 Original Article
 Open access
 Published:
Improved precise positioning with BDS3 quadfrequency signals
Satellite Navigation volume 1, Article number: 30 (2020)
Abstract
The establishment of the BeiDou global navigation satellite system (BDS3) has been completed, and the current constellation can independently provide positioning service globally. BDS3 satellites provide quadfrequency signals, which can benefit the ambiguity resolution (AR) and highprecision positioning. This paper discusses the benefits of quadfrequency observations, including the precision gain of multifrequency highprecision positioning and the sophisticated choice of extrawidelane (EWL) or widelane (WL) combinations for instantaneous EWL/WL AR. Additionally, the performance of EWL realtime kinematic (ERTK) positioning that only uses EWL/WL combinations is investigated. The results indicate that the horizontal positioning errors of ERTK positioning using ionospherefree (IF) EWL observations are approximately 0.5 m for the baseline of 27 km and 1 m for the baseline of 300 km. Furthermore, the positioning errors are reduced to the centimetre level if the IF EWL observations are smoothed by narrowlane observations for a short period.
Introduction
The BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) is one of the four global satellite navigation systems (GNSSs). The establishment of the space segment of BDS is divided into three steps (Yang et al. 2019). The first constellation of BDS was constructed in 2003, namely BeiDou Navigation Demonstration System. The second constellation, which is called BeiDou Regional Navigation Satellite System (BDS2), was completed and put into service in July 2012. The BDS2, which currently consists of five geostationary earth orbit (GEO) satellites, seven Inclined GeoSynchronous Orbit (IGSO) satellites, and three Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) satellites, can provide Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) services in the Asia Pacific Region. The third constellation, which is called BeiDou Global Navigation Satellite System (BDS3), currently consists of three GEO satellites, three IGSO satellites, and 24 MEO satellites; one of the GEO satellites is in testing (Zhang et al. 2019b). BDS3 can provide PNT service globally with positioning, timing, and velocity accuracies of 10 m, 20 ns, and 0.2 m/s, respectively (CSNO 2018). Additional BDS satellite information can be found at http://www.csnotarc.cn/system/constellation.
BDS2 satellites broadcast triplefrequency signals, i.e. B1I, B2I, and B3I, which are centred at 1561.098, 1207.140, and 1268.520 MHz, respectively. BDS3 satellites broadcast fivefrequency signals, i.e. B1I, B3I, B1C, B2a, and B2b; B1C, B2a, and B2b are centred at 1575.420, 1176.450, and 1207.140 MHz, respectively. However, among these five signals of BDS3 satellites, only B1I, B1C, B2a, and B3I are officially available for public service as of June 21, 2020. This paper examines the benefits of these quadfrequency signals with regard to Ambiguity Resolution (AR) and positioning. For the simplification of the following analysis, the four public available signals are ordered by their frequencies, as shown in Table 1.
The benefits of the triplefrequency signals of BDS2 have been welldiscussed in previous studies. Compared with dualfrequency signals, triplefrequency signals are more beneficial with regard to AR (Feng 2008), cycle slip detection (Zhang and Li 2016), highprecision positioning (Feng and Li 2010), ionosphere inversion (Spit 2011), etc. Regarding the triplefrequency AR, the threecarrier ambiguity resolution and cascadingintegerresolution methods are commonly used to improve the AR efficiency (Henkel and Günther 2012; Zhao et al. 2015; Zhang and He 2016). In addition to the improved AR efficiency, the positioning performance is improved for the RealTime Kinematic (RTK) technique (Li et al. 2015; He et al. 2014) and the Precise Point Positioning (PPP) technique (Gu et al. 2015; Guo et al. 2016; Geng and Bock 2013) by applying triplefrequency signals. Besides BDS2, the triplefrequency positioning of Galileo Navigation Satellite System (Galileo) (Liu et al. 2019), BDS3 (Li et al. 2020b), and multiGNSS (Li et al. 2019b, 2020a; Geng et al. 2020) is promising.
