Center Offset
A recent study about GPS antenna phase center offset has been conducted at the National
Geodetic Survey (NGS) by Mader (1999). The effect occurs because a GPS range observation
is measured from a satellite transmitted signal to the electrical phase center of the receiving
antenna. The electrical phase center variation (PCV) is a function of a particular antenna's
phase pattern (Aloi, 1999).
GPS antenna phase center is neither a single well-defined physical point nor stable
spot, but rather varies with the changing direction of the incoming satellite signal. However,
practically, users assume that the received signal point stays constant over the observation
period, which is often referred to as the phase center of the antenna.
Mader (1999) experimented in a series of tests using baselines to study relative
antenna phase center position with respect to the reference antenna. But, absolute antenna
calibrations have not been clearly demonstrated. For very short baselines using identical
antennas at the opposite ends, the phase center variations should cancel out and no effect is
seen. On the other hand, when different antenna types are used and these variations are
disregarded, the baseline solution will be the weighted average of the individual phase centers
of the two antennas. The antenna phase center offset may reflect significant vertical
positioning accuracy of up to 10 cm and sub-centimeter in the horizontal.
27
Normally, PCV is a function of both elevation and azimuth (Wubbena et al., 1997;
Aloi, 1999). However, it is not easy to model PCV variations due to high temporal correlation
with signal reflection multipath and specific antenna. As a matter of simplicity by assuming
azimuthal symmetry, one simple model is rather to assume that the phase center varies as a
function of satellite elevation angle only.
If absolute antenna calibrations were known, it would be possible to include this
information with reference code and phase observations to position a physical point such as an
external antenna reference point (ARP):
fi p f
ϕ kp,i (t ) = ρ k (t ) + N kp,i + i Θ i ( E ) sin E + ε ϕ 2. 10a
c c
Pkp,i (t ) = ρ kp (t ) + Θ i ( E ) sin E + ε P 2. 10b
where Θ i (E ) is the calibrated vertical distance between phase center and ARP for Li (i = 1,
2). The symbol E denotes the satellite elevation angle. In equation (2.10) the clock,
tropospheric, ionospheric, and multipath terms are ignored for simplicity. The antenna phase
variations will effect the ionosphere-free observables as:
f12 f1 f 2
ϕ kp, IF (t ) = ϕ kp,1 (t ) − ϕ kp,2 (t )
f12 − f 22 f12 − f 22
f1 p f2 f f
= ρ k (t ) + 2 1 2 N kp,1 − 2 1 2 2 N kp, 2 2. 11
c f1 − f 2 f1 − f 2
[
+ f13Θ1 ( E ) − f1 f 22 Θ 2 ( E ) ]c ( fsin−Ef
2 2
1 2 )
28
f12 f 22
Pkp, IF (t ) = Pkp,1 (t ) − Pkp, 2 (t )
f12 − f 22 f12 − f 22
2. 12
[
= ρ kp (t ) + f12 Θ1 ( E ) − f 22 Θ 2 ( E ) ]f sin E
2
− f 22
1
2.3.7 Satellite Antenna Phase Center Offset and Satellite Orientation
Satellite antenna phase center offsets do not cancel for PPP and must be dealt with
accordingly. In double differencing, these offsets cancel. These offsets are given in the same
satellite-fixed coordinate system that is also used to express solar radiation pressure (Leick,
1995, p. 57). The origin of the coordinate system is at the satellite's center of mass, the k-axis
points toward the Earth center, the j-axis points along the solar panel axis, the i-axis completes
the right-handed coordinate system and lies in the Sun-satellite-Earth plane. This definition
breaks down when the Sun, the satellite and the Earth are colinear. In this case and when the
satellite is in the earth's shadow the satellite attitude becomes unstable and complicated to
model (Bar-Sever, 1996).
Starting on 1998-Nov-29 (GPS Week 986, day 0) the IGS products incorporated the
antenna phase center offsets given in Table 2.1.
Table 2. 1 GPS satellite antenna phase center offset adopted by IGS

(Kouba and Springer, 1998)
Block II/IIA: (i, j, k) = (0.279m, 0.000m, 1.023m)
Block IIR : (i, j, k) = (0.000m, 0.000m, 0.000m)
The satellite ephemeris refers to the center of mass of the satellite. It can readily be
envisioned that the k-offset will be absorbed by the receiver clock estimate if not corrected
29
properly. GPS 43 (PRN 13) was the only Block IIR satellite available at the time this research
was conducted.
Let XSat and XSun be the GPS satellite and the Sun coordinates in the ECEF system. XSat
is obtained from the SP3 satellite ephemeris and XSun (or Xmoon) is calculated from the planetary
ephemeris. Unit vector e at the satellite and pointing towards the Sun is,
v X − X Sat
e = Sun 2. 13
X Sun − X Sat
Unit vector at the satellite center of mass and pointing to the Earth's center is,
v − X Sat
k= 2. 14
X Sat
The unit vector along the solar panel axis is,
v v v
j = k ×e 2. 15
The direction that completes the satellite-fixed right handed coordinates system is,
v v v
i = j×k 2. 16
If O denotes the antenna phase offset expressed in the satellite fixed (i, j, k) coordinate system
and given in Table 2.1 then,
∆X Sat = R −1 O 2. 17
is the offset expressed in the ECEF coordinates system where the rotation matrix R is:
v
i T 
v 
R =  jT  2. 18
v
k T 
 
30
The satellite phase center antenna in ECEF is
X SV = X Sat + ∆X Sat 2. 19
2.3.8 Satellite Clocks
Taking the speed of light as approximately 3 x 108 m/s, a satellite clock error of 1 µs causes an
error in the computed topocentric distance of 300 m. Accurate knowledge of the satellite
clock errors is of central importance to PPP. Without knowing the satellite clock error there
would be no PPP technique because the respective solution would be in the same "class" as
the standard navigation solution (which only corrects the satellite clock errors as provided in
the broadcast message). Of course, one major advantage of single and double differencing is
the elimination of the satellite clock error.
Each of the Block II/IIA satellites carries two cesium (CS) and two rubidium (RB)
atomic clocks. For Block II/IIA, CS clocks are considered the best satellite clocks (USNO,
2000a). One of the atomic clocks defines space vehicle time (others operate as spare). The
satellite clock errors are estimated by the IGS in connection with their satellite ephemeris
production using a global data set. The SP3 ephemeris files contain a respective column for
the satellite clock. Figure 2.5 shows a typical example of a satellite clock variation computed
by JPL under the influence of SA and after discontinuation of SA.
31
Figure 2. 5 GPS satellite clock correction for PRN5 prior to and after SA
discontinuation
2.3.9 Group Delay Differential
Group delay differential (TGD) is the L1-L2 instrumental bias that differs from satellite to
satellite. The L1-L2 correction is given by bits 17 through 24 of word seven of the navigation
message. TGD is pre-calculated by the Control Center based on measurements made by the SV
contractor during factory testing (ICD-GPS-200C). The value of TGD equals 1 /(1 − γ ) times
the delay differential, i.e.:
t Pp1 − t Pp2
TGD = 2. 20
1−γ
32
where γ = ( f1 f 2 ) 2 and t p is the time when the signal for each frequency is transmitted.
Single frequency users must correct the satellite clock (as computed from the
polynomial coefficient given in broadcast message) as follows: (ICD-GPS-200C):
dt Lp1 = dt p − TGD 2. 21a
dt Lp2 = dt p − γ TGD 2. 21b
Single frequency users that process pseudoranges and carrier phases for PPP do not have to
correct for TGD because they are absorbed by the estimated ambiguities. In case of dual-
frequency observation substituting (2.21) into the dual-frequency ionosphere-free function
(5.40) cancels TGD .
Table 2. 2 Typical sample of TGD (extracted from the GPS broadcast navigation message
DOY2(2000))
PRN TGD (ns)

1 -3.259629011154
2 -1.396983861923
4 -6.053596735001
5 -4.190951585770
6 -5.122274160385
7 -1.862645149231
8 -4.190951585770
9 -5.587935447693
10 -1.862645149231
13 -1.210719347000
16 -9.313225746155
17 -1.862645149231
18 -5.122274160385
24 -9.313225746155
26 -6.519258022308
27 -4.190951585770
30 -7.916241884232
Currently JPL provides updated estimates of TGD to the US Air Force Second Space
Operations Squadron (2SOPS) every quarter and also monitors the values daily to identify any
33
abrupt changes in the TGD values due to configuration changes on the satellites. The first
complete set of biases were uploaded on 29 April 1999 (Wilson, 1999). Example of TGD
values given in the broadcast ephemeris for DOY2, 2000, is shown in Table 2.2.
Having the correct TGD values provides three important benefits (Wilson, 1999):
1) single-frequency users who are not subject to SA (which has been discontinued) gain
higher positioning accuracy because the satellite clock error can be computed more
accurately.
2) For WADGPS, it provides more consistent use of fast clock corrections.
3) For the ionospheric community, when the L1-L2 bias for the receiver is known or
estimated, it increases the capability to extract the absolute TEC from dual-frequency
observations.
2.3.10 Relativity
Because of GPS orbital eccentricity, it is necessary to take into account the small relativistic
clock correction as suggested in the ICD-GPS-200C:
2
dt rel = X ⋅ X& 2. 22
c2
where X and X& are position and velocity of a GPS satellite.
Relativistic correction changes from satellite to satellite and from epoch to epoch are
seen in Figure 2.5. Unlike in differential GPS, the relativistic corrections must be applied in
PPP.
34
Figure 2. 5 Relativity corrections
35
3 Geophysical Models
3.1 Deformable Earth
The Earth is primarily composed of three basic components: solid (e.g., rock), liquid (e.g.,
ocean), and atmosphere. These components make the Earth far from absolutely rigid.
Therefore, in order to study the Earth’s deformation, the more realistic Earth’s model should
be somewhere in between being rigid (all considered solid) and being liquid. The Earth must
be seen as a deformable body over a wide range of time scales in response to changing surface
loads in the atmosphere, ocean, and hydrosphere (Lambeck, 1989). In addition, we have the
knowledge about the Earth’s motion that the Earth revolves around the Sun, together with
other planets, and at the same time the Earth also rotates or spins around its instantaneous axis
of rotation. The Earth’s motion, combined with solar and lunar attraction forces, causes Earth
tides, which are of interest regarding their effects on geocentric coordinates. In general, the
Earth’s temporal deformations occur locally as well as globally. Tidal deformations take
place in the solid Earth, in the oceans, and in the atmosphere.
There are two potentials relevant for each point of the Earth’s surface. First, the
gravity potential results from the Newtonian attraction from the whole mass of the Earth.
Second, the Earth's rotation causes the centrifugal potential. The forces corresponding to the
36
difference in the potential cause the tides. The oceanic tides are characterized by the fact that
the sea surface steadily adjusts itself to the potential surface.
The Earth’s physical properties are rather quite complex (elasticity, viscosity, and
plasticity) and cause the Earth to react to forces in a complex manner. In terms of temporal
variations the shape of the Earth and consequently the positions of the points on it can be
classified into three categories according to Vaní¹ek and Krakiwsky (1982):
• Secular – linear, slow, creeping
• Periodic – with period ranging from fractions of a second up to tens of years
• Episodic – suddenly accelerating and decelerating
In the following sections, we are concerned with Earth tides, ocean loading, and plate
tectonic motion.
3.2 Solid Earth Tides
3.2.1 Brief History
The following succinct history about the solid Earth tides is extracted from the first chapter of
Melchor (1978 and 1983).
"In 1824, the mathematician Abel was the first who pointed out that the
direction of the vertical does not stay constant but changes according to the
influence of the attraction forces from the Sun and the Moon. In 1844, C.A.
Peters published the first calculation of this effect. Around 1876, Lord Kelvin
drew attention to the deformable effects of the Earth itself indicating that it
was no longer acceptable to consider the Earth as being completely rigid.
37
Kelvin then demonstrated that the amplitudes observed at the Earth’s surface,
for each phenomenon derived from the tidal potential (i.e., oceanic tides,
deviations of the vertical, variations of the gravity force) would be affected by
the deformation of the surface on which our measurements are made.
In the early nineteenth century, the thought of a not entirely rigid Earth, but
deformable as a result of the tides, had therefore begun to be accepted. In the
meantime, some astronomers doubted the periodic variations in the latitudes
and studied the oscillation of the direction of the vertical and the local
deformations of the Earth crust. The horizontal pendulum, invented in 1832
by Hengler and Zöllner, was the first basic instrument in the study of Earth
tides and Seismology. Due to imperfections of the suspension wire available
at that time, von Rebeur Paschwitz conceived a suspension on metallic points.
This became the first instrument to record deviations of the vertical caused by
the Earth tides. In 1890, research institutes of Potsdam, Strasbourg, and
Teneriffe equipped with Paschwitz’s instruments demonstrated that there is an
existence of periodic oscillations of the vertical. Concurrently, Küstner and
Marcuse were experimentally showing the actual existence of the periodic
displacements of the instantaneous rotation axis of the Earth. Surprisingly,
the two phenomena of the variations of latitude and Earth tides governed by
the same theory were discovered at the same epoch in the same country,
Germany.
The simplest method that provides a clear demonstration that bodily tides do
exist is rested on a very simple logic. When observing ocean tides relative to
the marks fixed on the crust accompanied with the tide gauge, these marks
would be perfectly fixed if the globe was perfectly rigid, and the observed
38
amplitude of the ocean tide would then be equal to that calculated. On the
other hand, if the solid part is deformed, then the measured amplitude will be
equal to the difference between oceanic and Earth tides. G. Darwin
implemented this procedure in observing long period oceanic tides (monthly
and semi-monthly lunar tides)."
3.2.2 The Tidal Potential
The Earth tides occur according to the variations of the gravitational force, or the so-called
tidal force, exerted by celestial bodies such as the Moon. For any point on or within the
Earth’s surface, the gravitational force exerted by a celestial body is a sum of two components,
see Figure 3.1. The first component is the force that governs the Earth’s motion as a whole.
This equals the gravitational force acting at the Earth’s center of gravity. The second
component is the tidal force that equals the remainder of the force acting at the considered
point. Interestingly, the tidal force at a far point (e.g., point D) acts in the outward direction to
the celestial body. The reason is that the Earth is accelerating towards the attracting body at
the same rate as its center of mass M, but the near side (e.g., point A) is accelerating more and,
on the contrary, the far side (e.g. point D) is accelerating less than the center of mass.
Viewing all as a whole, the tidal force attempts to deform the equipotential surface of the
Earth’s gravity field causing its shape to prolate in the celestial direction. In other words, the
shapes are likely to elongate in the direction of the resultant force exerted by the configuration
of the celestial bodies.
39
Figure 3. 1 Schematic of lunar tidal force (Vaní¹ek and Krakiwsky, 1982)
Beginning with Newton's law of gravitation, the tidal potential can readily be derived.
Vaní¹ek and Krakiwsky (1982) give the expression:
n
G m ∞  r 
Wt ( P ) =
m
m ∑  d Pm  Pn (cos Z P ) 3. 1
dM n= 2  M 
The symbols have the following meaning:
m the mass of the Moon, 7.38 x 1022 kg
G the universal constant of gravitation, 6.673 x 10-11 m3/(kg s2).
d Mm average distance between center of the Earth and center of the Moon
ZP the zenith angle of the Moon at P
Pn associated with a series of the Lagendre's functions
rP the distance from center of mass of the Earth to point P
40
Figure 3. 2 Tidal Potential
A similar equation can be obtained for the solar tidal potential by simply replacing
the notation of Moon (m) with the Sun (s). Typically, the solar potential is about 46% of the
lunar potential. Other celestial bodies contribute much less as shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3. 1 Relative contributions to tidal potential from various celestial bodies

(Vaní¹ek and Krakiwsky, 1982)
Celestial Bodies Tidal Potential

Moon 1.0
Sun 0.4618
Venus 0.000054
Jupiter 0.0000059
Mars 0.0000010
As it should be expected at any point in and on the Earth, the luni-solar potential
varies temporally. This is primarily due to the temporal changes in geocentric distances
d Mm , d Ms and zenith distances Z m , Z s . The largest amplitudes of these periodic variations
are semidiurnal and diurnal. Diurnal period band is caused by lunar and solar motion.
41
Whether the celestial body is overhead or under the observer, the semidiurnal results in an
identical tidal potential. Lunar semidiurnal, which has the period of half a lunar day, is the
major contribution to the tidal potential.
3.2.3 Solid Earth Tide Displacements
Taking the mathematical gradient of the tidal potential (3.1), the tidal force components in the
geocentric coordinate system are obtained. These force components are relatively easy to
compute because only the well known expressions for the celestial motion of the sun and the
moon are needed. To convert the force components to actual displacements requires
knowledge of the so-called Love and Shida numbers. These numbers are "conversion factors"
that reflect the non-rigidy of the Earth, or reflect the yield of the actual earth to the tidal
forces. Because of the complexity of the Earth's deformation property these numbers have
been determined experimentally and are continuously getting refined (IERS Conventions,
1996).
Observed positions on the surface of the solid Earth must be corrected for solid Earth
tide displacement in order to obtain coordinates in the time-invariant ITRS reference frame.
For example,
 x0   x(t )   ∆x (t ) 
 y  =  y (t ) − ∆y (t ) , 3. 2
 0    
 z 0   z (t )   ∆z (t ) 
where x(t ), y (t ), and z (t ) are coordinates of an observed position at time t. The solid Earth
tides corrections ∆x(t ), ∆y (t ), and ∆z (t ) are obtained by using JPL's Development
Ephemeris DE403 (planetary) and Lunar Ephemeris LE403 (JPL, 2000a), and a Fortran
program downloaded from IERS96 (2000).
42
3.3 Ocean Loading
The Ocean loading tide is the deformation of the sea floor and adjacent land responding to the
redistribution of seawater which takes place during the ocean tide (Zlotnicki, 1996). The pure
ocean tide can primarily be measured by using tide gauges, whereas altimeters measure the
sum of ocean, loading and Earth body tides (Zlotnicki, 1996). The pure ocean tide can be
directly observed at the beach from rising and falling with respect to a benchmark. The tide
gauges installed at the coastlines measure and record these transitions. One can also put a
pressure gauge at the ocean floor to detect the dynamics of ocean tide. The sum of pure ocean
tide, loading tide, and Earth tide is called geocentric tide, which can be sensed from space
using an altimeter. Elastic ocean tide is the sum of the ocean and ocean loading tide
(Zlotnicki, 1996).
A site displacement component ∆c (radial, west, south) at a particular site at time t can
be written as
∆c = ∑ f j Acj cos(ω j t + χ j + u j − Φ cj ) , 3. 3
j
where
ψ colatitude
χj mean longitude of Sun, Moon, lunar perigee
fj , uj functions of longitude lunar node
Acj , Φcj site-specific elements that reflect the coastal geography, the
elastic and density structure of an earth model.
43
The subscript j runs over the major lunar and solar tides. They are: M2 (principle
semidiurnal), S2, N2, K2 (semidiurnal), K1, O1, P1, Q1, (diurnal), and Mf, Mm, and Ssa (long-
period).
Table 3.2 shows a sample of ocean loading file for station WES2, Westford,
Massachusetts (OSO, 2000). Figure 3.3 shows a snapshot of ocean loading along the East
coast.
Table 3. 2 Sample of ocean loading file
$$ COLUMN ORDER: M2 S2 N2 K2 K1 O1 P1 Q1 MF MM SSA

$$ "PTM" = COMBINED SOLUTION:
$$ From RRAY: M2 S2 N2 K2 K1 O1 P1 Q1
$$ From SCHW: MF MM SSA
$$ ROW ORDER:
$$ AMPLITUDES (m)
$$ RADIAL
$$ TANGENTL EW
$$ TANGENTL NS
$$ PHASES (deg)
$$ RADIAL
$$ TANGENTL EW
$$ TANGENTL NS
WES2 WES2
$$ GOT99.2_R.Ray_CC_PP_PTME ID: Feb 3, 2000 16:12 PTM
$$ Computed by H.G.Scherneck on gere.oso.chalmers.se, 2000
$$ 40440S020 P WES2, IGS, GPS RADI TANG lon/lat: 288.5062 42.6129
.00716 .00193 .00191 .00067 .00422 .00281 .00139 .00048 .00043 .00015 .00060
.00353 .00065 .00089 .00019 .00047 .00022 .00015 .00003 .00011 .00004 .00020
.00188 .00041 .00039 .00015 .00033 .00034 .00011 .00011 .00003 .00003 .00013
-171.3 -163.1 173.1 -162.9 -9.4 -3.2 -8.9 3.6 12.8 61.4 -86.2
-129.2 -127.3 -156.2 -134.0 -21.4 15.7 -19.6 66.7 -3.2 170.7 -95.2
-22.5 9.0 -37.1 4.3 173.3 -155.3 176.5 -171.4 -55.7 -93.0 26.9
Ocean tide loading is the largest perturbation in the solid Earth tide predictions. Both
amplitude and phase of ocean loading effects are heavily station and frequency dependent,
normally having magnitude of centimeters, and where the vertical displacement is
approximately three times larger than the horizontal components.
The conventional IERS models to compute ocean loading displacements (IERS
Conventions, 1996) do not include the motion of the origin of the coordinate system (motions
44
of the center of mass), but contain only the displacements due to deformation with respect to
the center of gravity of the solid earth (Scherneck, 1998a).
Figure 3. 3 Graphic representation of the M2 loading effect in vertical displacement
(Courtesy of Hans-Georg Scherneck, Onsala Space Observatory, Chalmers
University of Technology)
45
3.4 Plate Tectonic Motion
The Earth’s surface layer thickness ranging from approximately 40 to 90 kilometers is
assumed to be composed of a set of large and small plates all together consisted the rigid
lithosphere (the outer part of solid Earth) having average density 2.67 x 103 kg/m3. The
lithosphere lies on and slides over an underlying, weaker layer of partially molten rock
resulting from heat and pressure, called the asthenosphere, with density 3.27 x 103 kg/m3. The
lithosphere plate movements across the surface layer of the Earth are driven by stress forces
and interact along the plate boundaries producing divergence, convergence, or slippage of
plate boundaries.
Figure 2. 6 Plate tectonics
Historically speaking, around the eighteenth century, Leonhard Euler, Swiss
mathematician, described Earth’s surface plate movement by using the spherical geometry
theorem which describes such movement as a rotation around the pole. About 1908 to 1917,
the German geologist Alfred Wegener proposed the theories of continental drift. He along
with others also recognized that continental plates rupture, drift apart, and eventually collide
46
with each other. Plate tectonic has had a pervasive impact on Earth sciences since around
1967-68 when geodetic space techniques became available.
Plate tectonic theory is associated with lithosphere which is divided into a small
number of plates that float on or move independently over the Earth’s mantle. The sizable and
sudden plate’s movement causes Earthquake due to its stresses and/or volcanic activity. The
nature of plate tectonic activity during most of the Earth history is still ambiguous.
The plate tectonics hypothesis has developed to synthesize Earth’s dynamic behavior,
thus simplifying plate tectonics concepts. Geodesy has provided an important role for plate
tectonics study with high temporal resolution of the plate movements, particular from space
state-of-the-art technologies such as GPS and VLBI. Lambeck (1989) has given axioms of the
plate tectonics hypothesis as follows:
§ The plate tectonic motions are uniform on time scale of a million years or longer, but
this may be an artifact of the resolution of the geological observations. This agrees
with many recent geodetic observations that the present-day plate motions are very
similar to average motions for the past few million years.
§ All inter-plate motion occurs on the plate boundaries. Geodetic technologies are used
to observe how the motions between adjacent plates are absorbed, which relates stress
and strain fields across the plate boundaries.
§ Considering the points away from their boundaries, the plates function essentially as
rigid bodies, moving relative to each other without experiencing distortion. This
implies that either the deformations are small compared with the motions at the plate
boundaries, or these internal distortions are small when averaged over periods of
millions of years.
47
These key hypothesis are important in understanding plate tectonics process involved
in geodesy. Other assumptions can also be made to facilitate the plate tectonics study. The
modern geodetic observations are able to answer to what extent these hypothesis are valid.
Plate Motion Model: The IERS96 recommends the NNR-NUVEL1A model for the plate
motions given by DeMets et al. (1994).
Figure 3. 4 Major tectonic plates of the world
(Courtesy of the Hawaii Natural History Association) (HNHA, 2000)
Figure 3.4 shows map of the tectonic plates. Cartesian rotation vector for each plate of the
NNR-NUVEL1A kinematic plate model is given in Table 3.3.
The actual transformation of Cartesian coordinates (X0, Y0, Z0) and (X, Y, Z) of the
epochs t0 and t is given by
X = X 0 + 10 −6 [Ω Y Z 0 − Ω Z Y0 ](t − t 0 )
Y = Y0 + 10 −6 [Ω Z X 0 − Ω X Z 0 ](t − t 0 ) . 3. 4
Z = Z 0 + 10 −6 [Ω X Y0 − Ω Y X 0 ](t − t 0 )
48
Table 3. 3 Cartesian rotation vector for each plate using the NNR-NUVEL1A kinematic
plate model (IERS Conventions (1996, p. 14). The units are radians per million years.)
Plate Name ΩX ΩY ΩZ
Pacific -0.001510 0.004840 -0.009970
Africa 0.000891 -0.003099 0.003922
Antarctica -0.000821 -0.001701 0.003706
Arabia 0.006685 -0.000521 0.006760
Australia 0.007839 0.005124 0.006282
Caribbean -0.000178 -0.003385 0.001581
Cocos -0.010425 -0.021605 0.010925
Eurasia -0.000981 -0.002395 0.003153
India 0.006670 0.000040 0.006790
Nazca -0.001532 -0.008577 0.009609
North America 0.000258 -0.003599 -0.000153
South America -0.001038 -0.001515 -0.000870
Juan de Fuca 0.005200 0.008610 -0.005820
Philippine 0.010090 -0.007160 -0.009670
Rivera -0.009390 -0.030960 -0.012050
Scotia -0.000410 -0.002660 -0.001270
3.5 Atmospheric Tides
The gravitational pull of the sun and the moon affects the solid Earth, the oceans, and the
atmosphere in different ways because of the properties of the material involved.
Atmosphere tides fundamentally affect the ocean and Earth tides in an indirect way.
Sea level is affected as a result of atmospheric pressure variations. Spatial and temporal
variations of atmospheric mass deform the Earth's surface. Many studies demonstrate possible
vertical displacements of up to 25 mm, but about one-third of this amount for horizontal
displacements. A simplified form in computing vertical displacement (mm) is (IERS
Conventions, 1996),
∆r = −0.35 p − 0.55 p 3. 5
49
where p is the local pressure anomaly with respect to the standard pressure (101.3 kPa) andp
is the averaged pressure anomaly within the 2000 km radius surrounding the site. Both
quantities have units of mbar (or 0.1 kPa).
50
4 International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF)
Many reference systems and reference frames have been introduced and made available to the
public. Examples are the World Geodetic System (WGS-84), PZ-90, and the highly accurate
International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF).
4.1 General Statements on Reference Frames
The Earth, as with all celestial bodies, is not static in nature. The Earth moves, rotates and
undergoes deformation. Since motion and position are not absolute concepts, they can be
mathematically described only with respect to some reference of coordinates (Kovalevsky and
Mueller, 1989) called a reference frame. According to Kovalevsky and Mueller (1989), the
purpose of a reference frame is to provide the means to materialize a reference system so that
it can be used for the quantitative description of positions and motions on the Earth (terrestrial
frames) or of celestial bodies including the Earth in space (celestial frames). In constructing
the reference frame, a set of parameters must be chosen. Thus the term ‘convention’ has been
used to characterize this choice. After defining the model in detail employed in the
relationship between its configuration of the basic structure and its coordinates, the
coordinates are thus thoroughly defined, but not necessarily accessible, hence the term a
conventional reference system. The term ‘system’ refers to the inclusion of the description of
the physical environment as well as the theories utilized in the coordinate definition. In
51
making a reference system available to users, it is normally materialized through a number of
points, objects, or coordinates, and a set of parameters. These define a conventional reference
frame. The reference frame must be accessible and clearly defined without ambiguity in
writing equations of motion of a body whose coordinates are referred to in the frame.
In 1988, the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS) was established at a site in
Paris under the cooperation of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) and the
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG). IERS assumed the responsibility of
the Bureau International de l’Heure (BIH). The goal of IERS is to provide to the worldwide
scientific and technical community the reference values for Earth orientation parameters and
reference realizations of internationally accepted celestial and terrestrial reference systems
(LAREG, 2000a).
The International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF) was established and is
maintained by the Terrestrial Reference Frame Section of the Central Bureau (CB) of the
IERS. Currently, there are three products generated by the IERS CB including the ITRF, the
realization of the International Celestial Reference System (ICRS) (a space-fixed system that
refers to the positions of quasars and other celestial objects), and the determination of Earth
orientation parameters (EOP) (i.e., Universal Time, nutation corrections, and polar motion
coordinates) which relate the ITRS and the ICRS.
The ITRF implementation was originally based on the combination of Sets of Station
Coordinates (SSC) and velocities derived from observations of space-geodetic techniques such
as Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR), and Satellite
Laser Ranging (SLR). IERS augmented the methodology to include GPS in 1991 and the
Doppler Orbitography and Radio-positioning Integrated by Satellite (DORIS) in 1994
(Boucher et. al., 1996). IERS regularly performs annual ITRF solutions, which are published
52
in the IERS Annual Reports and Technical Notes. Since 1988, IERS has evolved many ITRF
solutions, namely ITRF-97, 96, and 94 to 88. The on-going ITRF effort is called the ITRF-
2000 (LAREG, 2000d) which includes not only active space geodetic instruments, but also
useful markers. In addition, the IGEX-98 GLONASS stations are expected to be part of the
ITRF-2000 solution.
4.2 The ITRF
The ITRF represents the International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS). ITRS has an
origin at the mass center of the whole Earth that takes the oceans and the atmosphere into
account (Boucher and Altamimi, 1996; LAREG, 2000a). The ITRS is realized by estimates of
the coordinates and velocities of a set of observing stations of the IERS. The ITRS uses
International Standard (SI) meter for its length unit defined in a local Earth frame in the
meaning of a relativistic theory of gravitation. According to the resolutions by the IAU and
the IUGG, the orientation of the ITRS axes is consistent with that of the BIH System at 1984.0
within ± 3 milli-arc-second (mas) and the time evolution in orientation of ITRS has no
residual rotation relative to Earth’s crust (Boucher and Altamimi, 1996).
4.3 Transformation Between ITRFs
Presently, in the ITRF computation process, the following basic procedure has been
implemented (Boucher and Altamimi, 1996):
? Reduction of each individual SSC’s at a common reference epoch t0 using their
respective station velocity models (fixed geophysical plate motion models or
estimated velocity fields),
53
? At a reference epoch t0, the least-squares estimation yields ITRF station
coordinates, in addition to seven transformation parameters, for each SSC with
respect to the ITRF. The combination procedure uses the standard model based
on Euclidean similarity involving the seven parameters with the general
transformation form between ITRF coordinates (X, Y, Z) and individual solution
coordinates (Xs, Ys, Zs) having three respective translations: T1, T2, and, T3; three
respective rotations: R1, R2, and R3; and the scale factor: D.
 Xs   X   T 1   D − R3 R 2   X 
 Ys  =  Y  + T 2 +  R3 D − R1  Y  4. 1
      
 Zs   Z  T 3 − R 2 R1 S   Z 
? Appropriate variance is assigned for local ties between co-located stations
? The ITRF velocities have been estimated either by
1. Combination, similar to the procedure used in the combination of station
coordinates; therefore, the method of combining velocities is equivalent to
and consistent with the method for combining station coordinates and can
make use of derivatives from the model, or
2. Differentiating combined coordinates at two different epochs.
Table 4.1 provides parameters from ITRF-94 to previous ITRF series, published in
previous IERS technical notes. From equation (4.1), (X, Y, Z) are the coordinates in ITRF-94
and (Xs, Ys, Zs) are the coordinates in the other frames. Rates must be applied for ITRF-93.
By construction, the transformation parameters between ITRF-94, ITRF-96 and ITRF-97 are
zero (Altamimi, 2000). The time epoch is used to indicate the position in a time series of
ITRF.
54
Table 4. 1 Transformation parameters from ITRF-94 to other ITRFs
(McCarthy, 1996; Altamimi, 2000)
4.4 Orientation and Origin of the ITRF
4.4.1 Orientation
From versions ITRF-88 through ITRF-92, the orientation was defined such that no rotation
existed between these frames. However, the orientation of ITRF-93 was constrained to be
consistent with the IERS series of Earth Orientation Parameters at epoch 88.0. The ITRF-94
orientation is again constrained to be consistent with the ITRF-92 at epoch 1988.0. For ITRF-
96 and ITRF-97, the reference frame definition (origin, scale, orientation, and time evolution)
of the combination is achieved in such a way that ITRF-96 and ITRF-97 are in the same
system as the ITRF-94 (LAREG, 2000b; LAREG, 2000c).
55
4.4.2 Origin
The ITRS origin is located at the center of mass of the whole Earth, including the oceans and
the atmosphere. The origins from series ITRF-88 through ITRF-92 were fixed to the
respective ICRS SLR solutions included in each ITRF calculation.
4.5 The Draft ITRF-2000 Reference Frame
ITRF-2000 is an adoption of the newest ITRS realization. ITRF-2000 consists of not only a
set of positions and velocities of global network tracking stations, but also related useful
markers recognized by a wide application community such as geodesy, cartography, etc.
ITRF-2000 includes the previous ITRF stations and expands to cover other types of points:
• PRARE stations,
• IGEX-98 GLONASS stations,
• points located at tide gauges, following the GLOSS (Global Sea Level Observing
System) and related programs such as EOSS (European Sea-level Observing
System) or EUVN (European Vertical Reference Network)
• points linking high accuracy gravity sensors or time/frequency laboratories
• calibration sites for satellite altimetry, and
• markers useful for national surveying agencies.
The quality of each individual point is specified according to the ITRF-2000 quality
criteria guidelines. In particular, the stations fulfilling the International Space Geodetic
Network (ISGN) criteria are identified in the publication. In addition, a validation process has
been established, which had not been applied in all previous ITRF realization processes.
56
4.6 GPS WGS-84
The military reference frame World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84) is applied to the GPS
system. The WGS-84 Coordinate System is a Conventional Terrestrial Reference System
(CTRS) utilizing a right-handed Earth-fixed orthogonal coordinate system. Its z-axis is in the
direction of the IERS Reference Pole (IRP) that corresponds to the direction of the BIH
Conventional Terrestrial Pole (CTP) at epoch 1984 with an uncertainty of 0.005” (IERS
Conventions, 1996, page 11; NIMA, 1997, page 2-2). Its x-axis is the intersection of the IERS
Reference Meridian (IRM) with the plane passing through the origin and normal to the z-axis
(NIMA, 1997, page 2-2). The IRM is coincident with the BIH Zero Meridian) at epoch 1984
with an uncertainty of 0.005” (IERS Conventions, 1996, page 11). Its y-axis completes a
right-handed ECEF orthogonal coordinate system. The latest realization of WGS-84 frame is
at epoch 1997 and the name has been given as WGS-84(G873). This realization is
implemented by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). The letter ‘G’ indicates
that the observation coordinates were obtained through GPS techniques and that Doppler data
were not included in the observations materializing the frame. The number ‘873’ is the GPS
week number at epoch 0h UTC on 29 September 1996 of a first date when coordinate frame
was made available through NIMA GPS ephemerides. The WGS-84(G873) represents
NIMA’s latest geodetic and geophysical modeling of the Earth from a geometric, geocentric,
and gravitational standpoint based on data, techniques, and technology available through 1996
(NIMA, 1997, page 1-1). This is the third edition of WGS-84. The previous versions of WGS
reference frames are WGS-84 and WGS-84(G730), which were implemented in the NIMA
GPS precise ephemeris estimation process ranging from 1 January 1987 to 1 January 94 and 2
January 94 to 28 September 1996, respectively. The station coordinates which compose the
operational WGS-84 reference frame are those of the permanent DoD GPS monitor stations.
WGS-84(G873) was implemented in the GPS Operational Control Segment (OCS) and
57
incorporated into the Kepler elements of the broadcast message on 29 January 1997. The
WGS-84 origin serves as the geometric center of the WGS-84 Ellipsoid, and the z-axis serves
as the rotational axis of this ellipsoid of revolution (NIMA 1997, page 3-1).
4.7 Agreement Between WGS-84 and ITRF
A comparison of coordinates between two reference frame systems can be made after the
adjustment of a best fitting seven-parameter transformation. Malys and Slater (1994) reported
an agreement between WGS-84(G730) and ITRF-92 at the 0.1 m level. Daily comparisons of
WGS-84(G873) and ITRF-94 through their respective precise orbits reveal systematic
differences no larger than 2 cm. The day-to-day dispersion on these parameters indicates that
these differences are statistically insignificant (NIMA, 1997, page 2-5).
58
5 Troposphere and Ionosphere
Satellite signals travel through the atmosphere which affects the state of the signals. These are
divided into two effects, tropospheric and ionospheric. Each effect influences the satellite
signals differently. Since the troposphere is a non-dispersive medium, tropospheric refraction
causes an identical effect on both code and phase modulation. The troposphere causes a signal
delay of up to 30 meters for a horizontal path. Therefore, the effect from the troposphere is
considered one of the major sources of errors imposed on the satellite signals. On the other
hand, the ionosphere is a dispersive medium of the ionized atmosphere layer(s). Thus, the
ionosphere affects the signal code and phase modulation in an opposing way. Moreover, the
ionospheric effect is a function of carrier frequency. Fortunately, the ionospheric effect can be
eliminated via dual frequency observation. The environments of the troposphere and
ionosphere are described in Chapter 1 (see section 2.4.2 ).
In this chapter, the emphasis will be given to the recent tropospheric model or so-called global
mapping function. The global mapping function must be utilized for the global positioning
analysis. For the ionospheric effect, the popular ionosphere-free linear combination
expression will be given.
59
5.1 Standard Atmosphere
In the 1920s, the first modern standard atmosphere definition was developed in the U.S. by the
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and in Europe by the International
Commission for Aerial Navigation (ICAN) to fulfill a need to standardize aircraft instruments
and improve flight performance. Theoretical aspects of the physics of the air were utilized to
build the standard atmosphere. In 1952, the discrepancy between the two independently
developed NACA and ICAN standards was eliminated through the adoption of a new standard
atmosphere definition by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) with computed
tables ranging from 5 km below to 20 km above mean sea level. The U.S. Committee on
Extension to Standard Atmosphere (COESA) was formed in 1953, and in 1961 a working
group was convened to define a new standard atmosphere up to an altitude of 700 km. The
work of COESA led to the new versions of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere with slight
modifications from those previously adopted. These models were published jointly by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Air Force, and NASA.
The U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976 has been used until now. The standard atmosphere is
essentially defined in terms of an ideal air obeying the perfect gas law and by assumption that
the atmosphere is static with respect to the earth (Laurila, 1976). It is based on the standard
values for air density, temperature, and pressure at sea level as given in the Table 5.1.
Table 5. 1 Sea level standard values
Temperature, TSea 288.15 K
Pressure, Psea 101325 Pa (or N/m2) (1013.25 mb)
Gas constant, R 8.31432 x 103 Nm/(kmol K)
Density, ρsea 1.225 kg/m3
Gravity acceleration, gsea 9.80665 m/s2
60
In addition to perfect gas theory, rocket and satellite data atmospheric pressure, density, and
temperature were used to represent the Earth's atmosphere from sea level to 1000 km. Single
profiles representing the idealized, steady-state atmosphere for moderate solar activity are
applied for the U.S. Standard Atmospheres 1958, 1962, and 1976 (NOAA/NASA/USAF,
1976; NASA, 2000a). Below 32 km the U.S. Standard Atmosphere agrees with the ICAO
standard atmosphere for all practical purposes. However, the U.S. Standard Atmosphere does
not necessarily represent an average of the vast amount of atmospheric data today from
observations within that height region, particularly for heights below 20 km. Parameters listed
include temperature, pressure, density, acceleration caused by gravity, pressure scale height,
number density, mean particle speed, mean collision frequency, mean free path, mean
molecular weight, sound speed, dynamic viscosity, kinematic viscosity, thermal conductivity,
and geopotential altitude. The altitude resolution varies from 0.05 km at low altitudes to 5 km
at high altitudes. Units in all tables are given in English (foot) as well as metric (meter) units.
The U.S. Standard Atmosphere Supplements (1966) includes tables of temperature, pressure,
density, sound speed, viscosity, and thermal conductivity for five northern latitudes (15, 30,
45, 60, and 75 degrees), for summer and winter conditions (NASA, 2000a), which departs
from the U.S. Standard Atmosphere.
The U.S. Standard Atmosphere utilized the linearly segmented temperature high
profile, and the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium, in which the air is treated as a
homogenous mixture of the several constituent gases. The fundamental seven layers of the
Standard Atmosphere (1976) from sea level to 86 km (Table 5.2) includes (geopotential)
height and temperature gradient by altitude (temperature lapse rate).
61
Table 5. 2 The fundamental seven layers of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976
H1 (km) H2 (km) α = dT / dh
Layer
From To (°K/km)
1 0 11 −6.5
2 11 20 0.0
3 20 32 1.0
4 32 47 2.8
5 47 51 0.0
6 51 71 −2.8
7 71 84.852 −2.0
Based on the standard sea level values given in Table 5.1, the atmospheric parameters can then
be computed using information given in Table 5.2. The temperature variation can be
expressed as a sum of a series of lower layers, linear altitude. The temperature T at height h
(in km) falling in layer n is written as:
n −1
T = TSea + α n (h − H1, n ) + ∑ α i ( H 2, i − H 1, i ) 5. 1
i =1
where TSea is the temperature at sea level. In the range of each atmosphere layer where
temperature varies linearly as a function of altitude, the pressure can be calculated from the
following expression:
g M
− 0
 α n (h − H 1,n ) + T  αn R
P = Pn ⋅   , for α ≠ 0 5. 2a
 T 
g M 
P = Pn exp 0 (h − H 1,n )  , for α = 0 5. 2b
 RT 
62
where Pn is the pressure at the initiative point of each altitude range, gravity
g 0 = 9.80665 m/s2, and universal gas constant R is given Table 5.1. Having pressure and
temperature, the density at a specific altitude can be calculated from
PM
ρ= 5. 3
RT
in which M is a constant mean molecular weight of the gas.
At greater heights (i.e. between 86 and 1000 km), the definitions governing the
Standard are far more complex due to dissociation and diffusion processes producing
significant departure from homogeneity. Therefore, the temperature height profile cannot be
expressed as a series of linear functions like those employed at lower attitudes. Relevant
expressions and standard tables are given in NOAA/NASA/USAF (1976).
The variations of gravity acceleration g defined by U.S. Standard Atmosphere through
manipulating the inverse-square law of gravitation, with sufficient accuracy for most model
atmosphere computations is
2
 r 
g = g 0  0  5. 4
 r0 + Z 
where r0 = 6,356,766 m is the effective radius of the earth at sea-level in which the centrifugal
acceleration is taken into account, Z is the geometric height at a specific latitude, and g0 =
9.80665 m/s2. For the U.S. Standard Atmosphere, this equation is valid from sea level to the
geometric altitude of 1000 km.
63
5.2 Troposphere
The neutral atmosphere, which is the non-ionized part of atmosphere, can normally be divided
into two components, the hydrostatic (dry) and wet portions of the troposphere. The
hydrostatic component consists of mostly dry gases (normally referred to the dry part) ,
whereas the wet component is a result of water vapor. The troposphere causes radio signal
delay. The hydrostatic fraction contributes approximately 90% of the total tropospheric
refraction (Leick, 1995, page 308). For high accuracy positioning, correcting the delay of
radio signals as they traverse the neutral atmosphere is necessary as it is one of the dominant
error sources. Tropospheric effect is frequency-independent and cannot be eliminated via
dual-frequency observations. The tropospheric path delay can be defined as (e.g., Janes et al.,
1991; Mendes, 1994):
 