Beyond the triplefrequency, Zhang et al. (2020a) investigate the quadfrequency AR of BDS3. Wang et al. (2018) and Li et al. (2020c) investigates the fivefrequency AR of Galileo satellites for longbaseline RTK and PPP, respectively. Compared with triplefrequency signals, quad and fivefrequency signals can in principle improve the positioning (Hatch et al. 2000). The additional signals increase the number of redundant observations, which can enhance the strength of the positioning model, as well as the positioning accuracy and robustness (Weber and Karabatic 2009). Additionally, using more signals is beneficial for estimating or eliminating the frequencydependent ionospheric delays, which can improve the positioning performance. Furthermore, the additional signals provide more choices of EWL and WL combinations, which may be beneficial for AR and positioning (Li et al. 2015). However, no researchers have comprehensively investigated the benefits of quadfrequency AR and positioning. Hence, in this study, we investigated the aforementioned benefits for quadfrequency signals of BDS3 with regard to the float resolution, AR, and highprecision positioning with EWL/WL observations.
In the following sections, we first theoretically analyse the quadfrequency improvement for resolving the float solutions based on the betweensatellite standalone PPP model. The analysis is also applicable to the RTK model. Then, useful EWL/WL combinations of quadfrequency signals are selected according to the total noise level for the cascading AR (Feng 2008; Feng and Li 2008). The EWL AR performance of the selected combinations is investigated according to the success rates, and the NarrowLane (NL) AR performance with EWL/WL ambiguities fixed is investigated according to its derived variance. Additionally, the ambiguityfixed EWL/WL observations can be directly used for EWL RTK (ERTK) positioning (Li et al. 2017), which also benefits from the quadfrequency signals. Regarding ERTK positioning, the IonosphereFree (IF) positioning model is applied with three EWL/WL combinations. Then, the NL observations are used to smooth the EWL/WL observations with a Hatch filter to improve the positioning performance. Finally, two experiments are conducted to evaluate the performance of quadfrequency ERTK positioning.
Fast quadfrequency PPP convergence
In this study, we formulate the PPP model based on the betweensatellite SingleDifferenced (SD) observations. By applying the corrections of the precise satellite products, i.e. orbits, clock offsets, and differential code biases, the SD observation equations of the code and phase are given as follows:
where the subscript \(j\) represents the frequency number; \(\varrho\) and \(T\) represent the SD satellitetoreceiver range and tropospheric delay, respectively; and \(\iota\) represents the SD ionospheric delay at the first frequency with \(\mu_{j} = f_{1}^{2} /f_{j}^{2}\) (\(f_{j}\) represents frequency j); \(\lambda_{j}\) represents the wavelength of the signal; and \(a_{j}\) represents the SD ambiguity in cycles (real value), including the satellite hardware delays of the code and phase. The inclusion of the satellite code hardware delay was explained by Li et al. (2019a). The variations of the differential code biases (Feng et al. 2017) are ignored in this study, as they are ignorable for BDS3 satellites (Zhang et al. 2019a, b). \(\varepsilon_{{\varPhi_{j} }}\) and \(\varepsilon_{{P_{j} }}\) represent the observation noises of the phase and code, respectively. The other effects not explicitly shown in (2), such as the relativistic effect, the phase centre offset and variation, and the phase windup, have been precisely corrected in advance.
By collecting all the \(f\)frequency singleepoch observations, the linearised static PPP observation model is expressed as follows:
where \(k\) represents the epoch number, and \(s\) represents the number of SD satellite pairs tracked in epoch \(k\). \(\phi_{k} = \left[ {\phi_{1,k} , \ldots , \phi_{f,k} } \right]^{\text{T}}\) and \(\varvec{p}_{k} = \left[ {\varvec{p}_{1,k} , \ldots , \varvec{p}_{f,k} } \right]^{\text{T}}\) are the observation vectors of the phase and code, respectively, for all frequencies, where the observation vector of each frequency contains the SD observations of \(s\) satellite pairs. \(\varvec{A}_{k}\) is the design matrix for the parameters \(\varvec{\xi}\) consisting of three coordinate unknowns \(\varvec{x}\) and one residual zenith tropospheric delay \(\tau\) corrected by the UNB3 model (Collins and Langley 1997), together with the Niell mapping function (Niell 1996). \(\varvec{\varLambda}= {\text{diag}}\left( {\left[ {\lambda_{1} , \ldots , \lambda_{f} } \right]} \right)\) and \(\varvec{a} = \left[ {\varvec{a}_{1} , \ldots , \varvec{a}_{f} } \right]^{\text{T}}\) denote the \(f\)frequency SD ambiguities. \(\varvec{e}_{f}\) is an fcolumn vector in which all the elements are 1. \(\varvec{I}_{s}\) is an identity matrix with dimension \(s\). \(\varvec{\mu}= [\mu_{1} , \ldots ,\mu_{f} ]^{\text{T}}\) is the scalar vector for the SD ionosphere parameters (\(\varvec{\iota}_{k}\)).