Tkp = ∫ [ n ( r ) − 1] csc θ ( r ) dr + 
 ∫ csc θ ( r ) dr − ∫ csc ε ( r ) dr 

5. 5
path  path path 
where r is geocentric radius, n is the refractive index, and θ and ε , respectively, refer to
refracted (apparent) and non-refracted (geometric or true) satellite elevation angle; n relates to
the tropospheric refractivity N Trop as given below:
N Trop = (n − 1) ⋅10 6 5. 6
Note that equation (5.5) holds for a spherically symmetric atmosphere, and n is
allowed to vary along the signal path as a function of geocentric radius. The first term
characterizes the deviation of electromagnetic path s from geometric length of the refracted
transmission path. The bracketed term is the geometric delay accounting for path curvature
(ray bending), which is the difference in the geometric lengths of the electromagnetic and
rectilinear paths from the satellite to the observing station (Janes et al., 1991). Such curvature
64
effect is essentially significant for satellite elevation angles of 10-20 degrees; therefore, in
practice, the bracketed term is often omitted. For satellite signals, we obtain tropospheric
delay:
Tkp = 10 −6 ∫N
Trop
ds 5. 7
path
Allowing for the hydrostatic and the wet components, tropospheric delay can be rewritten as:
Tkp = 10 −6 ∫ (N + N wTrop ) ds
Trop
d
path
5. 8
∫ N d ds + 10 ∫ N w ds
−6 −6
= 10 Trop Trop
path path
where N dTrop and N wTrop correspond to tropospheric refractivity of the hydrostatic and the wet
components. In 1974, Thayer expressed the refractivity NT in term of absolute temperature
and partial pressure of the dry gases (Pd) and of water vapor ( e0 ) in millibars, viz. (e.g.,
Mendes et al., 1994):
Pd −1  e0 e 
N T = K1 Z d + K 2 + K 3 02  Z w−1 5. 9
T0  T0 T0 
where the constant coefficients K1, K2, and K3 are empirically determined. T0 is absolute
temperature in Kelvins at the tracking station. Zd and Zw are corresponding compressibility
factors for dry air and water vapor, which account for the departure of the air behavior from
that of the ideal gas and rest on the partial pressure due to dry gases and temperature. The first
term on the right side of equation (5.9) refers to N dTrop , whereas the bracketed terms refer to
N wTrop . The frequently used sets of refractivity constants are given in Table 5.3.
65
Table 5. 3 Frequently used refractivity constants
(e.g., Bean et al., 1966; Mendes et al., 1994; Langley, 1996)
Refractivity Smith and Weintraub Thayer

coefficients [1953] [1974]
K1 (K/mb) 77.61±0.01 77.604 ± 0.014
K2 (K/mb) 72 ± 9 64.79 ± 0.08
K3 (K2/mb) (3.75 ± 0.03) 105 (3.776 ± 0.004) 105
Normally the vertical wet and dry refractions are related to the refraction of a particular
elevation angle by the mapping function. The wet component depends on water vapor
content. Much research has been focused on modeling water vapor content.
The water vapor pressure e0 can be calculated from a priori knowledge of
environmental information such as relative humidity and temperature at the tracking station.
Water vapor pressure in millibars recommended in the IERS Conventions (1996) is
7.5(T0 − 273.15)
237.3+T0 − 273.15
e0 = 0.0611 RH 10 5. 10
where RH is the relative humidity at the observing station in percent.
5.2.1 Tropospheric Models
Due to the significance of tropospheric effects on radio signal propagation, many studies to
formulate tropospheric correction have been performed. Various tropospheric models exist.
In addition, different mapping functions which illustrate signal delay as a function of elevation
angle are also given. The following provides descriptions of frequently used tropospheric
models and mapping functions.
66
5.2.1.1 Hopfield Model
Hopfield empirically developed a tropospheric model in 1969 using worldwide data. The
Hopfield model applies a single layer polytropic model atmosphere ranging from the Earth's
surface to altitudes of about 11 km and 40 km for the wet and dry layers, respectively
(Hopfield, 1969; Janes et al. 1991; Hofmann-Wellenhof et al., 1997), see Figure 5.1.
Figure 5. 1 Hopfield single-layer polytropic model atmosphere
The Hopfield model shows dry and wet refractivity components as a function of tracking
station height h above the Earth's surface and is given in the following forms:
µ
Hd
− h
N dTrop = N dTrop
,0   5. 11a
 Hd 
µ
Hw
− h
N wTrop = N wTrop
,0   5. 11b
 Hw 
where
67
µ=4 empirically determined power of the height ratio,
Hd = 40136 + 148.72(T − 273.16) a polytropic thickness for the dry part (m),
Hw = 11000 a polytropic thickness for the wet part (m),
P0
,0 = K1
N dTrop dry tropospheric refractivity for the station at the
T0
Earth's surface as a function of pressure (millibars)
and temperature (Kelvin),
e0 e
,0 = K 2
N dTrop + K 3 02 wet tropospheric refractivity for the station at the
T0 T0
Earth's surface as a function of water vapor, pressure,
and temperature.
Inserting equation (5.11) into equation (5.8), and integrating each element with the respective
integration ranges along the vertical direction (i.e. from h = 0 to h = Hd and from h = 0 to h =
Hw for the dry and wet components), we then obtain tropospheric zenith delay in units of
meters:
T =
k
Z
5
[
10 −6 Trop
N d , 0 H d + N wTrop ]
,0 H w . 5. 12
The values of dry and wet polytropic thickness, Hd and Hw, are typically in the range of 40-45
km and 10-13 km, respectively (Hofmann-Wellenhof et al., 1997). Hopfield's zenith
tropospheric delay equation (5.12) can be employed together with a mapping function to
obtain tropospheric delay at a specific satellite elevation angle.
68
5.2.1.2 Saastamoinen Model
Saastamoinen (1971) applied the law of Gladstone and Dale; that the height integral
∫ ( n − 1) dr of the atmospheric refractivity for radio microwaves taken from ground level to
the top of the stratosphere is, in a dry atmosphere, directly proportional to the ground pressure.
Derivation of the Saastamoinen model involves thinking of the atmosphere as a mixture of
two ideal gases, dry air and water vapor. Gas laws are then applied to derive refractivity. The
temperature in the troposphere from sea level to about ten kilometers decreases with height at
a fairly uniform rate which varies slightly with latitude and season, although in the polar
regions there is a permanent inversion in the lower troposphere where the actual temperatures
initially increase with height.
Saastamoinen divided the dry atmosphere into two layers: a polytropic troposphere
extending from the surface to an altitude of approximately 11-12 km, and an isothermal
stratosphere continuing from the troposphere to approximately 50 km as shown in Figure 5.2 .
Atmospheric water vapor is confined to the troposphere only.
For the normal mid-latitude conditions, the Saastamoinen model is given in units of
meters as:
  1255  
Tkp = 0.002277 sec z  P0 +  + 0.05 e0 − Ω tan 2 z  5. 13
  T0  
where z is the true zenith distance, P0 is the pressure at the observed station in millibars, and
the coefficient
R  P0 T0 − ( Rβ / g ) p 0T 0 
Ω=  . 5. 14
rg 1 − Rβ / g 
69
Figure 5. 2 Schematic of Saastamoinen tropospheric and stratospheric spherical layered
dry atmosphere
R is the gas constant, r is the earth’s radius, T0 is temperature at the tracking station, and p0
and T0 are pressure and temperature at the bottom of the stratosphere. β is the vertical
gradient of temperature ( dT / dh ). Figure 5.3 shows a plot of the coefficient Ω varied with
station height above sea level as given by Saastamoinen (1971).
For a station at sea level, Ω is approximately 1.16. For the signal coming in the zenith
direction (z = 0), the term involving coefficient Ω is zero, and equation 5.13 can be rewritten
for tropospheric zenith delay as:
  1255  
TkZ = 0.002277  P0 +  + 0.05 e0  5. 15
  T0  
70
Coefficient for Saastamoinen Model
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
coefficent
Ω
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
h
Station height km above sea level
Figure 5. 3 Coefficient Ω for Saastamoinen model versus height
The first term is a function of surface pressure and refers to the hydrostatic component, while
the rest is a function of water vapor pressure and corresponds to the wet component. A
correction to standard gravity at the observing station has been incorporated into the
Saastamoinen model (Janes and Langley, 1989; Janes et al., 1991):
0.002277   1255  
TkZ =  P0 +  + 0.05 e0  5. 16
g′   T  
where
g ′ = 1 − 0.0026 cos 2ϕ − 0.00028 h0 5. 17
has units m/s2, and ϕ and h0 are station latitude and orthometric height (km) (Saasamoinen,
1971). Saastamoinen estimates the accuracy of the hydrostatic and the wet components as 2-3
mm and 3-5 mm rms, respectively. Mendes (1998) found that the hydrostatic component can
be predicted with sub-millimeter accuracy from the Saasamoinen model if accurate
measurements of surface pressure are available. For the wet component he found that it is
71
much more difficult to use the surface meteorological data to predict with the best models
show rms of a few centimeters .
5.2.2 Mapping Functions
The mapping function describes the elevation angle dependence of the delay of the signals that
travel through the neutral atmosphere (Niell, 1996). Each neutral atmospheric component, the
zenith delay and a mapping function are used to model the line of sight delay. Azimuthal
symmetry is usually assumed. The mapping function parameters are normally involved with
temperature, pressure, and relative humidity. Moreover, some mapping function models, e.g.
MTT by Herring (1992) and NMF by Niell (1996), take latitude and height above sea level
into account. An extensive comparison between mapping functions and ray traces of
radiosonde profiles is given in Mendes (1998).
Generally, the tropospheric delay correction is defined in terms of the contributions of
the hydrostatic and wet components. Therefore, the total tropospheric delay can be described
by:
τ a ( E ) = τ hz mh ( E ) + τ wz m w ( E ) 5. 18
where the total tropospheric delay τa for unrefracted observation elevation angle E is being
considered. The symbols τ hz ,τ wz , mh , and m w are the zenith delays, and the mapping
functions for the hydrostatic and wet atmospheric components, respectively. The nominal
zenith delays for a site at sea level are 2300 mm for the hydrostatic and 100 mm for the wet
component. Wet zenith delay extreme values are 300 and 400 mm for midlatitude and tropical
regions, respectively (Niell, 1996). However, the more specific values of zenith delay may be
obtained from the tropospheric models.
72
Because of the atmospheric curvature, the mapping function does not just change as
the cosecant of the elevation angle E, which would be expected for a plane parallel refractive
medium. The hydrostatic mapping function will change according to changes in the ratio of
the atmospheric thickness to the Earth’s radius, as a result of the changes in temperature
(Niell, 1996). Therefore, the temporal change of mapping function is associated with
variability of temperature at various atmospheric heights, which can be obtained from
radiosonde profiles.
5.2.2.1 Marini Mapping Function
In 1972, J. W. Marini developed a tropospheric correction, which shows that the elevation
angle E dependence of any horizontally stratified atmosphere can be approximated by
expanding in a continued fraction in term of 1 / sin E . The general form of the Marini
mapping function is written as (Marini, 1972):
1
m( E ) = 5. 19
a
sin E +
b
sin E +
c
sin E +
sin E + K
E is the geometric (unrefracted) satellite elevation angle and a, b, c,... are profile dependent
coefficients. The Marini mapping function does not explicitly separate the hydrostatic and
wet components of tropospheric delays.
5.2.2.2 Marini & Murray Mapping Function
The Marini & Murray mapping function maps the total delay based on Saastamoinen zenith
delay viz.(Marini and Murray, 1973):
73
1+ ζ
m( E ) = 5. 20
ζ
1+ζ
sin E +
sin E + 0.015
wherein
G
ζ = , 5. 21
TkZ
0.002644 [−0.14372 h0 ]
G= e 5. 22
g′
Surface meteorology information as well as station altitude and latitude are incorporated into
the Marini & Murray mapping function. TkZ and g ' are previously given in equations (5.16)
and (5.17). The Marini & Murray formula is specified to be valid for an elevation angle
greater than 10°. In addition, the comparison of the Marini & Murray formula with ray traces
of radiosonde data revealed that the standard deviation of the range correction increases from
20 mm at the zenith to nearly 200 mm at 10°.
5.2.2.3 Chao Mapping Function
In 1974, C. C. Chao derived a tropospheric mapping function to be used for radio tracking
corrections of the 1971 Mariner Mars spacecraft. Chao treats the wet and dry components
separately through empirical fitting to an average refractivity profile derived from two years of
radiosonde data (Chao, 1974).
74
1
mh ( E ) = 5. 23a
ah
sin E +
tan E + bh
1
mw ( E ) = 5. 23b
aw
sin E +
tan E + bw
where a h = 0.00143, bh = 0.0445, a w = 0.00035, and bw = 0.0170 . It should be
noted that the term tan(E ) was used to ensure that both dry and wet mapping functions are
one at the zenith. The accuracy of the Choa's dry mapping function is 1% down to 1° with
respect to the ray trace of the average annual refractivity profiles. The error at this level is too
large for accurate geodetic VLBI application (Niell, 1996). Due to vast spatial and temporal
variability, Choa's wet mapping function was sufficiently accurate for space geodetic
measurements until the introduction of the Herring mapping function (Niell, 1996).
5.2.2.4 Lanyi Mapping Function (Lanyi)
Lanyi (1984) constructed a total mapping function that has both the dry and wet components.
The Lanyi mapping function was expected to be applicable to a 6° minimum elevation angle.
The parameterization of the Lanyi mapping function includes surface temperature, height of
isothermal surface layer, and temperature lapse rate. The greater parameterization in
temperature profiling of the Lanyi mapping function allows inclusion of an isothermal layer
of variable height beginning at the surface. The IERS Conventions (1996) prefers the Lanyi
mapping function if information about the vertical temperature distribution in the atmosphere
is available.
75
5.2.2.5 Davis Mapping Function (CfA-2.2)
Both the Marini & Murray (1973) and Chao (1974) mapping functions are in the generalized
forms, and thus are exposed to the influence of variability in the refractivity profile and lateral
gradients. To increase accuracy at low elevation angles and to better accommodate local and
seasonal variations, further modification was performed by Davis et al. (1985) by adding the
fraction of the sine term to Chao's mapping function. The Davis mapping function was
dubbed "CfA-2.2":
1
mh (ε ) = 5. 24
a
sin ε +
b
tan ε +
sin ε + c
in which through the least-square fit the ray trace yields coefficients as linear functions of the
surface weather conditions, i.e. pressure, temperature, and relative humidity.
a = 0.001185 [ 1 + 6.071 ⋅ 10 −5 ( P0 − 1000) − 1.471 ⋅ 10 −4 e0 + 3.072 ⋅ 10 −3 (T0 − 20)

+ 0.01965(α + 6.5) − 0.005645( H t − 11.231)]
5. 25
b = 0.001144 [ 1 + 1.164 ⋅ 10 −5 ( P0 − 1000) − 2.795 ⋅ 10 −4 e0 + 3.109 ⋅ 10 −3 (T0 − 20)

+ 0.03038(α + 6.5) − 0.001217( H t − 11.231)]
5. 26
c = −0.0090 5. 27
From above, H t is the height of the tropopause (km). α is the tropospheric temperature lapse
rate value. Even though Davis et al. (1985) evaluated parameters a and b by least-squares fit
76
to ray traces of idealized pressure, temperature, and humidity profiles of spherical symmetric
layered atmosphere, they remarked that errors of 1 to 2 mm are present for elevation angles
from 20° to 60°. This is due to the incorrectness of the tangent term since tan E does not
approach sin E quickly enough. However, the advantage of CfA-2.2 is its simplicity, both in
calculating the mapping function itself and in calculating partial derivatives of the mapping
function with respect to the parameters to be estimated (Davis et al., 1985).
The tropospheric temperature lapse rate (α) normally has values ranging from −6 to
−7°K/km, but −6.5°K/km is the standard value according the U.S. Standard Atmosphere
(NOAA/NASA/USAF, 1976). However, Mendes and Langley (1998) reported a mean global
value of 6.17 ± 0.82° / km . Mendes and Langley (1998) also observed a correlation between
α and surface temperature as expressed in the linear model as a function of temperature:
α (° / km ) = −5.930 − 0.0359(T0 − 273.16) 5. 28
The rms agreement of this mapping function (equation 5.24) compared with ray tracing is less
than 5 mm for all elevations above 5°. Mendes and Langley (1998) averaged the global
tropopause height data and reported H t = 11.3 ± 2.6 km, while Davis et al. (1985) suggested
a value of 11.231 km. The large standard deviation of Mendes and Langley (1998) reflects the
large latitudinal and seasonal variations, and therefore cannot be accounted for through a
single nominal number. The tropopause is highest at the equatorial regions with very small
seasonal variation and attenuates as it approaches polar areas where large seasonal variations
are detected from middle to high latitudes. Mendes and Langley (1998) found that tropopause
height is highly correlated with surface temperature according to the expression, in km
T0 − 273.16
Ht = 7.508 + 2.421 e 22.90 5. 29
77
5.2.2.6 Herring Mapping Function (MTT)
In 1992, T. A. Herring applied the Marini mapping function, but this correction has been
normalized to unity at zenith as given below (Herring, 1992):
a
1+
b
1+
m( E ) = 1+ c 5. 30
a
sin E +
b
sin E +
sin E + c
The coefficients of the physical quantities a, b, and c can be estimated from the least-
squares fits of m(E) to ray traces of idealized temperature and humidity profiles for different
values of pressure, temperature, etc. These coefficients depend linearly on surface
temperature, the cosine of the station latitude and the height of station above the geoid
(ranging from 0-1600 m).
5.2.2.7 Niell Mapping Function (NMF)
Recently, Niell (1996) proposed the new mapping function (NMF) based on temporal changes
and geographic location rather than on surface meteorological parameters. He argued that all
previously available mapping functions have been limited in their accuracy by the dependence
on surface temperature, which causes three dilemmas. All of these are because there is more
variability in temperature in the atmospheric boundary layer, from the Earth's surface up to
2000 m. First, diurnal alterations in surface temperature cause much smaller variations than
those calculated from the mapping functions. Second, seasonal changes in surface
temperature are normally larger than upper atmosphere changes (but the computed mapping
78
function yields artificially large seasonal variations). Third, the computed mapping function
for cold summer days may not significantly differ from warm winter days. For example,
actual mapping functions are quite different than computed values because of the difference in
lapse rates and heights of the troposphere.
The new mapping functions have been derived from temperature and relative
humidity profiles, which are in some sense averages over broadly varying geographical
regions. Niell (1996) compared NMF and ray traces calculated from radiosonde data spanning
about one year or more covering a wide range of latitude and various heights above sea level.
Such comparison was to ascertain the validity and applicability of the mapping function NMF.
Through the least-square fit of four different latitude data sets, Niell (1996) showed
that the temporal variation of the hydrostatic mapping function is sinusoidal within the scatter
of the data.
Table 5. 4 Coefficients of the hydrostatic NMF mapping function (Niell, 1996)
Latitude ϕi
Coefficients
15° 30° 45° 60° 75°
Average
a 1.2769934e-3 1.2683230e-3 1.2465397e-3 1.2196049e-3 1.2045996e-3
b 2.9153695e-3 2.9152299e-3 2.9288445e-3 2.9022565e-3 2.9024912e-3
c 62.610505e-3 62.837393e-3 63.721774e-3 63.824265e-3 64.258455e-3
Amplitude
a 0.0 1.2709626e-5 2.6523662e-5 3.4000452e-5 4.1202191e-5
b 0.0 2.1414979e-5 3.0160779e-5 7.2562722e-5 11.723375e-5
c 0.0 9.0128400e-5 4.3497037e-5 84.795348e-5 170.37206e-5
Height Correction
aht 2.53e-5
bht 5.49e-3
cht 1.14e-3
79
For the hydrostatic NMF mapping function, the parameter a at tabular latitude ϕ i at
time t from January 0.0 (in UT days) is given as:
 t − T0 
a(ϕ i , t ) = aavg (ϕ i ) + aamp (ϕ i ) cos 2π  5. 31
 365.25 
where T0 is the adopted phase, DOY28. The linear interpolation between the nearest a(ϕ i , t )
is used to obtain the value of a(ϕ , t ) . For parameters b and c, a similar procedure was
followed.
Table 5. 5 Coefficients of the wet NMF mapping function (Niell, 1996)
Latitude ϕ
Coefficients
15° 30° 45° 60° 75°
aw 5.8021897e-4 5.6794847e-4 5.8118019e-4 5.9727542e-4 6.1641693e-4
bw 1.4275268e-3 1.5138625e-3 1.4572752e-3 1.5007428e-3 1.7599082e-3
cw 4.3472961e-2 4.6729510e-2 4.3908931e-2 4.4626982e-2 5.4736038e-2
The coefficients for the wet NMF mapping function are shown in Table 5.5. No
temporal dependence is included in the wet NMF mapping function. Therefore, only an
interpolation in latitude for each parameter is required. Height correction associated with the
NMF is given as:
dm( E )
∆m( E ) = H 5. 32
dh
dm( E ) 1
= − f ( E , a ht , bht , c ht ) 5. 33
dh sin( E )
80
where f ( E , a ht , bht , c ht ) is a three-term continued fraction (equation 5.30). The parameters
aht, bht, cht as given in Table 5.4 were determined by a least-squares fit to the height correction
at nine elevation angles, and H is the station height above sea level.
Mendes (1998) analyzed the large number of mapping functions by comparing against
radiosonde profiles from 50 stations distributed worldwide (32,467 benchmark values). The
models that meet the high standards of modern space geodetic data analysis are Ifadis, Lanyi,
MTT, and NMF. He found that for elevation angle above 15 degrees, the models Lanyi, MTT,
and NMF yield identical mean biases and the best total error performance. At lower elevation
angles, Ifadis and NMF are superior.
5.3 Ionosphere
Ionospheric effect is a result of electromagnetic waves of GPS signals travelling through a
dispersive atmosphere to the antenna. The effect inversely varies with the square of frequency
f of the signals. Having dual-frequency observation, ionospheric range errors can be removed
from observation data. Major ionospheric effects correspond to rise and fall of the number of
sunspots − the solar cycle.
5.3.1 Spatial and Temporal Variations
Normally, at mid-latitudes the ionospheric effect on GPS signals can be negligible. On the
other hand, the ionospheric scintillation activity is becoming more significant at lower
latitudes, especially in the hours immediately after sunset (Knight and Finn, 1996). In
addition, the ionospheric effects rise and fall according to number of sunspots. The sunspot
cycle, which has a vast effect, was discovered in 1843 by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe. Around
81
1848, Johann Rudolph Wolf, Swiss astronomer and astronomical historian, confirmed
Schwabe's discovery of a cycle in sunspot activity through the use of previous records that
defined the cycle's length more accurately, to be an average of 11.1 years. Figure 5.4 shows
annual sunspot numbers since 1700.
Figure 5. 4 Sunspot count 1700-1800 (top), 1800-1900 (middle), and 1900-2000 (bottom)
(NOAA, 2000)
82
Wolf discovered a daily technique to measure solar activity by simply counting the
number of individual spots and groups of spots on the sun's surface. He introduced the term
"the Zurich relative sunspot number" (or Wolf's sunspot number), a value equal to the sum of
the spots plus 10 times the number of groups. This method is still used today and daily
observations of sunspots are averaged to find annual values. Wolf sunspot counts rise and fall
roughly every 11 years, and its cycle is asymmetrical with an average 4.3 years to rise from a
minimum to the maximum and another 6.6 years to drop to a minimum once again.
Figure 5. 5 Sunspot number prediction for cycle 23 (NASA, 2000b)
From the record, the largest annual mean number (190.2) occurred during 1957-58.
The peak in the current sunspot cycle (number 23) is approaching around the middle of 2000
(see Figure 5.5). Sunspot numbers can be obtained from the archive at NOAA (2000). Figure
83
5.6 depicts monthly variation of sunspot counts. Wolf also discovered that the sunspot cycle
coincided with disturbances in the Earth's magnetic field.
140
120
100
Counts
80
60
40
Monthly Sunspot Numbers
20
M 9
M 0
8
0
98
99
00
M 8
9
98
99
8
9
-9
-0
-9
-9
-0
-9
l-9
l-9
v-9
v-9
n-
p-
n-
p-
n-
ar
ar
ay
ay
ay
ar
Ju
Ju
No
No
Se
Se
Ja
Ja
Ja
M
Figure 5. 6 Monthly mean sunspot numbers (NOAA, 2000)
Some of the phase variations are transformed to amplitude and phase via diffraction
resulting in an irregular but rapid variation in amplitude and phase, called scintillation (Leick,
1995, page 297). In other words, ionospheric scintillation is caused by small-scale
irregularities in the ionospheric electron density, and can disturb the amplitude and phase of
traversing radio signals. Such effects can cause severe fades in the signal or rapid phase
gradients that exceed a receiver ability to hold “lock” on the signal; several cases of loss of
lock under such conditions have been reported (Nordwall, 1996).
84
Among others, solar ultraviolet (UV) activity is a major cause of ionospheric
turbulence. For GPS, the major ionospheric effects pertinent to solar UV activity are
ionospheric range delays and amplitude fading and phase scintillation effects. Direct
measurements of solar UV radiation cannot be made from the Earth's surface due to
atmospheric absorption, instead data from solar cycles collected over a 300 year period are
used. Another surrogate measure of this UV radiation is the solar radio flux at wavelength
10.70 cm; however, this method is less subjective than measurements of sunspot numbers
(Klobuchar and Doherty, 1998).
5.3.2 Ionospheric Range Delay
Ionospheric range delays are directly proportional to the total electron content (TEC), which
varies along the transmission path and can be defined as
TEC = ∫N
path
e ( s ) ds 5. 34
where Ne is the local electron density (electrons/m3). The TEC represents the total number of
free electrons contained in a column with cross-sectional area of 1-square meter along the path
of signal between satellite and receiver. The TEC is in units of (el/m2). The Total Electron
Content Unit (TECU) is defined as TECU = 1 ⋅ 1016 el / m 2 . Transforming the time delay of
a code sequence or the phase advancement to the corresponding distance (in meters) is:
40.28 40.28
I kp, f , P =
f 2
TEC =
f 2 ∫ N e ds
path
5. 35
40.28 c
=
f 2 ∫ N e dt
path
85
The above equation is the ionospheric range delay or advance between receiver k and satellite
p for the carrier frequency f and c is the speed of light. The corresponding time delay or
advance follows as
I kp, f , P 40.3 TEC

vf = = 5. 36
c cf 2
Figure 5.7 shows GPS ionospheric range errors as functions of TECU and frequency.
GPS Ionospheric Range Error
30 100
I(f1) I(f2) 90
25 80
Ionosphere (m)
Time delay (ns)

20 70
60
15 50
40
10 30
5 20
10
0 0
0 25 50 75 100
TECU
Figure 5. 7 GPS Ionospheric range errors as functions of TECU and frequency
For GPS signals, it is necessary to identify the delays of the P1 and P2-codes and the
advances of the L1 and L2 carrier phases. Normally, the ionospheric code delay has a unit in
meters while carrier phases have a unit in cycles, except when the carrier phases have been
scaled to distance.
c p
I kp,1, P = − I kp,1, Φ = − I
f1 k ,1,ϕ
5. 37
c
I kp, 2, P = − I kp, 2, Φ = − I kp, 2,ϕ
f2
86
Ionospheric relations between two frequencies can be formed, for code and phase:
I kp,1, P f 22
= 5. 38
I kp, 2, P f12
I kp,1,ϕ f2
= 5. 39
I kp, 2,ϕ f1
5.3.3 Ionosphere Models
There are a few ionospheric models available to estimate ionospheric effect. Examples are the
ionospheric plate model, daily cosine model, and ionospheric point model. Ionospheric
coefficient for the cosine model included in the navigation message compensates
approximately 50% of the actual group delay. Details of these models are summarized in
Leick (1995, pages 299-302).
5.3.4 Functions of Observables
The effects from the ionosphere on GPS analysis can vary depending on many factors. Such
factors include geomagnetic variations, spatial locations, upper atmospheric chemical
composition and temperature, wind circulation, duration of the sunspot cycle, season, time of
the day, and line of sight. Since ionospheric effect is a function of a signal's frequency, having
dual frequency data can eliminate almost all of the ionospheric effects. In addition, an
extremely precise measurement of relative TEC can be formed from the linear combination of
the two carrier phases of two signals (Musman et al., 1998). Even the most dominant
ionospheric correction is the lowest order term ( 1 / f 2 ), the higher order terms 1 / f 3 and
87
4
1/ f might be important by affecting the observation accuracy at a few centimeters and
millimeters respectively (Bassiri and Hajj, 1992).
5.3.4.1 Dual-Frequency Ionosphere-free
Exploiting the ionospheric frequency relation equations (5.38) and (5.39), a combination to
obtain ionosphere-free functions for codes and phases can be formed (Leick, 1995; Langley,
1996):
f12 f 22
Pkp, IF (t ) = Pkp,1 (t ) − Pkp, 2 (t ) 5. 40
f12 − f 22 f12 − f 22
f12 f1 f 2
ϕ kp, IF (t ) = ϕ kp,1 (t ) − ϕ kp, 2 (t ) 5. 41
f12 − f 22 f12 − f 22
In equation (5.41), the ambiguity term is not an integer due to scaling factors employed to
eliminate the ionospheric term.
5.3.4.2 Dual-Frequency Ionosphere
Pseudorange linear combinations for the ionospheric solution can be established directly:
PI p, k = P1,pk − P2p, k
= (1 − α ) I Pp, k + c (1 − α ) TGD
p
5. 42
+ d1, P , k + d1p, P, k + d1p, P − d 2, P , k − d 2p, P , k − d 2p, P
where α = ( f1 / f 2 ) 2 . The receiver clock cancels in this combination. The TGD term is a
constant over a period of time, as given in the broadcast navigation message. Thus, this
88
ionospheric combination contains the difference of hardware delays and multipath that
normally are small magnitudes compared to the ionospheric effect, see Figure 8.8.
The dual-frequency phase ionospheric function can be written as:
f1 p
ϕ kp, I (t ) = ϕ kp,1 (t ) − ϕ (t )
f 2 k ,2
5. 43
N k , 2 (t ) − 1 (1 − α )I kp,1, P (t )
f1 p f
= N kp,1 (t ) −
f2 c
The scale factor on the L2 carrier phase is used to scale it to have the same frequency as in L1.
This destroys the integer ambiguity nature of phase on L2. The phase ionospheric
combination can be used to detect cycle slips. Figure 8.2 shows a phase ionospheric plot.
5.3.4.3 Single-Frequency Ionospheric-Free Code and Phase
Since the ionospheric effect disrupts the code and phase differently (thus the term "group
delay and phase advance"), it is possible to use this knowledge to eliminate common
ionospheric error:
Pkp, i (t ) + Φ kp, i (t )
Ξ kp, i (t ) =
2
= ρ kp (t ) − c dt k + c dt p + Tkp (t ) + N kp, i
5. 44
d k ,i , P (t ) d kp,i , P (t ) d ip, P (t ) ε i,P
+ + + +
2 2 2 2
d k ,i ,Φ (t ) d kp,i ,Φ (t ) d ip,Φ (t ) ε i ,Φ
+ + + +
2 2 2 2
with the reparameterized ambiguity
c TGD, i
N kp, i = N kp, i + β c 5. 45
2 fi 2
89
This equation can be applied to both L1 (β = 1) and L2 (β = α). However, clock errors do not
cancel out, but multipath and noises contribute at half of the pseudorange and carrier phase
p
values. The analysis process must be able to estimate the reparameterized ambiguity, N k .
90
6 Precise IGS Orbit and Satellite Clock
The International GPS Service (IGS) generates precise ephemerides for the satellites together
with by-products such as Earth orientation parameters (EOP) and GPS clock corrections. The
IGS service is built upon a global network of permanent tracking stations and provides
information and data products from computational centers to all GPS users through data
archive and exchange centers. In this chapter, the IGS analysis is introduced. The GPS orbital
information is normally given in the standard SP3 format which will be discussed in detail in
the following section. Format and description of satellite clock corrections will also be
covered.
6.1 IGS Orbital Analysis and Its Products
6.1.1 IGS Structure and Operation
Since its establishment, the IGS accomplishes its mission through the following components:
• Networks of tracking stations
• Global and Regional Data Centers
• Analysis and Associate Analysis Centers
• Analysis Coordinator
91
• Central Bureau
• International Governing Board
The tracking data are available at various Data Centers, the individual orbits
determined by the Analysis Centers at the Global Data Centers, and the official IGS orbits are
combined at the Central Bureau and the Global Data Centers (IGS, 1998). Table 6.1 provides
the current IGS components/structure, beginning with the IGS Operation Centers and the IGS
station network that rigorously apply IGS standards for station monument/hardware, data
quality, submission formats, and delivery delays.
6.1.2 Products
Since the IGS test operations started in June 1992, a continuous set of highly accurate
daily GPS orbital data and EOP have been available from individual processing centers. Since
November 1992, the IGS Analysis Center Coordinator has regularly compared the orbits of
the individual processing centers (Goad, 1993). The IGS product accuracy has improved from
approximately 1m (orbits) and 1mas (EOP) (Beutler, 1994) to about 5 cm (orbits) and about
0.1 to 0.2 mas (EOP) (Neilan et al., 1997). This improvement indicates that the IGS orbit is
becoming more accurate, stable, and reliable. Table 6.2 shows approximate availability and
accuracy of IGS products. The EOP are combined with those determined by means of satellite
and lunar laser observations as well as VLBI observations by the IERS (Beutler, 1994). After
the discontinuation of SA, the final satellite clock correction has accuracy 0.1 ns (Kouba,
2000).
92
Table 6. 1. The current IGS structure/components
Operation Centers/ IGS Station Network:

Global Data Centers:
CDDIS - Crustal Dynamics Data Information System, GSFC, NASA, USA
IGN - Institut Geographique National, France
SIO - Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Univ. of Cal., USA
Regional Data Centers:
AUSLIG - Australian Land Information Group, Australia
BKG - Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie, Germany
JPL - Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech, USA
NGS - National Geodetic Survey, NOAA, USA
NRCan - Geodetic Survey, NRCan, Canada
Analysis Centers:
CODE - Center For Orbit Determination in Europe, Univ. Bern, Switz.
NRCan - Geodetic Survey, NRCan, Canada
ESA - European Space Operation Center, ESA, Germany
GFZ - GeoForschungsZentrum, Potsdam, Germany
JPL - Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech, USA
NGS - National Geodetic Survey, NOAA, USA
SIO - Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Univ. of Cal., USA
Associated Analysis Centers (AAC):
USNO - AAC for Rapid Service, U.S. Naval Observatory, USA
JPL - Global Network AAC (GNAAC), Jet Propulsion Lab., USA
MIT - GNAAC, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
NCL - GNAAC, University of New castle upon Tyne, UK
RNAACs – 15 Regional Network AACs in Europe, N.A., Asia and Australia
Analysis Center Coordinator : (T. Springer/CODE)
Central Bureau (CB): hosted by JPL, includes IGS CB Information System
(Director: R. Neilan)
International Governing Board: 15 members
Normally, the high-quality GPS data is online within one day and data products are
online within two weeks of observations. The IGS global network of permanent tracking
stations, each equipped with a GPS receiver, generates raw orbit and tracking data. The
Operational Data Centers, which directly contact the tracking sites, collect the raw receiver
data in Receiver INdependent EXchange format (RINEX) (Gurtner, 1997) and then forward
these data to the Regional or Global Data Centers. For efficiency and to reduce electronic
network traffic, the Regional Data Centers collect data from several Operational Data Centers
before transmitting them to the Global Data Centers. Data not used for global analyses are
archived and available online at the Regional Data Centers. The Global Data Centers archive
93
and provide online access to tracking data and data products which normally must be available
to users for at least 60 days (Kouba et al., 1998). The online data are employed by the
Analysis Centers to create a range of products which are then transmitted to the Global Data
Centers for public use. The IGS Central Bureau Information System, accessible on the
Internet, provides both IGS member organizations and the public with a gateway to all the IGS
global data and data product holdings along with other valuable information.
Table 6. 2 Approximate Availability and Accuracy of the IGS Products

Units: mas – milli-arc-second; ms - millisecond (Kouba et al., 1998) Note that the predicted
clock accuracy refers to the case of SA being active
IGS Products Availability Interval Accuracy

Ephemerides
Predicted Real Time 15 min 50 cm
Rapid 1-2 days 15 min 10 cm
GPS Final 10-12 days 15 min 5 cm
Satellites Clocks
Predicted Real Time 15 min 150 ns.
Rapid 1-2 days 15 min 0.5 ns.
Final 10-12 days 15 min 0.3 ns.
IGS Station
Weekly Solutions < 4 weeks 7 days 3-5 mm
Positions
Pole
Rapid 1-2 days 1 day 0.2mas
Final 10-12 days 1 day 0.1mas
Pole Rates
Rapid 1-2 days 1 day 0.4 mas/day
Earth Final 10-12 days 1 day 0.2 mas/day
Orientation UT1−UTC
Rapid 1-2 days 1 day 0.20ms
Final 10-12 days 1 day 0.05ms
Length of Day
Rapid 1-2 days 1 day 0.06ms/day
Final 10-12 days 1 day 0.03ms/day
Tropospheric Zenith Delay < 4 weeks 2 hours 0.4cm
Since January 1994, contributions from the seven current IGS Analysis Centers make
IGS official orbits possible and available to a user community. Other than supporting a
variety of government and commercial interests, the IGS also develops international GPS data
94
standards and specifications. With a multi-national affiliation, the IGS collects, archives, and
distributes GPS observation data sets with sufficient accuracy to satisfy the objectives of a
wide range of applications and experiments. IGS uses these data sets to generate data
products as follows:
§ High-quality orbits for all GPS satellites (estimated accuracy better than
5 cm (one sigma) for the final ephemerides)
§ Earth Rotation Parameters
§ Contributions to determine the tracking site coordinates and velocities in
International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF), in close cooperation
with the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS)
§ Phase and pseudorange observations in daily RINEX files for each IGS
tracking site
§ GPS satellite and tracking station clock information
§ Ionospheric information
§ Tropospheric information
§ Other data products in support of geodetic and geophysical research
activities.
Highly accurate and reliable data and data products supplied by the IGS that meet the
demands of a wide range of applications and experimentation are available within two weeks
of observation. These data can be accessed through the Internet via the Information System
managed and maintained by the IGS Central Bureau (JPL), which is sponsored by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
IGS near real time high-quality GPS data and data products provided by the IGS
global system of satellite tracking stations, Data Centers, and Analysis Centers meet the
objectives of a wide range of scientific and engineering applications, and research. Even
95
though improvements are frequently made, the current accuracy of various IGS products is
sufficient to support, improve, and extend current scientific objectives including:
• Realization of global accessibility to ITRF
• Improvement of ITRF
• Monitoring deformations of the solid Earth
• Monitoring Earth rotation
• Monitoring variations in the liquid Earth (sea level, ice-sheets, etc.)
• Scientific satellite orbit determinations
• Ionospheric monitoring
• Climatological research, eventually weather prediction
Precise GPS Satellite Ephemerides and Clock Information: To obtain the final orbits, the
combination of ephemerides can be accomplished via many means. The official IGS orbits
are produced by forming a weighted combination of the ephemerides submitted by each
individual analysis center (IGS, 1997). Each week the Analysis Center Coordinator provides
the precise orbits and clocks and a summary report file documenting the combination process.
Based upon IGS orbit comparison and combination, final GPS satellite ephemerides precision
is better than 5cm (one sigma) in each coordinate. Normally, a rapid solution can be
computed from 15 to 20 worldwide distributed stations after the end of the day using data
available at the time. The rapid solution is made available usually within 21 hours following
the observations with its estimated accuracy better than 50cm (one sigma) in each coordinate
component. Generally, this degradation over the final solution has minor impact on the
positioning accuracy for most GPS users. Approximate availability and accuracy of the IGS
products are listed in Table 6.2 (Kouba et al., 1998).
96
IGS has taken two actions to improve the consistency between the combined IGS
orbits and the combined IGS clocks. First is an improved clock weighting scheme using the
clock estimates from one AC as reference instead of the satellites without SA. Second is to
correct the AC clock, before the combination, based on the difference in the radial component
between the AC orbit and the IGS combined orbit. It is expected that all high quality IGS
products should be more reliable and at least as accurate as, if not more than, the solutions
obtained from each individual analysis center (Springer et al., 1998).
More attention has been given to the improved precision of the IGS combined orbit
prediction (IGP), LOD/UT combination and satellite clock combination. Comparing with the
IGS rapid solution (IGR), the IGP outlier detection can be performed (Kouba et al., 1998).
This considerably enhances the IGP reliability and consistency. The resulting ephemerides
and clocks are output to daily files in the SP3 format and these product files can be obtained
from the CBIS or any of the Global Data Centers. Table 6.3 shows the IGS and IGR
comparisons with the IERS Bulletin A for 1997.
Table 6. 3 Comparisons of IGS Rapid and IGS Final combined EOP with the IERS
Bulletin A for 1997 (units: mas – milli-arc-sec.; ms - millisec.) (Kouba et al., 1998)
IGS Final IGS Rapid

Comparison PMx PMy LOD UT PMx PMy LOD UT
(mas) (mas) (ms) (ms) (mas) (mas) (ms) (ms)
Mean .28 .15 .001 .015 .40 .26 −.004 .043
Standard
.07 .07 .026 .044 .24 .27 .034 .203
Deviation
It became clear that the IGS orbits and clocks were inconsistent at the 200 mm level
and improvement has been carried out by improving the clock weighting scheme and
correcting the AC clocks before the combination (Springer et al., 1998). The update and
97
combination strategies including orbit combination and evaluation statistics and remarks are
given in the IGS final summary file. The current IGS products are based on ITRF-97.
6.2 The SP3 Ephemeris
The currently used GPS satellite orbital format distributed by the IGS is the format
defined by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS), called SP3 format. SP3 is an ASCII
representation that includes the satellites’ position and clock corrections. ECF3 and EF18 are
binary counterparts to SP3, which are regarded as the second generation of orbital formats.
All formats have been carefully designed by taking many factors into consideration including
their use for GLONASS and geostationary satellites (Remondi, 1993). While the previous
generation could handle only 35 satellites, the second generation can accommodate up to 85
satellites (NGS, 2000; Remondi, 1993). Additionally, the header section of the second
generation has been developed to allow changes and insert new information, e.g., orbital
accuracy information for each satellite.
6.2.1 The SP3 GPS Orbital Format and Data Accuracy
Following the NGS study, it appeared that for all application purposes the velocity data does
not need to be distributed, since it can be calculated to an accuracy about 0.004 mm/s from the
positional data (Remondi, 1993). However, the velocity data can optionally be included in the
SP3 format. NGS provides programs for users to recover velocity information as well as
translate one format to another. The SP3 format is given to 1 mm and 1 ps (pico-second). For
each information line for a given satellite, the flag notation “ P” for SP1, SP2, and SP3 refers
to position-only, and “ V” for SP3 indicates velocity. Both position and velocity are required
for the velocity flag. The velocity data has units of decimeters/s with an accuracy of 10−4
98
mm/s. The rate of change of clock correction at the last column of the velocity line has units
of 10−4 µs/s with precision of 1 ps/s. See appendix for the SP3 format.
6.2.2 Precise Satellite Clock Information
The satellite clock information is given in the SP3 data file in units of microseconds. It is
given at the same epochs for which the satellite positions are given. Its precision information
is discussed above: 1 ps for the clock and 1 ps/s for the rate of change of clock correction.
6.3 Lagrange Interpolation
GPS ephemeris and clock is given at a nominal epoch. The interpolation is needed to obtain
the satellite position and clock correction at the transmission epoch. Lagrange is the Newton
form of interpolating polynomials. Lagrange is probably the most convenient and efficient
method and has several advantages (Cheney and Kincaid, 1994, page 134). Lagrange can be
applied to the GPS orbit interpolation as utilized by Remondi (1989). We can also apply
Lagrange to the satellite clock interpolation as well.
Having a set of fixed nodes x1 , x 2 , K , x n , the system (called cardinal function in
interpolation theory) will have polynomials of degree (n − 1) . Such system has n special
polynomials denoted by l1 , l 2 , K , l n with the following property
0 if i ≠ j
li ( x j ) =  6. 1
1 if i = j
The Lagrange formula, a linear combination of polynomial li , can then be used to interpolate
any function f:
99
n
p( x) = ∑ li ( x) f i ( xi ) 6. 2
i =1
p(x) is the interpolating polynomial of degree (n − 1) for the function f. p(x) yields
f ( x j ) at x j . The formula for li , the product of (n − 1) linear factors, is given as follows:
n  x−x 
l i ( x) = ∏  
j
1≤ i ≤ n. 6. 3

j ≠i  x i − x j


j =1
li is therefore a polynomial of degree (n − 1) and having the required property given in
equation 6.1. Note that the denominators of li are just numbers.
For equal epoch intervals ephemeris and for a given degree of polynomial one can
pre-compute the denominators by standardizing the fixed nodes, e.g., 1, 2, …, n. This will
save computation time and resources. Table 6.4 provides pre-computed denominators of li
for the standardized fixed nodes.
Table 6. 4 Pre-computed denominators of li for the standardized fixed nodes
Number of
standardized Denominators of li
fixed nodes (n): i = 1, 2, …, n
1, 2, …, n
3 2 -1 2
5 24 -6 4 -6 24
7 720 -120 48 -36 48 -120 720
9 40320 -5040 1440 -720 576 -720 1440 -5040 40320

3628800 -362880 80640 -30240 17280 -14400
11
17280 -30240 80640 -362880 3628800
100
7 Mathematical Implementations
This chapter provides mathematical techniques and implementations utilized in PPP analysis.
These include cycle slip detection and removal and mathematical consideration associated
with Kalman filter implementation for PPP. In addition, the computation flow and software
components are also given. Information from previous chapters is used as fundamental
principles of the software development.
7.1 Dilution of Precision
The term dilution of precision (DOP) has been accepted to characterize the effect of
the geometric satellite distribution on the accuracy of the navigation solution. The DOP
factors include vertical dilution of precision (VDOP), horizontal dilution of precision (HDOP),
positional dilution of precision (PDOP), time dilution of precision (TDOP), and geometric
dilution of precision (GDOP). The DOP expressions are given below (Langely, 1999):
101
σh
VDOP =
σ
σ n2 + σ e2
HDOP =
σ
σ n2 + σ e2 + σ h2
PDOP = 7. 1
σ
σt
TDOP =
σ
σ n2 + σ e2 + σ h2 + σ t2 c 2
GDOP =
σ
where σ is usually taken to be equal to the total user equivalent range error (UERE) and
σ n2 , σ e2 , σ h2 , and σ t2 are the corresponding variances of position in Northing, Easting, Height
(Up), and Time. The DOPs vary from epoch to epoch according to the change of satellite
geometry.
7.2 Cycle Slip Detection and Removal
The carrier phase measurements can be continued only when the receiver has the ability to
maintain lock on the incoming GPS signal, which is directly related with the integer number
of wavelengths (called ambiguity) referenced to the first phase measurement when the
receiver starts to lock on the signal. But in some situations, the receiver loses lock of the
phase lock loop which is due to the poor reception, very fast acceleration changes, or
shadowing of satellite signals by obstacles in their path. Such situations cause discontinuities
in the phase measurements, called "cycle slips," triggering a sudden jump of the phase.
102
7.2.1 Multipath
Multipath varies greatly depending upon a variety of factors, for example, the receiver-
satellite-reflector geometry and the strength and the delay of the reflected signal compared to
the line-of-sight signal. Therefore, multipath is considered one of the major limitations
imposed on the accuracy of the observables. Multipath distorts the C/A-code and P-code
modulations as well as the carrier phase observation. Multipath affects pseudoranges much
more than phases, therefore phases provide more precise solutions. The multipath expressions
applied to GPS/GLONASS are given in equations 7.2 and 7.3 (Li, 1995),
Pkp,1 + (2 β − 1)Φ kp,1 − 2 βΦ kp, 2 = (2 β − 1)λ1p N kp,1 − 2 βλ2p N kp, 2