The stochastic model of (2) can be expressed as follows:
where \(\sigma_{p}^{2}\) and \(\sigma_{\phi }^{2}\) are the variance scalars of undifferenced observations of the code and phase in the zenith direction, respectively. \(\varvec{P}_{k} = \varvec{Q}_{k}^{  1}\) is the SD weight matrix, and \(\varvec{Q}_{k}\) is the corresponding cofactor matrix that captures the elevationdependent dispersions of observations (Li et al. 2019a).
By applying the LeastSquares (LS) criterion, we obtain the normal equations. After reducing the epochwised ionospheric parameter \(\varvec{\iota}_{k}\), the normal matrix of \(\varvec{\xi}\) and a over \(K\) epochs is given as follows:
where \(\varvec{N}_{k} = \varvec{A}_{k}^{\text{T}} \varvec{P}_{k} \varvec{A}_{k}\), \(\sigma_{p + \phi }^{  2} = \sigma_{p}^{  2} + \sigma_{\phi }^{  2}\), and \(\sigma_{p  \phi }^{  2} = \sigma_{p}^{  2}  \sigma_{\phi }^{  2}\). We further reduce the ambiguity parameters in the normal matrix as follows:
where \(\varvec{A}_{\Sigma } = \mathop \sum \nolimits_{k = 1}^{K} \varvec{P}_{k} \varvec{A}_{k}\). For a short timespan, it is adequate to assume a timeinvariable geometry for each satellite, i.e. \(\varvec{A}_{k} = \varvec{A}\) and \(\varvec{P}_{k} = \varvec{P}\). Then, the covariance matrix of \(\varvec{\xi}\) for epoch \(K\) is
where \(\mu_{\text{sq}} =\varvec{\mu}^{\text{T}}\varvec{\mu}\) denotes the sum of squared ionospheric coefficients and “sq” denotes “squared”. \(\varvec{ }\mu_{\Sigma } = \varvec{e}_{f}^{\text{T}}\varvec{\mu}\) denotes the sum of ionospheric coefficients. Regarding the analytical formula, the positioning precision gain from quadfrequency signals can be expressed with respect to the dual and triplefrequency signals as follows:
where B1C and B1I signals are used for the dualfrequency case and \(\varvec{\mu}^{\text{T}} = \left[ {1, 1.0184} \right]\); B1C, B1I, and B2a signals are used for the triplefrequency case and \(\varvec{\mu}^{\text{T}} = \left[ {1, 1.0184, 1.7933} \right]\); and B1C, B1I, B3I, and B2a signals are used for the quadfrequency case and \(\varvec{\mu}^{\text{T}} = \left[ {1, 1.0184, 1.5424, 1.7933} \right]\). For example, \(\frac{{\varvec{Q}_{\xi ,K} \left( {f = 2} \right)}}{{\varvec{Q}_{\xi ,K} \left( {f = 4} \right)}} \approx 5.5\) and \(\frac{{\varvec{Q}_{\xi ,K} \left( {f = 3} \right)}}{{\varvec{Q}_{\xi ,K} \left( {f = 4} \right)}} \approx 2.1\) for \(\sigma_{p} = 100\sigma_{\phi }\). The results roughly give the intuitive improvements of how PPP convergence and precision can be gained from quadfrequency signals. Equations (7) and (8) are also applicable for the RTK positioning model, while DoubleDifferenced (DD) observations and stochastic model are used in the positioning models of (2) and (3) with the same design matrix and cofactor matrix. Hence, the same improvements can be obtained in the float resolution of RTK positioning by applying quadfrequency signals.
EWL/WL combinations and quadfrequency AR
The multifrequency observations allow the formation of more useful combinationsparticularly EWL/WL combinationsto enhance the AR efficiency. In this section, we first select the useful EWL/WL combinations according to the total noise level in the cycle. Then, we present two procedures for cascading quadfrequency AR.
Selection of EWL/WL combinations
Omitting the epoch subscript, the combined observation equations of quadfrequency signals are given as follows:
where
Here, \(p_{{\left( {i,j,k,h} \right)}}\) has a similar expression to \(\phi_{{\left( {i,j,k,h} \right)}}\). \(c\) represents the velocity of light, and the coefficients of the combinations \(i, j, k,\) and \(h\) are all integers.
Many methods have been proposed to find the optimal combinations for triplefrequency signals for different purposes (Richert and ElSheimy 2007; Feng 2008; Li et al. 2010a, 2015). Overall, the identified useful combinations are similar or even equivalent among all the methods (Li 2018; Li et al. 2015). In this study, we employ the total noise level relative to the combined wavelength in cycles to find the useful quadfrequency combinations for the AR based on either a GeometryBased (GB) or GeometryFree (GF) model.