+ {d1, P }+ (2 β − 1){d1,Φ }− 2 β {d 2,Φ }
7. 2
Pkp, 2 + 2αβΦ kp,1 − (1 + 2αβ )Φ kp, 2 = 2αβλ1p N kp,1 − (1 + 2αβ )λ2p N kp, 2
+ {d 2, P }+ 2αβ {d 1,Φ }− (1 + 2αβ ){d 2,Φ }
7. 3
where
2
 f1 p 
α ≡  p
f 
 2 
1
β ≡
1−α
Φ k = measured carrier phase scaled to distance (meters)

p
{d } = d
i,Φ k , i, Φ
(t ) + d kp, i , Φ (t ) + d ip, Φ (t ) + ε k , i , Φ for carrier phase, i = 1, 2
{d } = d
i, P k ,i, P
(t ) + d kp, i , P (t ) + d ip, P (t ) + ε k , i , P for pseudorange, i = 1, 2.
103
Assuming there are no cycle slips and a specific satellite is being considered, the first two
terms on the right side of equations (7.2) and (7.3) should provide a constant straight line. The
rest of the terms can be considered noises from multipath and hardware delays. Accordingly,
a plot using the terms on the left side of both equations (i.e., the observations) can be used to
identify such noises. More importantly, cycle slips may be detectable to a certain extent from
such plots.
Figure 7. 1 Multipath on P1 and P2 for PRN29 [NJIT, DOY137(2000)]
Multipath plots on P1 (equation (7.2)) and P2 (7.3) are illustrated in Figure 7.1,
together with the elevation angle. Multipath appears to be greater at low elevation angles.
The plots of equations (7.2) and (7.3) can be used in the preprocessing step to visualize quality
of the data as well as to detect cycle slips.
7.2.2 Widelane
Widelane is a linear combination of carrier phase that increases the effective GPS signal wave
length. Widelane ambiguity can be computed from pseudorange and carrier phase
observation.
104
f1 P1p + f 2 P2p
N wp = ϕ wp − 7. 4
( f1 + f 2 ) λ w
where
ϕ wp = ϕ1p − ϕ 2p 7. 5
and
c
λw = ≅ 86.2 cm 7. 6
fw
f w = f1 − f 2 7. 7
Widelane is a useful linear combination for the purpose of ambiguity estimation in
differential GPS (Teunissen, 1997). Theoretically, widelane ambiguity should be constant.
Due to spatial changes of the satellite signal's path causing multipath, the widelane ambiguity
function has a small variation particularly at low satellite elevation angles.
7.2.3 Cycle Slips
Attempts can be made to detect and correct the change in phase ambiguity. If a cycle-slip is
found and fixed, no further action is needed. But in the case of loss of lock the respective
ambiguity must be re-estimated.
7.2.3.1 Between Satellite Differences
A cycle slip causes a sudden jump in the phase observation by an integer number of cycles and
all observations obtained after the cycle slip are shifted by the same integer amount. One way
to find a cycle slip is to plot phase observations versus time which will show a step function or
105
individual outliers. Cycle slips can be any size ranging from one to millions of cycles. The
plot should have the capability to be viewed at different scales (or different aspect ratios).
Typically, steep slopes are seen from the plots of undifferenced observations as a result of
receiver clock error. In such cases, small slips may not be visible.
For single stations, a useful function for slip detection is the between-satellite single-
difference (one receiver and two satellites) of carrier phases as presented in equation 7.8.
ϕ k (t ) ≡ ϕ k (t ) − ϕ k (t ) .
pq p q
7. 8
Notice that equation 7.8 is free of receiver clock error. Slips are removed by adding integer
values to restore continuity of the carrier function. However, visual cycle slip fixing is not
easy because (7.8 ) is strongly dependent on time.
Carrier phase OMC (Observed Minus Computed) between satellites shows less of a
time dependency. Receiver clock error is eliminated. When satellite clock correction is not
applied, a slope might still be visible due to high clock drift. See Figure 7.2. The plots use
observations after SA had been turned off. A high variation would be seen with SA-on
observations. The satellite clock correction removes most of the slope in the OMC plot as
seen in Figure 7.3. Note that slips do not necessarily produce integer steps in the ionosphere-
free function (Leick, 1995, page 356). Single-frequency users are limited, of course, to L1
OMCs only. To detect cycle slips, the Kalman filter (Mertikas and Rizos, 1997) may be
applied to the OMC.
106
Figure 7. 2 Phase OMC between satellites without satellite clock correction applied.
L1 (top), L2 (middle), and ionosphere-free (bottom). The base satellite is PRN25.
[WES2, DOY138(2000)]
107
Figure 7.3 Phase OMC between satellites with satellite clock correction applied.
L1 (top), L2 (middle), and ionosphere-free (bottom). The base satellite is PRN25.
[WES2, DOY138(2000)]
108
Figure 7. 4 Phase OMC between satellite ionosphere-free PRN21-PRN25 without (top)
and with (middle) satellite clock correction applied, and satellite clock
correction difference (bottom). [WES2, DOY138(2000)]
Figure 7.4 shows the ionosphere-free phase OMC without and with satellite clock
correction applied and satellite clock correction for the difference PRN21-PRN25. The
IGS(JPL) produced satellite clock correction has the same but mirrored variation as seen in the
OMC when satellite clock correction is not applied (compare top and bottom figures). The
109
reversal seen after epoch 550 in the middle plot reveals possible errors in the satellite clock
correction. Prior to the reversal the clock corrections are not available for several epochs.
7.2.3.2 Undifferenced Observation Cycle Slip Detection and Fixing
Undifferenced cycle slip detection and fixing as discussed in Blewitt (1990) has been
implemented in this study. Since cycle slips can occur concurrently and differently on L1 and
L2, the slip on each signal must be independently detectable. The undifferenced cycle slip
detection involves linear combinations of the observations: the widelane combination and the
ionospheric combination. Let N1 and N2 be ambiguities for L1 and L2, respectively.
7.2.3.2.1 Cycle Slip Detection in the Widelane Combination
The widelane ambiguity is written as:
f1 P1 + f 2 P2
Nw = ϕw − . 7. 9
( f1 + f 2 ) λ w
For every observation epoch, the widelane ambiguity is evaluated. Setting a priori rms of half
widelane cycles, the sequential recursive algorithm for the widelane ambiguity and its
variance is given as
Nw i
= Nw i −1
+
1
i
[N w,i − N w i −1
] 7. 10
σ i2 = σ i2−1 +
1
i
{(
N w,i − N w i −1
)2 − σ i2−1 } 7. 11
where N w is the mean value of Nw, σi is the standard deviation of Nw , and i refers to the
current data epoch being evaluated. The subsequent epoch is required such that N w,i +1 is
110
within 4σi of the running mean N w i . Otherwise it is assumed that a cycle slip has occurred
and the respective number of widelane cycle slips is recorded. However, consecutive slips
with equal widelane slips but negative sign are later treated as outliners in the cycle slip fixing
stage.
7.2.3.2.2 Cycle Slip Detection in the Ionospheric Combination
The idea of ionospheric slip detection is used in the very unlikely case that the slip in L1
equals the slip in L2, which the widelane slip detection is unable to detect. The ionospheric
combination for carrier phase observation is
ϕ ϕ 
Φ iono = c  1 − 2 
 f1 f 2 
= δI + λ1 N1 − λ 2 N 2 7. 12
= δI + λ1 ( N1 − N 2 ) + (λ1 − λ2 ) N 2
= δI + λ1 N w − λ I N 2
f 2 
where δI =  12 − 1 I P1 and IP1 is the ionospheric delay on P1-code. λ I = (λ1 − λ 2 ) is the
 
 f2 
ionospheric wavelength.
The pseudorange ionospheric combination is
Piono = P2 − P1
. 7. 13
= δI
Since the pseudorange does not have integer cycle discontinuity, it is possible to construct a
polynomial fit Q to Piono and subtract it from Φ iono ( i.e. Φ iono − Q ), then look for
discontinuities. Blewitt (1990) suggested an empirical formula to compute the degree of
polynomial fit as
111
 N 
m = min  + 1, 6 7. 14
100 
where N is the number of observations in the data. It should be noted that this simple fit is
only used for discontinuity detection, not for the value of cycle slip. The algorithm is given as
( LI i − Qi ) − ( LI i −1 − Qi −1 ) > k cycles 7. 15
( LI i +1 − Qi +1 ) − ( LI i − Qi ) < 1 cycles 7. 16
where epoch i is the first good data point after the occurrence of a cycle slip if both of the
above conditions are met. The default value of k is set to 6 ionospheric cycles (6 x 5.4 cm =
32.4 cm), but can be set to a more appropriate value depending on the ionospheric conditions.
The reasons for using high tolerance k value are because
(1) receivers at high latitudes often have large phase variations due to ionospheric activity.
This should not be confused with cycle slips.
(2) there are only slim chances of having equal cycle slips in L1 and L2 of less than 6
ionospheric cycles.
Equal cycle slips are detected by the ionospheric combination, the respective widelane
cycle slips are therefore set to zero.
7.2.3.2.3 Fixing Cycle Slip of Undifferenced Observation
Let ∆N1 and ∆N2 be the number of cycle slips for L1 and L2, respectively. The number of
widelane slips is: ∆Nw = ∆N1 − ∆N2 . The cycle slip can be proceeded by a polynomial fit to
Φ iono just before the slip occurrence and then extrapolated to the slip epoch or after the slip
epoch if in case of a data gap. This is denoted as Φ iono, estimate . The value of real Φ iono at
112
the slip epoch is also calculated, Φ iono, at _ slip . The difference is
∆Φ iono = Φ iono, at _ slip − Φ iono, estimate . We can apply the knowledge from Φ iono :
∆Φ iono = λ1∆N w − λ I ∆N 2 . 7. 17
∆Nw is obtained from the widelane slip detection, or zero in case of equal slip detected by the
ionospheric algorithm. ∆N2 can therefore be computed from the above equation. Since ∆Nw
= ∆N1 − ∆N2 , now the number of cycle slips ∆N1 in L1 is very obvious. Having ∆N1 and ∆N2
values, cycle slips in the phase data can be fixed by adding (or subtracting) the integer cycles
to all the respective subsequent data points.
7.3 Kalman Filter
The Kalman filter is an optimal estimation technique that minimizes the estimation error in a
well defined statistical sense (Gelb, 1974). As a linear filter using a recursive algorithm which
processes measurement information sequentially in time, the Kalman filter involves two main
steps: filtering and prediction. Filtering is the estimation of the state vector at the current
epoch based on all previous measurement information. Prediction involves the estimation of
the state vector x at a future time.
The Kalman filter system state vector (dynamic model) which evolves with time can
be written as
x k +1 = Φ k x k + wk 7. 18
corresponding to the measurement vector (measurement model)
z k = H k xk + vk 7. 19
113
where wk ~ N k (0, Qk ) and v k ~ N k (0, Rk ) are the system and measurement noises which
are mutually uncorrelated vectors. Subscript k refers to the epoch of time. Φ is the transition
matrix. H is the measurement connection matrix. Elements of H are the partial derivatives of
the predicted measurements with respect to each stage and must be computed for every epoch.
The respective Kalman filtering algorithm involves Kalman Gain (K), covariance update ( Pk )
and prediction ( Pk−+1 ), in the time update and measurement update steps, as shown in Figure
7.5.
114
− −
Initial Estimates of xˆ k and Pk
Measurement Update (Filter or correct)
(a) Calculate Kalman Gain
K = Pk− H kT ( H k Pk− H kT + Rk ) −1
(b) Using measurement to update estimate
xˆ k = xˆ k− + K ( z k − H k xˆ k− )
(c) Update the error covariance
Pk = (I − K k H k )Pk−
Time Update (Predict)
(a) Project the state ahead
x k−+1 = Φ k xˆ k
(b) Project the covariance ahead
Pk−+1 = Φ k Pk Φ Tk + Qk
Figure 7. 5 The Kalman filter computation recursive scheme
115
7.3.1 Extended Kalman Filter
The extended Kalman filter (EKF) is an extension of the standard Kalman filter (SKF). EKF
is used when the process to be estimated and/or the measurement relationship to the process is
non-linear (Welch and Bishop, 1997). EKF simply applies SKF through the linearization
(through approximation of Taylor series) around the previous state estimate.
The EKF provides a simple but efficient algorithm to process a nonlinear system. In
this work, we deal with a nonlinear measurement system and a linear dynamic model.
The state vector system which evolves with time can be written as
x k +1 = Φ k x k + wk 7. 20
corresponding to the measurement vector
z k = h( x k ) + v k 7. 21
The respective governing equations that linearize an estimate about 7.20 and 7. 21 are
x k +1 = Φ k xˆ k + wk 7. 22
zk = ~
z k + H ( xk − ~
xk ) + vk 7. 23
H is a partial derivative of measurement equation h(o) with respect to the estimated vector x,
around the approximated state vector. The EKF computation recursive scheme is given in
Figure 7.6.
116
Initial Estimates of xˆ k− and Pk−
Measurement Update (Filter or correct)
a) Calculate Kalman Gain
K = Pk− H kT ( H k Pk− H kT + Rk ) −1
b) Using measurement to update estimate
xˆ k = xˆ k− + K ( z k − h( xˆ k− ))
c) Update the error covariance
Pk = ( I − K k H k )Pk−
Time Update (Predict)
a) Project the state ahead
x k−+1 = Φ k xˆ k
b) Project the covariance ahead
Pk−+1 = Φ k Pk Φ Tk + Qk
Figure 7. 6 The EKF computation recursive scheme
117
7.3.2 Discrete Gauss-Markov Process
A Markov process is a random process that allows users to link the process with simple filters.
A fundamental model is first-order Markov if the probability distribution for the process ( x k )
depends only on the value at one point immediately in the past ( x k −1 ) (Gelb, 1974, page 42).
The differential equation for continuous first-order Markov process x(t) is given as
1
x& (t ) = − x(t ) + w(t ) 7. 24
τ
where τ is the correlation time and w is white noise. If the condition is added that the
probability density function of w and therefore x also are Gaussian, the given process is a
Gauss-Markov process. A discrete version (or a first-order difference equation) of a Gauss-
Markov process can be written as
xk +1 = κ xk + wk 7. 25
where
T
κ= eτ 7. 26
T is the data interval. Let β = (1 / τ ) , β is called the dampening coefficient. A larger β value
yields a shorter correlation length. This permits a large variable change from one epoch to the
next. On the other hand, a small β value describes high correlation in the following epochs,
and thus allows only a small variation (Mertikas and Rizos, 1997). The associated covariance
in discrete time for the Gaussian white noise w is
q
cov(w) = [1 − e −2Tβ ] . 7. 27
2β
118
q is the variance of the process noise. If τ equals zero, the model becomes a pure white noise
model without correlation time which implies κ = 0 . But if the correlation time τ
approaches infinity [ κ = 1 ], the process is called pure random walk (Gelb, 1974 pages 43 and
79).
Station coordinates are usually modeled as pure random walk, so are reparameterized
ambiguities. Troposphere and receiver clock can be modeled as either white noise or random
walk (Tralli et al., 1990).
7.3.3 PPP Implementation
Mathematical issues for PPP implementation are given. These include partial derivatives for
EKF, receiver clock estimation, ambiguity estimation, and observation weighting scheme.
7.3.3.1 Partial Derivatives
The submatrix H for satellite p at epoch i for the state vector of position x, y, z, ambiguity,
receiver clock, and tropospheric effect can be written as.
 xi− − X ip y i− − Yi p z i− − Z ip 
H ip (Φ ) = 1 1 TMF 
 ρ i ρ ip ρ ip
p

 xi− − X ip y i− − Yi p z i− − Z ip 
H ip ( P) = 0 1 TMF  7. 28
 ρ i ρ ip ρ ip
p

ρ ip = ( xi− − X ip ) 2 + ( y i− − Yi p ) 2 + ( z i− − Z ip ) 2
p p p
where ( X i , Yi , Z i ) are the coordinates of satellite p at the transmission time and
− − −
( xi , y i , z i ) are the estimated or projected receiver coordinates. For the carrier phase
observation Φ (scale ϕ to distance), the partial derivative for the reparameterized ambiguity of
119
the respective satellite is 1. The partial derivative for zenith troposphere is the tropospheric
mapping function (TMP) (e.g., NMF). Rows of H for dual-frequency analysis are twice that
for single-frequency.
7.3.3.2 Receiver Clock Estimation
Receiver clock can be estimated in EKF using a Gauss-Markov process. Zumberge et al.
(1997b) suggested that the receiver clock can be modeled as white noise. However, it is better
to model it as random walk. Since we have pseudorange observations which include the clock
term, an approximate ratio of the change in the clock from the current epoch to the next in the
EKF dynamic model can be directly computed.
Ri = Pi p − ( ρ ip − cdtip )
7. 29
Ri +1 = Pi +p1 − ( ρ ip+1 − cdtip+1 )
Ri +1
Φ clk = 7. 30
Ri
Because many satellites are observed at the same time, it is additionally better to average out
the random error by averaging the ratio of all available satellites. The PPP solution obtained
from the random walk process with a priori information of the ratio of receiver clock shows a
slight solution improvement than that using the white noise process.
7.3.3.3 Ambiguity Estimation
The ambiguity should be constant as long as the receiver is locked to the signal. The
ambiguity number changes when the receiver loses lock. Unlike the double differenced
carrier phase, the undifferenced PPP analysis estimates only real numbers of ambiguities, or
120
"floated solutions." In fact, PPP ambiguities are reparameterized ambiguities which are
collections of ambiguities of L1 and L2, with carrier phase ionosphere-free scaling factors.
)
The reparameterized ambiguities N are being estimated every epoch, as a pure random walk
process. The dynamic model is in the form
) )
N ip+1 = N ip + w 7. 31
where w is Gaussian noise.
7.3.3.4 Observation Weighting Schemes
Recent scientific GPS research has started to pay more attention to observation weighting
methods (Vermeer 1997; Teunissen, 1998; Collins and Langley 1999; Hartinger and Brunner
1999). Because different weight methods yield different solutions particularly in the height
component, the observation must be given appropriate weight. As alternatives to constant
weighting, normally used in GPS analysis, other possible weighting schemes may be used.
For example:
a) Exponential weighting schemes that weight corresponding observations observed from
near horizon satellites is lowered (Euler and Goad, 1991)
b) Weighting that reflects receiver generated signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) values (Collins and
Langley, 1999; Hartinger and Brunner, 1999). Normally, SNR represents the carrier-to-
noise-power-density ratio (C/N0) which varies with the elevation of the arriving signal.
Langley (1997) derived phase variance (m) using C/N0 (dB-Hz) values as follows
2
λ 
σ Li
2
= B  i  10 −0.1 C / N0 , i = 1, 2 7. 32
 2π 
121
where B is the carrier tracking loop bandwidth (Hz). It should be noted that some receiver
manufacturers do not provide either SNR or C/N0, and some provided are in an arbitrary
format.
c) Weighting as a cosecant function of the satellite elevation angle (Vermeer, 1997; Collins
and Langley, 1999). This is because the amount of signal noise increases towards the
horizon, similar to the tropospheric error which has a cosecant shape, according to various
models of the tropospheric mapping function (e.g., Marini, Chao, Davis, and Herring
mapping functions).
d) Weighting as square of a cosecant function of the satellite elevation angle (Vermeer,
1997; Hartinger and Brunner, 1999). This is from the fact that GPS residuals reveal a
more swiftly increasing noise level for low elevation angles.
e) Combination weighting using C/N0 information together with satellite elevation
knowledge.
Figure 7. 7 Potential weighting functions, comparison between cosecant and cosecant-
squared
122
Hartinger and Brunner (1999) used the SIGMA-ε model where the phase variances
are computed using C/N0 values and thus observation weight directly echoes signal quality.
Their experimental results show that baseline rms of the SIGMA-ε model is much less than
that of equal-weighting, especially at a low elevation cutoff angle.
Collins and Langley (1999) reported that, in the presence of multipath, the cosecant
and SNR weighting schemes yield a great improvement over the equal-weighting scheme.
Moreover, according to the scaling effect of the a posteriori variance factor, the cosecant and
SNR schemes are almost numerically equivalent.
The amount of observation noise increases and exhibits presence of multipath which
mostly occurs in signals from low satellite elevation angles. It should be more appropriate to
apply a step function using a combination of uniform weight for high elevation angle
observation and lower weight at low elevation angle. Deweighting observations at high
elevation angles will lose valuable information. The step function variance may be given as
σ 2 E >α
σ (E ) =  2
2
7. 33
σ cosec 2 ( E ) E <α
or
σ 2 cosec( E ) E >α

σ 2 (E ) =  2 7. 34
σ cosec 2 ( E ) E <α
where α is the elevation threshold angle.
123
Figure 7. 8 Potential step function weightings, comparison between equations 7. 33 (line)
and 7. 34 (dotted line)
With PPP experiments, the solutions obtained from the step function weighting
scheme appear to be better than that from continuous varying weighting schemes.
7.3.4 Computational Flow and Software Components
This section provides PPP analytical detail starting from observation in RINEX format until
the result analysis. The summarized PPP algorithm used in the study is given in Figure 7.9.
Most of the program components used in this study have been written in Mathcad software.
Due to the creative design, the program is an interactive graphic-aided tool suited for GPS
research experiments involving PPP.
The Batch.exe program transfers the RINEX observation and the SP3 ephemeris into
column format which outputs are in the same satellite PRN sequence. Output files are written
on the computer disk. The columnized observations of carrier phase and pseudorange are used
in the cycle slip detection and removal step. After completion of the cycle slip analysis, the
124
data is trimmed to 30-second interval if necessary and the output file written to disk. The user
has the ability to visually examine the data quality via widelane, phase ionospheric
combination, and multipath plots, before and after running the cycle slip analysis. Comments
are noted for data deletions (DEL) or resetting the weight matrix Pk− (WT) for specific
epochs and satellites. The next step involves orbit and clock interpolation. The pseudorange
OMC computation is also carried out. After undesired data is deleted, the output is written to
a file. Next, before running the EKF, the relevant parameters and options can be set.
Resetting the weight matrix WT enters here, just before running EKF.
125
Observation in RINEX format
Satellite Ephemeris in SP3 format
Batch.exe
Observation in column format per Orbit & satellite clock in

satellite column format per satellite
Hour jump corrections (if any)