The total noise level in cycles is defined to compensate the ionospheric and tropospheric biases and phase noises, as follows (Feng 2008):
where \(\delta_{\iota }\) and \(\delta_{\tau }\) represent the ionospheric and tropospheric biases, respectively. The subscript “TC” denotes the Total noise level in Cycles. \(\sigma_{{\phi_{{\left( {i,j,k,h} \right)}} }}^{2} = \frac{{\left( {i \cdot f_{1} } \right)^{2} + \left( {j \cdot f_{2} } \right)^{2} + \left( {k \cdot f_{3} } \right)^{2} + \left( {h \cdot f_{4} } \right)^{2} }}{{\left( {i \cdot f_{1} + j \cdot f_{2} + k \cdot f_{3} + h \cdot f_{4} } \right)^{2} }}\sigma_{\phi }^{2}\). We empirically give the values of \(\delta_{\iota }\), \(\delta_{\tau }\), and \(\sigma_{\phi }\) for calculating the total noise level. Equation (13) can be applied to either SD or DD observations, while the biases and noises correspond to SD and DD observations, respectively.
Table 2 presents several useful EWL/WL combinations and their total noise levels under different given error budgets. The phase observation noises are equally set as 5 mm for different frequencies. Because the sum of the coefficients always equals 0 for the EWL/WL combinations (Li et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2020b), only three EWL/WL combinations are linearly independent. For each error budget, the three linearly independent combinations with the lowest total noise levels are in bold. The combinations \(\phi_{{\left( {0,0,1,  1} \right)}}\) and \(\phi_{{\left( {0,1,  3,2} \right)}}\) are preferable when the ionospheric bias is small; otherwise, \(\phi_{{\left( {  3,4,  3,2} \right)}}\) and \(\phi_{{\left( {2,0,  7,5} \right)}}\) are more suitable, as they are less sensitive to the ionospheric bias. The combination \(\phi_{{\left( {1,  1,0,0} \right)}}\) is always the best owing to its longest wavelength. Overall, the total noise levels of the selected combinations presented in Table 2 are lower than those of the triplefrequency combinations (Li et al. 2010a), indicating a better EWL/WL AR performance.
Cascading AR in parameter domain
The cascading AR in the parameter domain starts with solving the uncombined float ambiguity solutions of quadfrequency signals using the GB model. The EWL/WL and NL ambiguities are obtained by transforming the uncombined float solutions into the specific combinations and then successively fixed to integers. Thus, the combinations are formed according to the resolved parameters instead of the observation. The uncombined DD observation equations of quadfrequency signals are as follows:
where \(\bar{\varvec{p}}\) and \(\bar{\phi }\) represent the quadfrequency DD observations of the code and phase, respectively. \(\bar{\varvec{\iota }}\) represents the DD ionospheric parameter vector. \(\varvec{z} = \left[ {\varvec{z}_{1}^{\text{T}} , \ldots , \varvec{z}_{4}^{\text{T}} } \right]^{\text{T}}\) represents the uncombined quadfrequency DD ambiguities. The other symbols have the same meanings as those in (2), except that \(f = 4\), and the epoch number is omitted. Here, we neglect the DD residual zenith tropospheric parameter owing to its correlation with height component (Li et al. 2010b). The covariance matrix of the DD observations is given as follows:
After necessary derivations, the covariance matrix of float ambiguity solutions is given as
In the cascading AR in the parameter domain, one can transform the float ambiguities \(\hat{\varvec{z}}\) into three EWL/WL ambiguities and one uncombined ambiguity:
with \(\varvec{Q}_{{\hat{\varvec{z}}_{E} \hat{\varvec{z}}_{E} }} = \varvec{Z}_{E}^{\text{T}} \varvec{Q}_{{\varvec{\hat{z}\hat{z}}}} \varvec{Z}_{E} , \varvec{ Q}_{{\hat{\varvec{a}}_{1} \hat{\varvec{a}}_{1} }} = \varvec{c}_{1}^{\text{T}} \varvec{Q}_{{\varvec{\hat{z}\hat{z}}}} \varvec{c}_{1} , \varvec{Q}_{{\hat{\varvec{a}}_{E} \hat{\varvec{a}}_{1} }} = \varvec{Z}_{E}^{\text{T}} \varvec{Q}_{{\varvec{\hat{z}\hat{z}}}} \varvec{c}_{1}\), and \(\varvec{c}_{1}^{\text{T}} = \left[ {1,0,0,0} \right] \otimes \varvec{I}_{s}\). Here, the transformation matrix is defined by three EWL/WL combinations as \(\varvec{Z}_{E}^{\text{T}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 1 \quad & {  1} \\ \end{array} } \quad & {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 \quad & 0 \\ \end{array} } \\ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 \quad & 0 \\ \end{array} } \quad & {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 1 \quad & {  1} \\ \end{array} } \\ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 \quad & 1 \\ \end{array} } \quad & {  \begin{array}{*{20}c} 3 \quad & 2 \\ \end{array} } \\ \end{array} } \right] \otimes \varvec{I}_{s}\). One can then fix EWL/WL ambiguities according to the float solutions \(\hat{\varvec{z}}_{E}\) and \(\varvec{Q}_{{\hat{\varvec{z}}_{E} \hat{\varvec{z}}_{E} }}\). Usually, the rounding method can fix them with a success rate of nearly 100%. Once the EWL/WL ambiguities are fixed, which is denoted as \(\varvec{\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{z} }_{E}\), the remained uncombined ambiguities are updated as follows:
One can further try to fix these ambiguities according to \(\tilde{\varvec{z}}_{1}\) and \(\varvec{Q}_{{\tilde{\varvec{z}}_{1} \tilde{\varvec{z}}_{1} }}\) by using the LAMBDA method (Teunissen 1995).
Cascading AR in measurement domain
Owing to the extralong wavelength, one can often fix EWL/WL ambiguities instantaneously by simply applying the GF model. This model is preferable for EWL AR compared to the GB model because all the geometric errors are completely eliminated, and the satellite positions do not need to be computed. The EWL/WL ambiguities are simply estimated by applying the linear combinations of phase and code observations, as follows:
The float ambiguities may contain the ionospheric bias, which is given as
The total noise level in cycles of such a float ambiguity solution is defined to include the ionospheric biases, phase noises, and code noises, as follows:
The subscript “TCN” denotes the Total noise level including Code Noises. The useful combination schemes can be selected by examining their total noises. For different given error budgets, Table 3 presents several useful combination schemes and their total noise levels. The precision of uncombined DD observation noises is equally set to 5 mm and 0.5 m for the phase and code of different frequencies, respectively. To intuitively show the capability of instantaneous EWL/WL AR, the biasaffected rounding success rates are presented in Table 3 (Teunissen 1997).
Because in the GF model, the geometric errors are completely eliminated by involving code combinations, the three selected EWL/WL schemes probably changed depending on the magnitudes of the ionospheric biases. Fortunately, the instantaneous AR success rate is 100% for almost all the selected schemes except for one scheme under the extreme ionospheric bias of 1 m. Compared with the GB model, the involvement of code combinations eliminates the geometric errors and thus makes the AR significantly simpler from the viewpoint of programming. For the GF model, when one EWL/WL ambiguity is fixed, it can be used to solve the next EWL/WL ambiguity (Li et al. 2010a). However, in such a case, incorrect fixing of the previous EWL/WL ambiguity will definitely affect the following fixing.
Li et al. (2015, 2017) proved that for an ffrequency system, only (f1) EWL/WL combinations are independent, and all the other EWL/WL combinations can be recovered by the linear combinations of these (f−1) combinations. They further advised to first fix (f−1) EWL ambiguities according to the GF model and then the NL ambiguities. For the quadfrequency signals, three EWL/WL ambiguities are first resolved according to the GF model (20) and fixed to their integers. Then, all the EWL/WL integer ambiguities are available through linear combination and can be used to correct the corresponding EWL/WL observations. For the NL AR, owing to its relatively short wavelength, the IF GB model is typically applied because the IF operation can eliminate the ionospheric effect, and the GB model has better strength than the GF model. Alternatively, as suggested by Li et al. (2010a), one can form a Geometry and IonosphereFree (GIF) model for triplefrequency signals to solve NL ambiguity. For the quadfrequency case, we can analogously form the GIF model as follows:
The coefficients satisfy
By solving this minimisation problem, we obtain the coefficients \(b_{1} = 0.2357\), \(b_{2} =  1.5049\), \(b_{3} = 2.2692\), and \(\sigma_{{\hat{z}_{1} }} = 1302\sigma_{\phi }\). If we take the precision of the undifferenced phase observation as 2 mm, \(\sigma_{{\hat{z}_{1} }} = 2.60\) cycles, which is significantly better than the triplefrequency case of BDS2 (Li et al. 2010a).
Longdistance ERTK with quadfrequency observations