Orbit and clock interpolation to the
transmission epoch using Lagrange,
Cycle slip detection & removal and compute pseudorange OMC
Take a note tables DEL & WT
Pseudorange quality control

& data deletion (table DEL)
Update Update Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) with

table DEL table WT Gauss-Markov dynamic model
Accounted for Solid Earth Tides
Figure 7. 9 PPP Algorithm
126
8 Numerical Study and Results
Data sets were arbitrary selected from CORS sites, including data sets before and after
discontinuation of SA. The numerical detail is given. An experimental example in graphical
format allows the reader to follow visually. Numerical results and discussion will be
presented. Various components which affected the results are discussed, including zenith
troposphere (estimated or approximated via Saastamoinen model), impact of satellite antenna
offsets, impact of relativity, impact of a single cycle slip, the use of a priori tropospheric
information. Additionally, kinematic positioning experiments for dual and single-frequency
are also presented.
8.1 Data Sets
Observation data from four stations are used in this study. Data sets were downloaded from
the CORS network database, except the USNO station where data sets were downloaded from
the CDDIS (2000b) database. Each station apparatus is given in Table 8.1. All data sets used
in this study were limited to the first 6 hours of the day (0-6 GPS time).
The Antenna Reference Point (ARP) published coordinates are given in Table 8.2.
All coordinates, except the USNO station, are ITRF-96 positions at epoch 1997.0 which is
made available from NGS, CORS database. Coordinates of USNO station were obtained from
127
the station's latest log file. Table 8.3 shows data sets day of the year (DOY) for year 2000
that were used for this study. JPL's high-rate (30-second intervals) precise ephemerides were
used (JPL, 2000c).
Table 8. 1 Station hardware
Station Name Antenna Frequency

Receiver Type
(station ID, location) Type Standard
Westford Rogue AOAD/M_T
H-Maser
(WES2, Westford, MA) SNR-8000 Choke-ring
New Jersey Inst. of Tech. Leica LEIAT303

Internal
(NJIT, Newark, NJ) SR9500 Choke-ring
The Surveyors Exchange Anchorage Leica LEIAT504

Internal
(TSEA, Anchorage, AK) CRS1000 Choke-ring
US Navy Observatory Rogue AOA AOAD/M_T Steered

(USNO, Washington DC) SNR-12 ACT Choke-ring H-Maser
Table 8. 2 Published coordinates of ARP
Station
X Y Z Note
ID
Published by IERS
WES2 1492233.388 -4458089.474 4296045.997
in Jan., 1998
Computed in Feb. 1999

NJIT 1319479.773 -4656039.407 4140717.359
using 26 days of data
Computed in July, 1999

TSEA -2666154.987 -1545828.568 5565470.306
using 21 days of data
Data Aug-Sept 1997

USNO 1112189.903 -4842955.032 3985352.238
Epoch 1997.653
128
Table 8. 3 RINEX data sets
Legends: Y: Yes, this data was used, N: Not Used, NA: Not Available
DOY 002 065 100 122 128 136 137 138

WES2 Y N N Y Y Y Y Y
NJIT Y N N Y Y Y Y Y
TSEA NA Y NA Y N Y N Y
USNO NA NA Y Y Y N Y Y
8.2 A Priori Kalman Filter Settings
Kalman Filter settings involve the variance matrix Q of parameter noise, and the variance
matrix R of observation noise. The initial parameter variance Pk− is set at the beginning.
Since the Kalman algorithm employs both the measurement update and time update, the
parameter variance matrix P is adjusted to reflect the quality of the estimated parameter. The
variance Q affects Pk− in the time update stage, whereas in the measurement update Pk− , R,
and H influence the Kalman Gain K which in turn affects the variance P. Therefore, the
Kalman filter performance depends upon setting these quantities to the appropriate values that
reflect the real quality of the respective parameters.
It should be noted that the settings given here apply to a 30-second data interval.
These values are typically assumed in GPS analysis. The values for the variance matrix Q are:
3600 sec/ hr
σ x = 0.0003 m Coordinates. Multiplying this with will result in
30 sec
standard deviation in units m/hr.
σ clk = 30 m Receiver clock
129
σN = 0m Ambiguities. We know that ambiguities are constants, thus their noise
variances are set to echo this knowledge.
0.01m
σT = Zenith troposphere
3600 sec
The variance matrix R should be set such that it reflects the quality of the observation. We use
the following values:
σ Ph = 0.02 m For carrier phase ionosphere-free combination
σ Pr = 0.20 m For pseudorange ionosphere-free combination
Initial setting for the unknown parameters uses large values reflecting the accuracy of the
initial estimated unknown parameters. We use the following values in matrix P:
σ coor _ init = 1 m Coordinates
σ clk _ init = 500 m Clock
σ N _ init = 1010 m Ambiguities
σ T _ init = 0.1 m Zenith troposphere
8.3 Analysis Example
This section provides an example of a PPP analysis. One solution is documented from the
beginning to the end. The PPP algorithm used in the study is summarized in Figure 7.9. As
130
part of the analysis, graphical images in each analytical step are given. Station WES2,
DOY2(2000) is used for this illustration.
8.3.1 Widelane
Widelane is used in the cycle slip detection and fixing step. Discontinuities or jumps in
widelane indicate cycle slips. However, one should not confuse cycle slips with noise. Most
of the widelane variation comes from pseudoranges which are less precise than carrier phases.
No slip is found in Figure 8.1.
Figure 8. 1 Widelane before and after cycle slip detection (top) and the
difference(bottom) for PRN5 [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
131
8.3.2 Ionospheric Carrier Phase
The plot of ionospheric carrier phase can be used to identify equal cycle slips in L1 and L2
which the widelane does not show. However, there is a hidden problem in the ionospheric
carrier phase combination for certain slip combinations. For example, a pair of a nine-cycle
slip in L1 and a seven-cycle slip in L2 produces
f1 p
ϕ Ip = ϕ1p − ϕ
f2 2
 1575.42 
= 9−  7 = 0.017
 1227.6 
For such a combination, the slips cannot be detected because no ionospheric slip is found.
Therefore, the widelane is used to detect this cycle slip family. A plot of ionospheric carrier
phase is shown in Figure 8.2, which indicates no slip.
Figure 8. 2 Ionospheric carrier phase for PRN5 [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
8.3.3 Multipath
Multipath plots are used to visualize the quality of P1 and P2 observations. Large size cycle
slips in carrier phase may be also detected from the plots. Multipath plots are intended to
132
provide general information about data quality other than the cycle slip detection. From the
plot in Figure 8.3, P2 appears to have larger multipath than P1.
Figure 8. 3 Multipath on P1 and P2, for PRN5 [WES2, DOY2( 2000)]
8.3.4 OMC for P1
The computed OMC values take the satellite clock correction, approximate tropospheric
effect, and relativistic effect into account. The topocentric distance is obtained from
approximate receiver coordinates, the satellite position at the transmission epoch using
Lagrange orbit interpolation, and considering Earth rotation during single travel time. Since
all relevant quantities but the receiver clock error are taken into the calculation, the value from
P1 OMC is mostly receiver clock error. From Figure 8.4, other terms hidden in the graph are
133
ionospheric variation, multipath and random noise. Systematic variation within the band seen
in Figure 8.4 is mostly due to the ionosphere.
Figure 8. 4 OMC for P1 for PRN5 (top) and all satellites (bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
8.3.5 OMC for P2
In Figure 8.5, the OMC plot for P2 is similar to that for PR1. The graph reveals a similar
trend caused by the receiver clock, but shows greater ionosphere patterns. Since the
ionospheric effect is an inverse function of the signal's frequency, the ionospheric effect on P2
is much greater than on P1. The plot shows such a case. Station WES2 uses the Rogue SNR-
8000 receiver which utilizes dual-frequency P-codeless (cross-correlation) technology.
134
Figure 8. 5 OMC for P2 for PRN5 (top) and all satellites (bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
8.3.6 OMC Pseudorange Ionosphere-free
The linear pseudorange ionosphere-free combination equation (5.40) is used to calculate the
observed quantity. Although we are in the ascending phase (near the peak) of solar activity 23
which complicates the ionospheric effect on GPS signals, the ionospheric error is eliminated
through the ionosphere-free L1-L2 combination at least to the first order. Since the
ionosphere term has been taken out, the graph for all satellites seems to be more compact
revealing a more precise uniform trend of the receiver clock.
135
Figure 8. 6 OMC for pseudorange ionosphere-free for PRN5 (top) and all satellites
(bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
8.3.7 Pseudorange OMC Difference Between Satellites
Pseudorange OMC difference between satellites removes the receiver clock error, which is
common to all satellites. The terms left are ionospheric difference, multipath difference, and
random noises. See Figure 8.7. The pseudorange ionosphere-free function (bottom figure)
exhibits values around zero. The variations are multipath difference and random noise.
136
Figure 8. 7 OMC difference between satellites for P1 (top) and pseudorange Ionosphere-
free (bottom). The base satellite is PRN5 [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
8.3.8 Pseudorange Ionospheric Variations
Since the ionospheric effect on the GPS signals is frequency dependent, it is possible to
compute ionospheric variations by simply taking the difference of the pseudorange P1 and P2
from the same satellite at the same observation epoch (equation (5. 42)), detail given in section
5.3.4.2. Figure 8.8 shows ionospheric variation from pseudorange.
137
Figure 8. 8 Pseudorange ionospheric variations PRN5 [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
8.3.9 Elevation Angle and Azimuth
Part of the analysis is to have knowledge of where the observed satellite is located in the sky,
at what elevation and azimuth. The elevation and azimuth plots in Figure 8.9 show the
trajectory movement visually.
138
Figure 8. 9 Elevation and azimuth for PRN5 [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
8.3.10 Sky Plot
Sky plot provides a 3D sense of satellite trajectory centered at the receiver position. In the
Figure 8.10, the circular rings are 30 degrees apart.
139
Figure 8. 10 Sky plot for PRN5 (top) and all satellites (bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
140
8.3.11 North East & Up
The EKF yields receiver coordinate estimates which have been converted to positional
discrepancies in north, east, and up components with respect to the published coordinates.
Figure 8.11 is useful for judging convergence of the estimation.
Figure 8. 11 North (top), east (middle) and up (bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
141
8.3.12 Receiver Clock Error Estimate
WES2 station is equipped with a Hydrogen-Maser atomic clock. As a result, the receiver clock
estimate reveals a fairly smooth clock drift. Shown in Figure 8.12 are the receiver clock
estimate and its respective variance.
Figure 8. 12 Receiver clock estimate(top) and its variance (bottom) [WES2,
DOY2(2000)]
8.3.13 Ionosphere-free Pseudorange OMC (Innovation)
The EKF ionosphere-free pseudorange residuals in Figure 8.13 reflect multipath pattern seen
in Figure 8.3. All satellites exhibit similar residual magnitudes. These rather large values are
142
consequences of the linear combination which amplifies noise as well as multipath from P1
and P2.
Figure 8. 13 Ionosphere-free pseudorange OMC (innovation) for PRN5 (top) and all
satellites (bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
8.3.14 Ionosphere-free Carrier Phase OMC (Innovation)
In Figure 8.14, ionosphere-free carrier phase residuals illustrate shapes comparable to those
from pseudorange (Figure 8.13 ), but with much smaller magnitudes. Even though the linear
ionosphere-free carrier phase combination is able to eliminate ionosphere but it in turn
magnifies variance noises inherent in the L1 and L2 signals.
143
Figure 8. 14 Ionosphere-free carrier phase OMC (innovation) for PRN5 (top) and all
satellites (bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
8.3.15 Reparameterized Ambiguity Estimates
The ability to estimate real ambiguities is clearly shown in Figure 8.15. The ambiguities are
estimated every epoch and changed in the measurement update step due to a new observation.
After a few observation epochs the ambiguities seem to stabilize and converge. This
manifests the EKF algorithm performance.
144
Figure 8. 15 Reparameterized ambiguity estimates PRN5 (top) and all satellites (bottom)
[WES2, DOY2(2000)]
8.3.16 Variance of Estimated Ambiguity
The ambiguity variance stabilizes at a constant number. The log scale is used to aid
visualization in Figure 8.16.
145
Figure 8. 16 Variance of estimated ambiguity PRN5 (top) and all satellites (bottom)
[WES2, DOY2(2000)]
8.3.17 Number of Satellites Used in Kalman Filter and DOPs
The number of satellites available at each epoch and the satellite geometry as illustrated by the
DOPs provide valuable insight information for the analysis. This knowledge is particularly
important when problems happen due to singular satellite configuration (circular cone shape)
or lack of satellite clock. See Figure 8.17.
146
Figure 8. 17 Number of SV used in the computation (top) and the respective DOPs
8.3.18 Relativistic Correction
Relativistic effects on the observation depend on the position and speed of the satellite
(equation (2.22)), thus changes along the satellite trajectory. Relativistic correction for PRN5
is displayed in Figure 8.18. This correction does not cancel for PPP.
147
Figure 8. 18 Relativistic correction for PRN5 [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
8.3.19 Approximated Tropospheric Effect Using Saastamoinen Model
Environmental information at the observed station can be used to compute the approximate
tropospheric effect on the GPS signals using available tropospheric models. The
Saastamoinen tropospheric model has been chosen to calculate the zenith troposphere. Similar
to other models, the Saastamoinen tropospheric model requires information about temperature,
pressure, and relative humidity. The Niell Mapping Function (NMF) is then applied to
compute the effect at a specific satellite elevation. Figure 8.19 displays the plot of the
approximated tropospheric effect. The relation to elevation angle can readily be seen in
Figure 8.9.
Figure 8. 19 Approximated tropospheric error PRN5 (top) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
148
8.3.20 Estimated Tropospheric Zenith Delay
The Zenith tropospheric delay is one of the parameters in the EKF. The NMF is applied and
used when computing the respective partial derivative in the H matrix. Figure 8.20 shows the
estimated zenith troposphere. The dip around epoch 200 corresponding to the peaks of the up
component (Figure 8.11) and receiver clock (Figure 8.12). This demonstrates the strong
correlation between troposphere, up, and receiver clock (see next section). This phenomenon
is due to the change in geometry as satellite PRN5 rises (see Figures 8.15 and 8.17). Zenith
tropospheric delay, up, and receiver clock are dependent upon satellite elevation angle and are
estimated well only when satellites are available on at least three distinctive elevations and
even then the precision of estimation is relatively weak (Vermeer, 1997).
Figure 8. 20 Estimated zenith tropospheric error [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
8.3.21 Correlation of the Estimated Parameters
Correlation coefficients of the estimated parameters are given in Table 8.4, for the last epoch
analyzed. The largest positive correlation is between the clock and up whereas the largest
negative correlation is between clock and troposphere.
149
Table 8. 4 Correlation coefficients of the estimated parameters [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
North East Up Clock Troposphere

North 1
East -0.09 1
Up -0.23 -0.35 1
Clock -0.01 0.28 0.64 1
Troposphere -0.13 -0.07 -0.30 -0.80 1
Figure 8.21 shows correlation coefficient for every epoch. The high correlation
between clock and up and clock and troposphere can readily be seen in the top figure. The
second figure from top shows the correlation between north, east, and up. The ambiguity
parameters appear to be highly correlated among themselves (second figure from bottom).
The bottom figure shows the correlation between ambiguity (PRN5) and other components
(troposphere, receiver clock, north, east, and up).
150
Figure 8. 21 Correlation coefficients between the estimated parameters: clock-up-
troposphere (top), north-east-up(second from top), ambiguities (second from
bottom), ambiguity-north-east-up-troposphere (bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
151
8.4 Experiments
Dual and single-frequency ionosphere-free linear combination (equations 5.40, 5.41 and 5.44)
analysis of all four stations using the PPP algorithm was made. The estimate coordinates
(after convergence) are compared with the published station coordinates. Solutions were
made with or without solid earth tide correction. The comparison was also made with
solutions obtained from JPL's automated GPS data analysis service (Zumberge, 1998). The
accuracy of JPL's PPP was verified by Witchayangkoon and Segantine (1999). Note that
JPL's PPP solutions correct for ocean loading tides by interpolating correction values from
known, nearby tide stations. The 3D ocean loading tides have magnitude of up to a few
centimeters. This study does not take ocean loading, receiver phase center offset, and phase
wind up angle into account.
8.4.1 Discrepancies With Respect to Published Coordinates
Overall the PPP algorithm developed for this research seems to perform better than JPL's
solutions after discontinuation of SA, 9.3 ± 3.0 cm versus 10.3 ± 2.2 (see Table 8.9). With
SA-on, JPL's solutions appear to perform better because JPL's software can handle the clock
better, 9.8 ± 2.2 cm versus 13.4 ± 2.7 cm. Many single-frequency solutions exhibit equivalent
accuracy as obtained from dual-frequency observations. However, single-frequency solutions
do not appear to be as robust as the dual-frequency. This is because pseudoranges which are
subjected to greater multipath dominate the single-frequency ionosphere-free combination.
Moreover, dual-frequency solutions seem to converge faster than single-frequency solutions,
particularly in the presence of high multipath and great widelane variations. This is due to the
additional geometric strength delivered from the second frequency. The differences between
the PPP solutions and the published coordinates are given in the Tables 8.5-8.9.
152
Table 8. 5 The difference between the PPP solutions and the published coordinates for
station WES2 (cm)
PPP
DOY PPP PPP (JPL)
+ Solid Earth Tides
(2000)
Dual L1 L2 Dual L1 L2 Dual
002 16.3 17.5 14.8 12 17.1 9.8 8.5
122 14.8 12.9 23.4 10.4 11.8 20.5 8.5
128 17.3 41.6 35.6 12.2 36 29.7 10.9
136 6.2 8.8 9.5 4.5 8.2 6.8 5.1
137 5.4 9.5 10.8 5.1 9.4 13.6 10.1
138 10.0 12.4 12.8 8.1 10.3 10.9 9.9
station NJIT (cm)
PPP
DOY PPP PPP (JPL)
+ Solid Earth Tides
(2000)
002 23.9 17.2 27.2 17 4.1 25.6 10.5
122 13 16.8 17.3 9.9 13.7 15.7 7.9
128 7.6 16.6 17.1 10.5 14.6 15.3 9.7
136 7.7 31 39.2 8.5 31.9 38.3 8.8
137 9.9 19.2 32.1 11.5 14.5 32.5 10.9
138 7.6 16.4 18.3 9.7 17.3 17.5 11.9
153
station USNO (cm)
PPP
DOY PPP PPP (JPL)
+ Solid Earth Tides
(2000)
100 8.6 10.7 10.5 14.2 13.2 15.8 7.8
122 12.2 18.7 20.2 12.4 16.5 18.1 8.9
128 15 23.4 14.5 12.9 20.1 16.5 11.3
137 2.7 17.9 16.6 6.1 18.8 19.6 8.8
138 11.7 19.6 11.9 11.1 19.3 16.1 11.5
station TSEA (cm)
PPP
DOY PPP PPP (JPL)
+ Solid Earth Tides
(2000)
065 11.2 8.9 9.5 14.9 16.1 15.9 12.2
122 19 18.2 9.7 16.8 22.2 12.9 13.7
136 13.5 15.3 13.6 13.8 16.7 16.3 14.4
138 10.1 14.1 20.3 7.4 14.5 15.9 11.2
Table 8. 9 Averaged discrepancies before and after SA-off (cm) for dual-frequency
solutions
SA Status PPP PPP (JPL)

SA-on 13.4 ± 2.7 9.8 ± 2.2
SA-off 9.3 ± 3.0 10.3 ± 2.2
154
8.4.2 Verification of Solid Earth Tides
Normally, solid earth tides cause site movement at the millimeter-level over a short period.
However, the absolute movement may be up to decimeters. From the experiment, it is found
that the PPP solution, more or less, reflects site displacements that correspond to the solid
earth tide corrections. An example of the WES2 station is shown in Figure 8.22. This
solution is from dual-frequency ionosphere-free observation, DOY2, 2000. Trends in north,
east, and up are indeed corresponding to each other, both the magnitude and the movement
directions.
Figure 8. 22 Station solution (top) compared with the solid earth tides corrections
155
8.4.3 Estimated Troposphere vs. Saastamoinen Model
The station WES2 normally provides a meteorology data file (m-file) accompanied with
observation and navigation files. Site environmental information includes station pressure
(mbar), temperature (degrees Celsius), relative humidity (percent), and sea level pressure
(mbar), recorded at 5-minute intervals. The pressure, temperature, and humidity sensors have
accuracy of 0.1 mbar, 0.5 degrees, and 5 percent, respectively. The station environmental data
is used to calculate zenith tropospheric delay using the Saastamoinen Model. The comparison
can be made between the estimated tropospheric zenith delay and the Saastamoinen model as
shown in Figure 8.23. The protuberance in the middle of troposphere estimated plot is caused
by satellite rising.
Figure 8. 23 Comparison of tropospheric zenith delay between the estimated value and
the Saastamoinen model [WES2, DOY136(2000)]
156
8.4.4 Impact of Satellite Antenna Offset
The satellite antenna offset cancels in differential GPS. PPP solution highly depends on
satellite antenna offset. Satellite antenna offset is given in the satellite coordinate system (see
Table 2.1 and section 2.4.7). Four cases are computed to verify the importance of satellite
antenna offset:
Case A: Take the satellite antenna offset into account following IGS convention,
 i  0.279
 j  =  0  m.
   
 k  1.023 
Case B: Ignore the satellite antenna offset,
 i  0
 j  = 0 m.
   
 k  0
Case C: Take only the satellite antenna i-offset,
 i  0.279
 j  =  0  m.
   
 k   0 
Case D: Take only the satellite antenna k-offset,
i  0 
 j  =  0  m.
   
 k  1.023
These four cases are tested using data from three stations from three different days. The
results (3D errors) are given in Table 8.10.
157
Table 8. 10 The impact of satellite antenna offset on the station solutions (3D errors)
DOY, Case (cm)

Station
2000 A B C D
WES2 002 16.3 24.9 17.3 19.8
NJIT 136 7.7 21.2 10.1 17.1
TSEA 138 10.1 17.6 10.3 17.1
Case C which takes only the satellite antenna i-offset into consideration gives slightly poorer
solutions than case A. The reason is that the satellite antenna k-offset points towards the
center of the Earth. The error committed by not considering the k-offset is mostly absorbed by
the receiver clock. As the satellite moves the i-offset, which points roughly towards the Sun,
is changing in the crust fix coordinate system. When the i-offset is not considered the solution
is significantly falsified and depends on the changing of direction of i.
8.4.5 Impact of Relativity
The relativity correction is important for PPP. If it is not applied, the PPP solution accuracy
will degrade to several meters. Table 8.11 shows the impact of ignoring relativistic effect.
Table 8. 11 Station coordinates offset due to ignoring relativistic effect
Station DOY, 2000 Offset (m)
WES2 002 7.25