Once the EWL ambiguities are fixed, the ambiguitycorrected EWL observation plays the role of a pseudorange, but with a higher precision. The RTK positioning is immediately started with ambiguitycorrected EWL observations, which is referred to as ERTK (Li et al. 2017). The quadfrequency observations can also benefit the ERTK positioning by increasing the number of available EWL observations. In this section, we investigate the quadfrequency ERTK performance by directly using IF EWL/WL observations and their smoothed counterparts.
ERTK with EWL observations
For the long baseline, ionospheric delays cannot be completely cancelled in DD observations and must be considered in the positioning model. One can simply eliminate the residual ionospheric delays by using the IF observations. The IF ERTK observation equations are given as follows:
where the subscripts \({\text{E}}1\), \({\text{E}}2\), and \({\text{E}}3\) denote the EWL/WL combinations \(\left( {1,  1,0,0} \right)\), \(\left( {0,0,1,  1} \right)\), and \(\left( {0,1,  3,2} \right)\), respectively. The superscript ‘check’ is applied to denote the ambiguitycorrected EWL/WL observations. \(\varvec{R}_{\text{IF}}^{\text{T}}\) is the transformation matrix from the uncombined quadfrequency DD observations to the IF EWL observations,
Suppose that the weight matrix \(\varvec{P}\) is diagonal, for simplicity. The covariance matrix of the LS estimate in the IF positioning model is given as follows:
For \(\sigma_{\phi } = 2\) mm, \(\sqrt \alpha = 0.2006\) m, which empirically means that the positioning precision is decimetre to meterlevel and better than that of the triplefrequency case even without code observations (Li. et al. 2017).
ERTK with smoothed EWL observations
As indicated by (27), the positioning precision is low although the ionospheric biases are eliminated in the IF ERTK model. The main reason for this is that the IF EWL/WL observations are too noisy, and the precisions of IF EWL/WL observations are as high as \(\sigma_{{\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},{\text{E}}13}} }} = 467.8\sigma_{\phi }\) and \(\sigma_{{\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},{\text{E}}13}} }} = 149.2\sigma_{\phi }\). Hence, to improve the IF ERTK precision, we can smooth the IF EWL/WL observations by using IF DD observations \(\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},14}} = \frac{{f_{1}^{2} \bar{\phi }_{1}  f_{4}^{2} \bar{\phi }_{4} }}{{f_{1}^{2}  f_{4}^{2} }}\) with \(\sigma_{{\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},14}} }} = 5.177\sigma_{\phi }\). For instance, if we smooth the IF EWL observations \(\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},{\text{E}}13}}\) with IF observations \(\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},14}}\), the smoothed observation after K epochs is given as follows (Hatch 1982):
If we ignore the correlations between \(\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},{\text{E}}13}}\) and \(\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},14}}\) and between epochs, the precision of smoothed observation is given as follows:
Clearly, the precision of smoothed EWL/WL observations is significantly improved and is nearly equal to \(\sigma_{{\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},14}} }}\) if a certain period of smoothing is applied. The smoothed IF EWL observations, i.e. \(\tilde{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},{\text{E}}12}}\) and \(\tilde{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},{\text{E}}23}}\), can then be used instead of \(\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},{\text{E}}13}}\) and \(\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},{\text{E}}23}}\) to form the positioning model (25). Considering that the precision \(\sigma_{{\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},14}} }}\) is significantly lower than \(\sigma_{{\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},{\text{E}}13}} }}\) and \(\sigma_{{\bar{\phi }_{{{\text{IF}},{\text{E}}23}} }}\), the positioning precision can be significantly improved after a period of convergence.
Experiment and analysis of ERTK positioning
The quadfrequency data of BDS3 were collected using Trimble Alloy receivers with a sampling interval of 1 s at four stations. Two baselines were formed, with lengths of 300 and 27 km. The longbaseline data were collected on Day of Year (Doy) 007, 2020, and the shortbaseline data were collected on Doy 158, 2020. The coordinates of the four stations were precisely known and served as references. The proposed ERTK models were implemented in the TJRTK software, which was developed at Tongji University for multifrequency multiGNSS RTK processing and relevant engineering and scientific applications.