WES2 137 11.60
TSEA 138 5.19
USNO 138 11.21
158
8.4.6 Impact of Single Cycle Slip
This section shows the case when there is a slip of one cycle embedded in the observation
data. This is simply done by putting the slip of one cycle into the carrier phase. A cycle slip
of one is added at epoch 300 to the original L1 PRN29 carrier phase data that span over six-
hour period [station USNO, DOY138]. The impact is seen in Figure 8.24. The 3D offset
increases to 49.8 cm. Also, one cycle slip is subtracted to the same data at the same epoch.
The impact displays in Figure 8.25. The 3D offset is 64.1 cm in this case.
For the WES2 [DOY2(2000)], a slip of one cycle is added at epoch 300 from original
L1 PRN4 data which spanned almost six hours. The accuracy reduces to 44.6 cm and 25 cm
for the positive and negative slip, respectively.
This simple experiment clearly demonstrates the importance of detecting cycle slips
for PPP.
159
Figure 8. 24 Adding a slip of one cycle to PRN29 at epoch 300 [USNO, DOY138(2000)]
160
Figure 8. 25 Subtracting a slip of one cycle to PRN29 at epoch 300 [USNO,
DOY138(2000)]
161
8.4.7 Using A Priori Tropospheric Information
Meteorological data (m-file) recorded at station WES2 provided an opportunity to experiment
with using this kind of information in PPP. It was expected that the solutions would converge
faster using a priori meteorological data. The meteorological data is used to compute zenith
tropospheric delay from the Saastamoinen model. This approximate troposphere is treated as
a priori information in the EKF analysis. The experiment is conducted on data sets from three
different days. The solutions are then compared with solutions obtained when estimating the
zenith troposphere parameter. In both cases, the NMF is used.
On DOY 137 and 138, it is apparent that the solutions using a priori tropospheric
information converge faster than when estimating the zenith tropospheric delay. However,
the solutions on DOY136 produce more or less the same convergence speed. These results are
inconclusive and require further study.
162
Figure 8. 26 Solutions comparison between zenith troposphere estimated and
approximated [WES2, DOY136(top), 137(middle), and 138(bottom) (2000)]
163
8.4.8 Kinematic Positioning
8.4.8.1 Dual-Frequency Kinematic Positioning
Data from two stations are used to investigate kinematic positioning using dual-frequency
pseudorange and carrier phase ionosphere-free functions. The zenith troposphere is either
estimated or computed from the Saastamoinen model using meteorological data. Even though
the data sets are from stationary receivers, the kinematic positioning is simulated by setting the
variances for the station coordinates to 1 m2 each epoch (and zero correlation). It is assumed
that the respective initial estimates of the coordinates will be available from a pre-analysis.
Both solutions yield more or less comparable results, the 3D discrepancy being about half a
meter and better most of the time. Utilizing meteorological information does not seem to
improve the solutions significantly (Figures 8.27 and 8.29). In all cases, horizontal accuracy
is about 0.2m, (Figures 8.28 and 8.30).
164
estimated and approximated (top) with the associated DOPs (middle) and SV
used (bottom) [WES2, DOY136(2000)]
165
DOY136(2000)]
166
estimated and approximated (top) with the associated DOPs (middle) and SV
used (bottom) [USNO, DOY137(2000)]
167
troposphere estimated (top) and approximated (bottom) [USNO,
DOY137(2000)]
168
8.4.8.2 Single-Frequency Kinematic Positioning
In case of single-frequency kinematic positioning, the linear ionosphere-free combination is
half of the sum of the pseudorange and the carrier phase according to equation (5.44).
Solutions are made for the cases when the zenith troposphere is estimated and when it is
corrected from the meteorological data. The 3D discrepancies shown in Figure 8.31 indicate
that the solution obtained using a priori zenith troposphere information is the more precise and
possibly even a more accurate solution.
In case of horizontal offsets both solutions appear to be of the same quality (Figure
8.32). From this analysis, one might conclude that a priori tropospheric information will be
beneficial for the single-frequency user. The lack of geometric strength using just a single
frequency might be offset by the additional tropospheric data. More experimentation is
needed in order to confidently quantify single-frequency PPP in the kinematic mode.
169
Figure 8. 31 Single-frequency kinematic solutions comparison between troposphere
estimated (top) and approximated (second from top) with SV used (second from
bottom) and DOPs (bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
170
troposphere estimated (top) and approximated (bottom) [WES2, DOY2(2000)]
171
9 Conclusions and Recommendations
This thesis investigated GPS precise point positioning (PPP). Mathcad software was
developed to test various components of PPP and to serve as the software engine for further
studies. The PPP results were compared with published coordinates as well as with JPL's PPP
solutions available through the Internet. The single-frequency PPP has been developed,
tested, and compared with dual-frequency PPP solutions. Further, the correlation between the
up station coordinate, the zenith tropospheric delay, the receiver clock error, and the
ambiguities were studied. Moreover, the contribution of a priori tropospheric information was
investigated for static and kinematic positioning using either single or dual-frequency
observations.
9.1 Conclusions
The results of this research are documented by many figures and tables in Chapter 8. In all
cases the length of the data sets is 6 hours. The observation interval of 30 seconds is used
because the precise JPL ephemeris is currently only available at that rate. Several cases have
been identified that require further study.
172
9.1.1 Dual-Frequency Solutions
Excellent results have been obtained for the dual-frequency PPP solutions. First, consider the
solutions after SA has been discontinued. The research shows an average 3D discrepancy of
9.3 ± 3 cm while the JPL Internet service yields 10.3 ± 2.2 cm for the same data. See Table
8.9. This result might shed light on the significance (or insignificance) of the wind-up phase
correction. This correction was not applied in this research whereas JPL apparently uses such
a correction (Zumberge, private communication). In case of observations which are corrupted
by SA, the JPL solutions appear to be better (9.8 ± 2.2 cm versus 13.4 ± 2.7 cm ). The reason
for this reversal might be related to the interpolation of the satellite clock correction. In this
research the satellite clock correction was interpolated assuming that it changes continuously.
Zumberge (private communication) appears to indicate that they treat the satellite clock as a
step function, i.e. the satellite clock error should be considered constant during the duration of
the signal travel time (as a consequence of the manner it was originally computed by the
processing center). Because SA has been discontinued no attempts have been made to clarify
the clock correction situation. It is assume that the additional, effective satellite clock stability
gained by not having SA makes further investigation into satellite clock interpolation
unnecessary.
9.1.2 Impact of IGS Products and Service
Satellite position and satellite clock corrections are vital for PPP. Accuracy of the IGS
ephemeris and satellite clock correction has proven to be excellent, having a great impact on
PPP. When SA was active, the IGS products are very accurate. Even though the satellite
clock changed rapidly, SA did not reduce the accuracy of PPP.
173
There are occasionally epochs for which satellite clock corrections are not available.
The respective satellite observation cannot be used in PPP. This reduces the number of
satellites available, causes the DOPs to increase, and the accuracy of PPP to diminish. An
example is seen in Figures 8.11.
Normally the final IGS products are available about 2 weeks after the observation.
Clearly, if the data product could be made available faster, the PPP analysis could be executed
sooner.
9.1.3 Single-Frequency PPP
This study showed that in cases where an observation has low multipath variations single-
frequency ionosphere-free PPP solutions are equivalent to the dual-frequency solutions. This
conclusion provides great value to surveyors who mostly use single-frequency receivers.
However, like in the dual-frequency case, the observation must be free of cycle slips. Special
attention to cycle slip detection and fixing technique is required (see 9.2.1).
In the case of single-frequency solutions, pseudorange dominates the ionosphere-free
combination because of its large variances. This causes longer convergence times. In other
words, the single-frequency ionosphere-free function is essentially of P-code precision.
9.1.4 Correlation Between the Up Coordinate, Zenith Tropospheric Delay, Receiver
Clock, and Ambiguities
The experiments show a high correlation between receiver clock and the up coordinate. The
troposphere has a high negative correlation with receiver clock and up. However, the
troposphere is more correlated with the receiver clock than the up component (about three
174
times). Due to such high correlation among these three parameters undetected errors in the
satellite clock or cycle slips in the observations cause these three components to fluctuate
rapidly.
The ambiguities have little correlation with up, troposphere, and receiver clock, but
show high correlations among themselves. Estimated ambiguities appear to be steadier than
the other three components.
9.1.5 A Priori Tropospheric Information
Meteorological data is available at some observing stations. However, PPP analysis has
demonstrated the capability of reaching the same accuracy solutions at about 10 cm with or
without prior tropospheric input. Although the number of parameters being estimated is
reduced when tropospheric information is used, the expectation of faster convergence for dual-
frequency static PPP is inconclusive and needs further study.
9.1.6 Kinematic PPP
Dual-frequency kinematic PPP yields horizontal accuracy of about 20 cm, both with and
without priori tropospheric information. In addition, the 3D solutions give comparable results.
However, when meteorological information is used, the solutions tend to converge faster.
Single-frequency kinematic PPP seems to benefit from a priori tropospheric
information. The result seems to indicate that single-frequency users can expect PPP
positional accuracy at the 1 m level. Additional experimentation is required to determine the
suitability of inexpensive antennas often used in surveying or GIS applications.
175
9.2 Recommendations
9.2.1 Cycle Slip
PPP requires cycle slip free data. A good and robust algorithm to detect and fix cycle slip in
undifferenced observations is necessary prior to running the Kalman filter. In this research the
wide lane and the ionosphere-free carrier phase function were used to detect and remove slips
using a semi-graphical interactive procedure. In view of the discontinuation of SA it might be
advantageous to analyze the between-satellite OMC for cycle slip detection and removal. The
latter approach is particularly important for single-frequency users. In fact, the
discontinuation of SA might be most beneficial to the single-frequency PPP user.
Experimentation should also be done analyzing the estimated ambiguities for missed cycle
slips and re-running the solution with corrected observations.
9.2.2 Phase Wind-up Error
For a given satellite the phase wind-up error may be as much as a cycle and changing
systematically with the satellite path. Its effect on the position is possibly reduced when
averaging over satellites (Hugentobler, private communication). Correcting the phase wind-
up error is expected to improve mostly the receiver clock estimates. Incorporation of the
phase wind-up correction into PPP needs to be studied further. It seems that JPL has
implemented a wind-up algorithm and that the Bernese group is in the stage of
experimentation with the wind-up correction.
176
9.2.3 Receiver Antenna Phase Center Offset
Receiver phase center offset and variation has not been taken into account in this research.
According to Mader (1999) the receiver antenna phase center offset can cause errors in the up
coordinate by as much as 10 cm and sub-centimeter errors in the horizontal. The phase center
variation is a function of both elevation and azimuth. Phase center offset and variation, of
course, are antenna specific. It is interesting to note that the 3D comparisons with respect to
the published antenna coordinates showed the largest discrepancy in height. Because the
height component is sensitive to several error sources this observation is probably not
conclusive. Also, any error in the vertical L1 & L2 phase center offset might be absorbed by
the receiver clock estimate. According to the CORS Internet document the published
coordinates of the stations refer to the L1 phase center.
9.2.4 A Priori Tropospheric Information
This research found that a priori tropospheric information is important for single-frequency
kinematic PPP because it appears to add strength to the solution (by not having to estimate the
troposphere). Such an observation could not be confirmed with dual-frequency observations.
The use of a priori tropospheric information to reduce the time of convergence requires
additional study.
9.2.5 GLONASS
Several IGS processing centers are now producing the combined GPS/GLONASS precise
ephemeris in SP3 format. This study should be extended to include GLONASS observations
to explore their contribution to PPP. Since the PPP technique is not concerned with fixing
177
ambiguities the additional difficulties caused by the GLONASS frequencies are not relevant.
However, an additional receiver clock bias parameter will be needed.
178
REFERENCES
Aloi, D. N. 1999. Phase Center Variation (PCV) Determination of the Ohio University
Dipole Array Using GPS Data. Proc. ION GPS-99, Nashville, 705-712.
Altamimi, Z. 2000. Private Communication. Institut Geographique National,
ENSG/LAREG, France.
Argus, D. F. and M. B. Helflin. 1995. Plate Motion and Crustal Deformation Estimated with
Geodetic Data from the Global Positioning System. Geophys. Res. Lett., 22(15),
1973-1976, August.
Bar-Sever, Y. E. 1996. A New Model For GPS Yaw Attitude. J. Geodesy, 70, 714-723,
Springer-Verlag.
Bassiri, S. and G. A. Hajj. 1992. Modeling the Global Positioning System Signal Propagation
Through the Ionosphere. Telecommunications and Data Acquisition (TDA) Progress
Report 42-110, 92-103. August.
Bean, B. R. and E. J. Dutton. 1966. Radio Meteorology. National Bureau of Standards
Monograph 92. US Department of Commerce, 435p.
Beutler, G., I. I. Mueller, and R. E. Neilan 1994. The International GPS Service for
Geodynamics (IGS): Development and Start of Official Service on January 1, 1994.
Bull. Geod., 68(1), 43-46.
Blewitt, G. 1990. An Automated Editing Algorithm for GPS Data. Geophys. Res. Lett.,
17(3), 199-202, March.
179
Boucher, C. and Z. Altamimi. 1996. ITRF and Its Relationship to GPS. GPS World, 7(9),
September. Or http://lareg.ensg.ign.fr/ITRF/ITRF-GPS.html. Accessed May, 1999.
CDDIS. 2000a. Crustal Dynamics Data Information System (CDDIS) Server.
ftp://cddisa.gsfc.nasa.go/pub/igex. Accessed July 21, 2000.
CDDIS. 2000b. Crustal Dynamics Data Information System (CDDIS) Server.
ftp://cddisa.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/gps/gpsdata. Accessed July 21, 2000.
Chao, C. C. 1974. The Tropospheric Calibration Model for Mariner Mars 1971. JPL
Technical Report 32-1587, 61-76.
Cheney, W. and D. Kincaid. 1994. Numerical Mathematics and Computing. 3rd ed.,
Brook/Cole Publishing Company(ITP), 578p.
Collins, J.P. and R.B. Langley. 1999. Possible Weighting Schemes for GPS Carrier Phase
Observations in the Presence of Multipath. Contract report for the United States Army
Corps of Engineers Topographic Engineering Center, No. DAAH04-96-C-0086 / TCN
98151, March.
Davis, J. L., T. A. Herring, I. I. Shapiro, A. E. E. Rogers, and G. Elgered. 1985. Geodesy by
Radio Interferometry: Effects of Atmospheric Modeling Errors on Estimates of
Baseline Length. Radio Sci., 20(6), November-December, 1593-1607.
DeMets, C., R. G. Gordon, D. F. Argus, and S. Stein. 1994. Effect of Recent Revisions to the
Geomagnetic Reversal Time Scale on Estimates of Current Plate Motions. Geophys.
Res. Lett., 21, 2191-2194.
Euler, H.-J. and C.C. Goad. 1991. On Optimal Filtering of GPS Dual Frequency Observations
Without Using Orbit Information. Bulletin Geodesique, 65(2), 130-143.
Gelb, A. (Ed) 1974. Applied Optimal Estimation. MIT Press, 14th printing (1996), 374p.
180
Goad, C. C. 1993. IGS Orbit Comparisons. Proc. the 1993 IGS Workshop, 218-225, Univ.
of Bern.
Gurtner, W. 1997. RINEX: The receiver Independent Exchange Format Version 2.
Astronomical Institue Univ. of Berne.
ftp://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/igscb/data/format/rinex2.txt.
Hartinger, H. and F. K. Brunner. 1999. Variance of GPS Phase Observations: the Sigma-ε
Model. GPS Solutions, 2(4), Spring, 35-43.
Hein, G. W. 2000. From GPS and GLONASS via EGNOS to Galileo-Positioning and
Navigation in the Third Millennium. GPS Solutions, 3(4), Spring, 39-47.
Henriken, J., G. Lachapelle, J. Raquest, and J. Stephen. 1996. Analysis of Stand-Alone GPS
Positioning Using Post-Mission Information. Proc. ION GPS-97, Kansas City,
Missouri, 251-259.
Herring, T. A. 1992. Modeling Atmospheric Delays in the Analysis of Space Geodetic Data.
Proc. the Symposium: Refraction of the Transatmospheric Signals in Geodesy, the
Hague, the Netherlands.
Hé roux, P. and J. Kouba. 1995. GPS Precise Point Positioning with a Difference.
Geomatics'95, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, June 13-15.
HNHA. 2000. Location of Plate Boundaries.
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/plate_tectonics/part12.html.
Accessed July 21, 2000.
Hofmann-Wellenhof, B., H. Lichtenegger, and J. Collins. 1997. GPS: Theory and Practice.
4th, revised ed., SpringerWienNewYork, 389p.
Hopfield, H.S. 1969. Two-Quartic Tropospheric Refractivity Profile for Correcting Satellite
Data. J. Geophys. Res., 74(18), 4487-4499.
181
Hugentobler, U. 2000. Private Communication. Astronomical Institute, University of Berne,
Switzerland.
ICD-GLONASS. 1998. GLONASS Interface Control Document. Version 4.0. Coordination
Scientific Information Center, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, 45p.
ICD-GPS-200C. 1997. Navstar GPS Space Segment / Navigation User Interfaces: Interface
Control Document ICD-GPS-200C. Revision: IRN-200C-002. ARINC Research
Cooperation, CA.
IERS Conventions. 1996. IERS Technical Note 21. McCarthy, D. D. (Ed.) Observatoire de
Paris, July, 95p.
IERS96. 2000. The 1996 IERS Conventions Homepage: the Chapters, Subroutines, and
Associated Information. http://maia.usno.navy.mil/conventions.html. Accessed July
21, 2000.
IGEB. 2000. GPS Fluctuations Over Time on May 2, 2000.
http://www.igeb.gov/sa/diagram.shtml. Accessed July 21, 2000.
IGLOS-PP. 2000. International GLONASS Service Pilot Project (IGLOS-PP) Official
Homepage. http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/projects/iglos/glonass.html. Accessed July 21,
2000.
IGS. 1997. IGS Resource Information. September. Published by IGS Central Bureau.
IGS. 1998. IGS Directory. January. Published by IGS Central Bureau.
IGS. 2000. About the IGS. http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov. or
http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/overview/viewindex.html. Accessed July 2000.
Janes, H. W. and R. B. Langley. 1989. A Comparison of Several Models for the Prediction of
Tropospheric Propagation Delay. Proc 5th Int. Symp. on Satellite Positioning, Las
Cruces, New Mexico, 777-788.
182
Janes, H. W., R. B. Langley, and S. P. Newby. 1991. Analysis of Tropospheric Delay
Prediction Models: Comparison with Ray-Tracing and Implication for GPS Relative
Positioning. Bull. Geod., 65, 151-161.
Jonkman, N. F. and K. de Jong. 2000a. Integrity Monitoring of IGEX-98 Data, Part I:
Availability. GPS Solutions, 3(4), Spring, 10-23.
Jonkman, N. F. and K. de Jong. 2000b. Integrity Monitoring of IGEX-98 Data, Part II: Cycle
Slip and Outlier Detection. GPS Solutions, 3(4), Spring, 24-34.
Jonkman, N. F. and K. de Jong. 2000c. Integrity Monitoring of IGEX-98 Data, Part III:
Broadcast Navigation Message Validation. GPS Solutions, 3(5), Summer.
JPL. 2000a. JPL Navigation Server. ftp://navigator.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/ephem/export.
JPL. 2000b. GPS Time Series. http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html. Accessed July
21, 2000.
JPL. 2000c. JPL's High-Rate Ephemerides Database.
ftp://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/jpligsac/hirate. Accessed January-July, 2000.
Jursa, A. S. (ed.) 1985. Handbook of Geophysics and the Space Environment. Air Force
Geophysics Laboratory, National Technical Information Services, Springfield,
Virginia.
Klobuchar, J. A. and P. H. Doherty. 1998. A Look Ahead: Expected Ionospheric Effects on
GPS in 2000. GPS Solutions, 2(1), 42-48.
Knight, M. and A. Finn. 1996. The Impact of Ionospheric Scintillations on GPS
Performance. Proc. ION-GPS 96, Kansas City, 555-564.
Kouba, J., Y. Mireault, G. Beutler, T. Springer, and G. Gendt. 1998. A Discussion of IGS
Solutions and Their Impact on Geodetic and Geophysical Applications. GPS
Solutions, 2(2), 3-15.
183
Kouba, J., and T. Springer. 1998. Satellite Antenna Offsets, etc. E-mail communications
Among IGS Analysis Centers. http://maia.usno.navy.mil/gpst/mail/ant-offs Accessed
Jan-August, 2000.
Kouba, J. 2000. IGS Orbit/Clock Navigation & Satellite Clock Interpolation With No SA.
IGSMAIL-2824. http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsmail/2000/msg00163.html.
Accessed August, 2000.
Kovalevsky, J., and I. I. Mueller. 1989. Introduction. Reference Frames in Astronomy and
Geophysics, J. Kovalevsky, I. I. Mueller, and B. Kolaczek (Eds.), Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Netherlands.
Kunches, J. M. and J. A. Klobuchar. 1998. Eye on the Ionosphere. GPS Solutions, 2(1), 66-
66.
Lachapelle, G., M. E. Cannon, W. Qiu, and C. Varner. 1996. Precise Aircraft Single-Point
Positioning Using GPS Post-Mission Orbits and Satellite Clock Corrections. J.
Geodesy, 70, 562-571, Springer-Verlag.
Lambeck, K. 1980. The Earth’s Variable Rotation: Geophysical Causes and Consequences.
Cambridge Univ. Press, England, 449p.
Lambeck, K. 1989. The Fourth Dimension in Geodesy Observing the Deformation of the
Earth. Lecture Notes in Earth Science (29): Developments in Four-Dimensional
Geodesy, F. K. Brunner and C. Rizos (Eds.), Spring-Verlag, 1-14.
Langley, R. B. 1996. GPS Receivers and the Observables. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences
(60): GPS for Geodesy, A. Kleusberg and P. J. G. Teunissen (Eds.), Spring-Verlag,
141-173.
Langley, R. B. 1997. GPS Receiver System Noise. GPS World, 8(6), 40-45.
Langley, R. B. 1999. Dilution of Precision. GPS World, 10(5), 52-59.
184
Lanyi, G. 1984. Tropospheric Delay Effects in Radio Interferometry. The
Telecommunications and Data Acquisition (TDA) Progress Report 42-78, Imprint:
JPL, California Inst. Tech., 152-159.
Laurila, S. H. 1976. Electronic Surveying and Navigation. Wiley-InterScience, 545p.
LAREG. 2000a. ITRF. http://lareg.ensg.ign.fr/ITRF. Accessed June, 2000.
LAREG, 2000b. ITRF96. http://lareg.ensg.ign.fr/ITRF/itrf96.html Accessed June, 2000.
LAREG, 2000c. ITRF97. http://lareg.ensg.ign.fr/ITRF/ITRF97 Accessed June, 2000.
LAREG, 2000d. ITRF2000: A Call for Participation. http://lareg.ensg.ign.fr/ITRF/ITRF2000
Accessed June, 2000.
Leick, A. 1995. Satellite GPS Surveying. 2nd ed., Wiley-InterScience, 560p.
Leick, A. and C. Mundo. 1997. GLONASS Double Difference Ambiguities. Intl Symposium
on Current Crustal Movement and Hazard Reduction, Wuhan, P.R.China, Nov 4-7.
Leick, A., J. Beser, and P. Rosenboom. 1998a. Aspects of GLONASS Carrier-Phase
Differencing. GPS Solutions, 2(1), Summer, 36-41.
Leick, A., J. Beser, P. Rosenboom, and B. Wiley. 1998b. Assessing GLONASS Observation.
Proc. ION GPS-98, Nashville, Tennessee.
Li, J. 1995. OTF With GLONASS Carrier Phases. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Maine. 128p.
Mader, G. L. 1999. GPS Antenna Calibration at the National Geodetic Survey. GPS
Solutions, 3(1), 50-58.
Malys, S. and J. A. Slater. 1994. Maintenance and Enhancement of the World Geodetic
System 1984. Proc. ION GPS-94, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Marini, J.W. 1972. Correction of Satellite Tracking Data for an Arbitrary Tropospheric
Profile. Radio Sci., 7(2), 223-231.
185
Marini, J.W. and C.W. Murray. 1973. Correction of Satellite Tracking Data for Atmospheric
Refraction at Elevations above 10 degrees. NASA Report X-591-73-351, Goddard
Space Flight Center.
Melchior, P. 1978. The Tides of the Planet Earth. Pergamon Press, p.609.
Melchior, P. 1983. The Tides of the Planet Earth. 2nd ed., Pergamon Press, p.641.
Mendes, V. B. and R. B. Langley. 1994. A Comprehensive Analysis of Mapping Functions
Used in Modeling Tropospheric Propagation Delay in Space Geodetic Data. KIS94,
Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Kinematic Systems in Geodesy, Geomatics and Navigation,
Banff, Alberta, 30 August - 2 September 1994, The University of Calgary, Calgary,
Alberta, 87-98.
Mendes, V. B. and R. B. Langley. 1998. Optimization of Tropospheric Delay Mapping
Function Performance for High-Precision Geodetic Applications. Proc. DORIS Days,
April 27-29, Toulouse, France.
Mendes, V. B. 1998. Modeling the neutral-atmosphere propagation delay in radiometric
space techniques. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. New Brunswick, p.353.
Mertikas, S. P. and C. Rizos. 1997. On-line Detection of Abrupt Changes in the Carrier-
Phase Measurement of GPS. J. Geodesy, 71, 469-482, Springer-Verlag.
Misra, P. N., R. Abbot, and E. Gaposchkin. 1996. “Integrated Use of GPS and GLONASS:
Transformation between WGS 84 and PZ-90.” Proc. ION GPS-96, Kansas City.
Musman, S., G. Mader, and C. E. Dutton. 1998. Total Electron Content Changes in the
Ionosphere During the January 10, 1997 Disturbance. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25(15),
August, 3055-3058.
NASA. 2000a. U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/space/model/atmos/us_standard.html. Accessed June,
2000.
186
NASA. 2000b Sunspot cycle prediction.
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/predict.htm. Accessed June 30, 2000.
Navcen. 2000. U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center. http://www.navcen.uscg.mil Accessed
July 21, 2000.
Neilan, R. E., J. F. Zumberge, G. Beutler, and J. Kouba. 1997. The International GPS
Service: A Global Resource for GPS Applications and Research. Proc. ION GPS-97,
Kansas City, Missouri, September.
NGS. 2000. The NGS GPS Orbital Formats. http://cddisa.gsfc.nasa.gov/dgps/orbits.txt
Niell, A. E. 1996. Global Mapping Functions for the Atmosphere Delay at Radio
Wavelengths. J. Geophys. Res., 101(B2), 3227-3246.
NIMA. 1997. Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1984: Its Definition and
Relationships with Local Geodetic Systems. Technical Report, NIMA TR8350.2, 3rd
ed., July.
NIMA. 2000. SP3 Format Description. http://164.214.2.59/GandG/sathtml/sp3format.html.
Accessed August, 2000.
NOAA. 2000. Sunspot Numbers. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/ssn.html.
NOAA/NASA/USAF. 1976. U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976. U.S. Government Printing,
Washington DC.
Nordwall, B. 1996. Atmospheric/Multipath Concerns for DGPS. Aviation Week & Space
Technology, October, 60.
OSO, 2000. Ocean Loading Database. Onsala Space Observatory, Chalmers University of
Technology. ftp://gere.oso.chalmers.se/pub/hgs/oload/olrs18.blq. Accessed June 15,
2000.
187
Ray, J. R. 1998. The IGS/BIPM Time Transfer Project. Proc. the IGS 1998 Analysis Center
Workshop, Darmstadt, Germany, February 9-11.
Remondi, B.W. 1993. NGS Second Generation ASCII and Binary Orbit Formats and
Associated Interpolation Studies. IAG Symposia (Symp. 109, Vienna, Austria, August
11-14, 1989) by IUGG, and IAG, G. L. Mader (Ed.). Springer-Verlag.
Saasamoinen, J. 1971. Atmospheric Correction for the Troposphere and Stratosphere in
Radio Ranging of Satellite. Int. Symp. on the Use of Artificial Satellite, Henriksen
(ed.), 3rd Washington, 247-251.
Scherneck H. G. and F. H. Webb. 1998a. Ocean Tide Loading and Diurnal Tidal Motion of
the Solid Earth Center. IERS (1998) Technical Note No. 25.
Scherneck H. G., R. Haas, and F. H. Webb. 1998b. Ocean Loading Tides in Space
Techniques and Implications for the Mass Center Variations. Proc. 13th Gen. Meeting
Nordic Geodetic Comm. Gvle 1998, B. Jonsson (Ed.).
SFCSIC. 2000. Coordination Scientific Information Center (KNITs) of the Ministry of
Defense of the Russian Federation. http://mx.iki.rssi.ru/SFCSIC/SFCSIC_main.html.
Slater, J. A. 2000. IGLOS Electronic Mail. Message Number 1, May, 25. Available at
http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/iglosmail/2000/maillist.html. Accessed July 21, 2000.
Slater, J. A., C. E. Noll, and K. T. Gowey (Editors). 2000. International GLONASS
Experiment IGEX-98. Workshop Proc. September, 13-14, 1999. Published jointly by
IGS Central Bureau and Jet Propulsion Laboratory (California Institute of
Technology), May 2000.
Springer, T. A., J. F. Zumberge, and J. Kouba. 1998. The IGS Analysis Products and the
Consistency of the Combined Solutions. 1998 Analysis Center Workshop Proc.,
Darmstadt, Germany, February 9-11, 37-54.
188
Tetewsky, A. K. and F. E. Mullen. 1997. Carrier Phase Wrap-Up Induced by Rotating GPS
Antennas. GPS World, Innovation column, 51-57, February.
Teunissen, P. J. G. 1994. A New Method for Fast Carrier Phase Ambiguity Estimation. Proc.
IEEE PLANS94, 562-574.
Teunissen, T. J. G. 1997. On the GPS Widelane and Its Decorrelating Property. J Geodesy,
71(9), 577-587.
Teunissen, T. J. G. 1998. Weighting GPS Dual Frequency Observations: Bearing the Cross of
Cross-Correlation. GPS Solutions, 2(2), 28-37.
Tralli, D. M. and S. M. Lichen. 1990. Stochastic Estimation of Tropospheric Path Delays in
Global Positioning System Geodetic Measurements. Bull. Geod., 64, 127-159.
Tregoning P., B. Twilley, M. Hendy, and D. Zwartz. 1998. Monitoring Isostatic Rebound in
Antarctica Using Continuous Remote GPS Observations. GPS Solutions, 2(3),
Winter.
USNO. 2000a. GPS Time Transfer. http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpstt.html. Accessed May,
2000.
USNO. 2000b. NAVSTAR GPS Operations. http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html.
Accessed May, 2000.
Vaní¹ek, P. and E. Krakiwsky. 1982. Geodesy: The Concepts. North-Holland Publishing
Company, p.691.
Vermeer, M. 1997. The Precision of Geodetic GPS and One Way of Improving It. J.
Geodesy, 71, 240-245, Springer-Verlag.
Wang, J., C. Rizos, M. P. Stewart, and A. Leick. 2000. GPS and GLONASS Integration:
Modeling and Ambiguity Resolution Issues. GPS Solutions (accepted for
publication).
189
Welch, G. and G. Bishop. 1997. An Introduction to Kalman Filter. Department of Computer
Science, Univ. North Carolina at Chapel Hill. TR-95-041.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~welch/publications.html. Accessed May 1999.
Wilson, B. D. 1999. New broadcast Tgd values as April 29, 1999. IGS Electronic Mail No
23042304, June 11. http://maia.usno.navy.mil/gpst/mail/11Jun99.1. Accessed April,
2000.
Witchayangkoon, B. and P.C.L. Segantine. 1999. Testing JPL's PPP Service. GPS Solutions,
3(1), 73-76.
Wu, J. T., S. C. Wu, G. A. Hajj, W. I. Bertiger, and S. M. Lichen. 1993. Effects of Antenna
Orientation on GPS Carrier Phase. Manuscripta Geodaetica, 18, 91-98.
Wubbena, G., M Schmitz, F. Menge, G. Seeber. 1997. A New Approach for Field
Calibration of Absolute GPS Antenna Phase Center Variations. Navigation: J. the
Inst. of Navigation, 44(2), Summer, 247-255.
Zlotnicki, V. 1996. Which Tide? (Some definitions of Pure Ocean Tide, Earth (Body and
Loading) Tide, Long Period Tide, Internal Tide, Atmospheric Tide and Pole Tide).
http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/cdrom/tide/Document/text/tide_is.txt
Zumberge, J. F., M. B. Heflin, D. C. Jefferson, M. M. Watkins, and F. H. Webb. 1997a.
Precise Point Processing for the Efficient and Robust Analysis of GPS Data from
Large Networks. J. Geophys. Res., 102(B3), 5005-5017.
Zumberge, J.F., M. M. Watkins, and F. H. Webb. 1997b. Characteristics and Application of
Precise GPS Clock Solutions Every 30 Seconds. Navigation: J. the Inst. of
Navigation, 44(4), 449-456, Winter 1997-1998.
Zumberge, J. F. 1998. Automated GPS Data Analysis Service. GPS Solutions, 2(3), 76-78.
190
Appendix A: SP3 EPHEMERIS FORMAT
The SP3 format description given below is obtained from NIMA (2000). It is documented
here because the SP3 ephemeris (and its format) is central to PPP.
The SP3 format is presented here in both the position (P) mode and the velocity (V)
mode. The format was finalized by the National Geodetic Survey. The SP3 format is precise
to 1mm and 1 picosecond. If velocity is included, its precision is 10E-4 mm/sec and 10E-4
picoseconds/s.
I. Version Identification:
On line one, character two, there is now a single version identification character. The first
released version has been designated version 'a'. Subsequent versions will use the lower case
letters in alphabetical order.
II. Position/Velocity Mode Flag:

The proposed formats did not accommodate velocity data on the theory that it can be derived
from the positional data. Although it is true that velocity data can be computed from
positional data--accurate to a few microns per second or better--there are arguments why
velocity will be needed, explicitly, in some situations. On line one, character three, there is a
single flag to indicate if the SP3 file will comprise only positional data (P) or both position
and velocity data (V).
III. Position/Velocity Mode P:

The first character of each line is 'P' for position.
IV. Position/Velocity Mode V:

When the position/velocity mode flag is set to 'V', each position line for a given satellite is
followed by a velocity line for the same satellite. The velocity components are given in
decimeters/s and have a precision of 10E-14 mm/sec. The last column of a velocity line is the
rate of change of clock correction given in units of 10E-4 microsec/s. The precision of this
parameter is 10E-16 s/s.
A marker is designates the locations of clock events. This marker is an 'E' located in column
75 of the position line for a satellite. This field will normally be blank.
The following is the format for the SP3:
191
SP3 Format:
Line One:
('#aV',i4,4i3,f12.8,6x,'96 DD+AD WGS84 FIT NIMA')
Column1 Symbol #
2 Version Identifier a
3 Pos/Vel Mode Flag P or V
4-7 Year Start 1995
8 Unused _
9-10 Month Start _7
11 Unused _
12-13 Day of Month Start _6
14 Unused _
15-16 Hour Start _0
192
17 Unused _
18-19 Minute Start _0
20 Unused _
21-31 Second Start _0.00000000
32 Unused _
33-39 Number of Epochs _____96
40 Unused _
41-45 Data Used DD+AD
46 Unused _
47-51 Coordinate System WGS84
52 Unused _
53-55 Orbit Type FIT
56 Unused _
57-60 Agency NIMA
Line Two:
('##',i5,f16.8,f15.8,i6,f16.13)
Column1-2 Symbols ##
3 Unused _
4-7 GPS Week _808
8 Unused _
9-23 Seconds of Week 345600.00000000
24 Unused _
25-38 Epoch Interval __900.00000000
39 Unused _
40-44 Mod Julian Day Start 49904
45 Unused _
46-60 Fractional Day 0.0000000000000
Line Three:
('+',i5,3x,17i3)
Column1-2 Symbols _+
3-4 Unused __
5-6 Number of Sats 25
7-9 Unused ___
10-12 Sat #1 Id __1
13-15 Sat #2 Id __2
* * *
* * *
* * *
58-60 Sat #17 Id _22
Line Four:
('+',8x,17i3)
Column1-2 Symbols _+
3-9 Unused _______
10-12 Sat #18 Id _23
13-15 Sat #19 Id _24
* * *
* * *
* * *
58-60 Sat #34 Id __0
Line Five:
('+',8x,17i3)
(Same as Line Four for Sats 35 to 51)
193
Line Six:
('+',8x,17i3)
Line Seven:
('+',8x,17i3)
Line Eight:
('++',7x,17i3)
Column1-2 Symbols ++
3-9 Unused _______
10-12 Sat #1 Accuracy __0
* * *
* * *
* * *
Line Nine:
('++',7x,17i3)
(Same as Line Eight for Sats 18 to 34)
Line Ten:
('++',7x,17i3)
Line Eleven:
('++',7x,17i3)
Line Twelve:
('++',7x,17i3)
Lines Thirteen and Fourteen:

('%c cc cc ccc ccc cccc cccc cccc cccc ccccc ccccc ccccc ccccc')
Column1-2 Symbols %c
3 Unused _
4-5 2 characters cc
6 Unused _
7-8 2 characters cc
9 Unused _
10-12 3 characters ccc
13 Unused _
14-16 3 characters ccc
17 Unused _
18-21 4 characters cccc
22 Unused _
27 Unused _
32 Unused _
37 Unused _
194
38-42 5 characters ccccc
43 Unused _
49 Unused _
55 Unused _
Lines Fifteen and Sixteen:

('%f 0.0000000 0.000000000 0.00000000000 0.000000000000000')
Column1-2 Symbols %f
3 Unused _
4-13 10 column float _0.0000000
14 Unused _
15-26 12 column float _0.000000000
27 Unused _
28-41 14 column float _0.00000000000
42 Unused _
43-60 18 column float _0.000000000000000
Lines Seventeen and Eighteen:

('%i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0')
Column1-2 Symbols %i
3 Unused _
4-7 4 column integer ___0
8 Unused _
13 Unused _
18 Unused _
23 Unused _
24-29 6 column integer _____0
30 Unused _
37 Unused _
44 Unused _
51 Unused _
52-60 9 column integer ________0
Lines Nineteen to Twenty-two:

('/* CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC')
Column1-2 Symbols /*
3 Unused _
4-60 Comments CC...CC
Line Twenty-three (The Epoch Header Record):

('*',i6,4i3,f12.8)
Column1-2 Symbol *_
3 Unused _
4-7 Year Start 1995
8 Unused _
9-10 Month Start _7
11 Unused _
195
12-13 Day of Month Start _6
14 Unused _
15-16 Hour Start _0
17 Unused _
18-19 Minute Start _0
20 Unused _
21-31 Second Start _0.00000000
Line Twenty-four (The Position and Clock Record):

('P',i3,4f14.6)
Column1 Position P
2-4 Vehicle Id __3
5-18 x coordinate (km) ___5675.974300
19-32 y coordinate (km) _-20087.366600
33-46 z coordinate (km) __15925.186400
47-60 clock (microseconds) ____390.882890
Line Twenty-five (The Velocity Record):

('V',i3,4f14.6)
Column1 Velocity V
2-4 Vehicle Id __3
5-18 x coordinate (dm/sec) __11770.882098
19-32 y coordinate (dm/sec) _-17082.412288
33-46 z coordinate (dm/sec) _-25886.520572
47-60 Rate of change of _____-0.018200
Clock Correction (0.0001 microsec/sec)
(Line Twenty-four will include an 'E' in column 75 to designate an

Event in the Position and Clock Record.) ('P',i3,4f14.6,14x,'E')
(Lines Twenty-four and Twenty-five repeat for each vehicle in the

epoch.)
(Epoch Headers in Line Twenty-three repeat for each new epoch with
vehicle position and velocity records following.)
(Last line in file) EOF
Note that not available data is set 999999.999999.
196
Appendix B: RELEVANT MATHCAD FUNCTIONS
B.1 Cycle Slip Detection and Fixing
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
B.2 OMC Computations
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
B.3 Graphing and Data Editing
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
B.4 Kalman Estimation
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
Appendix C: PSEUDORANGE PERFORMANCE USING PRECISE
EPHEMERIS
The pseudorange ionosphere-free solutions using precise ephemeris were carried out for two
days, applying meteorological data (Saastamoinen model) or estimating the troposphere.
Figure C.1 shows that the solutions converge fast and yield less offset when the
meteorological data are applied.
Figure C. 1 Pseudorange performance [WES2, DOY136 (top) and 137 (bottom)(2000)]
263
Appendix D: HOURLY JUMPS IN RINEX FILES
It is found that some pseudorange observations, but not carrier phase, are adjusted hourly for
the receiver clock error. Examples include RINEX observations from Ashtech and Trimble
receivers. Figure D.1 shows the sum of the L1 and L2 observations. These hourly jumps are
1 ms or multiple of 1 ms and must be corrected before observations can be subjected to cycle
slip detection and fixing.
Figure D. 1 Hourly jumps in pseudorange P1+P2 (top), but not carrier phase L1 + L2
(bottom) for PRN4 [GAIT, DOY2(2000)]
264
BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR
Boonsap Witchayangkoon was born and raised in Songkhla, Thailand. He graduated from
The Mahavajiravudh High School in 1988. He received his Bachelor of Engineering (Civil
Engineering) degree with Honors from The King Mongkut's University of Technology
Thonburi (previously known as The King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Thonburi),
Bangkok, Thailand, in 1992. He worked at construction consulting companies as a civil
engineer and at universities as a lecturer.
In 1994, he won the Royal Government Scholarship awarded for higher study in USA.
In 1995, he enrolled for graduate studies in Spatial Information Science and Engineering at the
University of Maine. He earned his Master's degree in 1997. He will be working in the
Department of Civil Engineering, Thammasat University, Pathumtani, 12121, Thailand. He is
a candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Spatial Information Science and
Engineering from The University of Maine in December, 2000.
265

Elements of GPS Precise Point Positioning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elements of GPS Precise Point Positioning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELEMENTS OF GPS PRECISE POINT POSITIONING

B.Eng. (Honors) King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, 1992

M.S. University of Maine, 1997

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

The Graduate School

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced

Signature: Boon Witchayangkoon

Date: August 25, 2000

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Alfred Leick

An Abstract of Thesis Presented

in the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF).

ionosphere-free PPP solutions are equivalent to the dual-frequency solutions. In case of

single-frequency observations the pseudorange dominates the solution.

benefits to single-frequency kinematic PPP. The Saastamoinen model is used when

functions that form an excellent base for continued research of PPP.

and cooperation during this thesis.

Liimakka, Mike Pearson, Teresa Cail, Puttipol Dumrongchai, Nakarin Satthamnuwong,

Sophanowong, Ramaswamy Hariharan, Sawat Pararach, Taweesak Kijkanjanarat, Cheng Tee

Buddhawanna, Shinsuke Sasanawin, Auay Wanasen, Piriya Panwichai, Angsana Tokitkla,

Sunisa and Wattanachai Smittakorn, and Premwadee Furodchanakul.

go to my uncles, my aunts, my cousins, my sister, and my brothers, for their unconditional

University for financial assistance.

LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................XII

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... XIV

1.1 RESEARCH GOALS ............................................................................................................... 1

1.3 PREVIOUS RELEVANT WORKS .............................................................................................. 4

1.4 APPROACH .......................................................................................................................... 9

1.5 THESIS ORGANIZATION........................................................................................................ 9

2.1 THE GPS SYSTEM ............................................................................................................. 12

2.1.1 General Information ................................................................................................... 12

2.1.2 The Undifferenced Observation Equations .................................................................. 14

2.2 THE GLONASS SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 16

2.3 COMPONENTS OF PPP........................................................................................................ 18

2.3.1 Geophysical Models ................................................................................................... 19

2.3.3 Reference Frames....................................................................................................... 23

2.3.4 IGS ............................................................................................................................ 23

2.3.5 Phase Wind-up Error .................................................................................................. 24

2.3.6 Receiver Antenna Phase Center Offset........................................................................ 27

2.3.7 Satellite Antenna Phase Center Offset and Satellite Orientation................................... 29

2.3.8 Satellite Clocks .......................................................................................................... 31

2.3.10 Relativity ................................................................................................................... 34

3 GEOPHYSICAL MODELS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 36

3.1 DEFORMABLE E ARTH ........................................................................................................ 36

3.2 SOLID E ARTH TIDES .......................................................................................................... 37

3.2.1 Brief History .............................................................................................................. 37

3.2.2 The Tidal Potential..................................................................................................... 39

3.2.3 Solid Earth Tide Displacements .................................................................................. 42

3.3 OCEAN LOADING ............................................................................................................... 43

3.4 PLATE TECTONIC MOTION ................................................................................................. 46

3.5 ATMOSPHERIC TIDES ......................................................................................................... 49

4 INTERNATIONAL TERRESTRIAL REFERENCE FRAME (ITRF)................................ . 51

4.1 GENERAL STATEMENTS ON REFERENCE FRAMES ................................................................ 51

4.2 THE ITRF ......................................................................................................................... 53

4.3 TRANSFORMATION BETWEEN ITRFS .................................................................................. 53

4.4 ORIENTATION AND ORIGIN OF THE ITRF ............................................................................ 55

4.4.2 Origin ........................................................................................................................ 56

4.5 THE DRAFT ITRF-2000 REFERENCE FRAME ....................................................................... 56

4.6 GPS WGS-84 ................................................................................................................... 57

4.7 AGREEMENT BETWEEN WGS-84 AND ITRF ....................................................................... 58

5 TROPOSPHERE AND IONOSPHERE................................ ................................ ................. 59

5.1 STANDARD ATMOSPHERE .................................................................................................. 60

5.2 TROPOSPHERE ................................................................................................................... 64

5.2.1.1 Hopfield Model ..................................................................................................... 67

5.2.1.2 Saastamoinen Model.............................................................................................. 69