In the data processing, only quadfrequency data of the BDS3 system were used, and the cutoff elevation was set as 10. The elevationdependent stochastic model \(\sigma = \frac{1.02}{\sin \theta + 0.02}\sigma_{90^\circ }\) was applied for the undifferenced measurements with a zenith precision of \(\sigma_{90^\circ } = 2\) mm for the phase and 0.2 m for the code. These parameters were obtained according to the evaluation of the BDS stochastic characteristics based on the study of Li (2016). Although the data were postprocessed, the processing was completely analogous to the realtime processing; i.e. the data loading and all computations were implemented epochbyepoch, and only the broadcasting ephemeris was used.
Figure 1 shows the number of satellites observed at the rover station of the short baseline and the corresponding Dilution of Precision (DOP) values. The number of tracked satellites ranged from 7 to 10 and was 9 on average. The DOP values varied within a range of 3, indicating that the BDS3 system was able to constantly provide highquality positioning service independently.
Figure 2 shows the positioning errors along north (N), east (E), and up (U) directions of the short baseline with IF ERTK model. The positioning errors were unbiased but very noisy (several decimetres) due to the large noises of the IF EWL observations. The ERTK positioning errors obtained when the smoothed IF EWL observations were used are shown in Fig. 3. The positioning precision was significantly improved to the centimetre level after a short period of convergence. The RootMeanSquare (RMS) values of the positioning errors are presented in Table 4. The positioning accuracy was comparable to that of normal RTK solutions with all the frequency ambiguities fixed.
We also evaluated the positioning performance of ERTK for the 300km baseline. The number of satellites was slightly smaller than that for the short baseline, as shown in Fig. 4, because the observation date was earlier, and some BDS3 satellites were not in service at the time. The DOP values were slightly larger, but overall, they were comparable to those for the short baseline. Figures 5 and 6 show the ERTK positioning errors for the application of IF and smoothed IF EWL observations, respectively. Table 5 presents the RMS values of the positioning errors. The positioning errors for the IF model and the smoothed model were a few meters and a few centimetres, respectively. The positioning results for the long baseline were significantly worse than those for the short baseline because the unmodelled errors, such as the orbit error, residual tropospheric delay, and highorder ionospheric delay, increased with the baseline length. Additionally, the reduction in the number of observed satellites may have degraded the positioning performance. The results indicate that smoothing IF EWL observations can significantly improve the positioning accuracy from the decimetre level to the centimetre level, even for a long baseline.
Concluding remarks
All the BDS3 satellites are currently in service, except for the last one, which is in orbit but still in testing. The BDS3 can independently provide positioning service globally with quadfrequency signals. The quadfrequency signals benefit the highprecision positioning with regard to several aspects. They can theoretically shorten the convergence of the float solutions of PPP and RTK and improve the precision. Additionally, more EWL combinations are available owing to the quadfrequency signals, which improve not only the efficiency of AR but also the positioning performance of ERTK. It is also more efficient to estimate or eliminate the ionospheric delays with the quadfrequency signals, increasing the efficiency of AR and the positioning performance of ERTK.
ERTK with IF EWL observations can provide decimetrelevel positioning service immediately after instantaneous EWL AR. If one uses the smoothed IF EWL observations, the ERTK solutions can be significantly improved and comparable to those of normal RTK. Moreover, the positioning performance is degraded with an increase in the baseline length owing to the increased unmodelled errors. To overcome this limitation, other GNSS signals can be incorporated to handle the unmodelled errors.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Abbreviations
 BDS:

BeiDou navigation satellite system
 BDS2:

BeiDou regional navigation satellite system
 GNSS:

Global satellite navigation system
 GEO:

Geostationary earth orbit
 IGSO:

Inclined geosynchronous orbit
 MEO:

Medium earth orbit
 PNT:

Positioning, navigation, and timing
 BDS3:

BeiDou global navigation satellite system
 AR:

Ambiguity resolution
 RTK:

Realtime kinematic
 PPP:

Precise point positioning
 EWL:

Extrawidelane
 WL:

Widelane
 ERTK:

Extrawidelane realtime kinematic
 IF:

Ionospherefree
 SD:

Singledifferenced
 LS:

Leastsquares
 DD:

Doubledifferenced
 GB:

Geometrybased
 GF:

Geometryfree
 NL:

Narrowlane
 GIF:

Geometry and ionospherefree
 Doy:

Day of year
 DOP:

Dilution of precision
 RMS:

Root mean square
References
Collins, J., & Langley, B. (1997). A tropospheric delay model for the user of the wide area augmentation system. Tech. Rep. No.187, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick.
CSNO (China Satellite Navigation Office) (2018). Development of the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (Version 3.0). http://en.beidou.gov.cn.
Feng, Y. (2008). GNSS three carrier ambiguity resolution using ionospherereduced virtual signals. Journal of Geodesy, 82(12), 847–862.
Feng, Y., & Li, B. (2008). A benefit of multiple carrier GNSS signals: Regional scale networkbased RTK with doubled interstation distances. Journal of Spatial Science, 53(2), 135–147.
Feng, Y., & Li, B. (2010). Wide area real time kinematic decimetre positioning with multiple carrier GNSS signals. Science China Earth Sciences, 53(5), 731–740.
Feng, Y., Wang, Y., Gong, X., & Gu, S. (2017). Widearea kinematic positioning with BeiDou triplefrequency signals. Navigation, 64(1), 139–148.
Geng, J., & Bock, Y. (2013). Triplefrequency GPS precise point positioning with rapid ambiguity resolution. Journal of Geodesy, 87(5), 449–460.
Geng, J., Guo, J., Meng, X., & Gao, K. (2020). Speeding up PPP ambiguity resolution using triplefrequency GPS/BeiDou/Galileo/QZSS data. Journal of Geodesy, 94(1), 1–15.
Gu, S., Lou, Y., Shi, C., & Liu, J. (2015). BeiDou phase bias estimation and its application in precise point positioning with triplefrequency observable. Journal of Geodesy, 89(10), 979–992.
Guo, F., Zhang, X., Wang, J., & Ren, X. (2016). Modeling and assessment of triplefrequency BDS precise point positioning. Journal of Geodesy, 90(11), 1223–1235.
Hatch, R. (1982). The Synergism of GPS code and carrier measurements. In The 3rd international geodetic symposium on satellite Doppler positioning, Vol. 2. Las CrucesNew Mexico (pp. 1213–1231).
Hatch, R., Jung, J., & Enge, P. (2000). Civilian GPS: The benefits of three frequencies. GPS Solutions, 3(4), 1–9.
He, H., Li, J., Yang, Y., Xu, J., Guo, H., & Wang, A. (2014). Performance assessment of single and dualfrequency BeiDou/GPS singleepoch kinematic positioning. GPS Solutions, 18(3), 393–403.
Henkel, P., & Günther, C. (2012). Reliable integer ambiguity resolution: Multifrequency code carrier linear combinations and statistical a priori knowledge of attitude. The Journal of Navigation, 59(1), 61–75.
Li, B. (2016). Stochastic modeling of triplefrequency BeiDou signals: Estimation, assessment and impact analysis. Journal of Geodesy, 90(7), 593–610.
Li, B. (2018). Review of triplefrequency GNSS: Ambiguity resolution, benefits and challenges. The Journal of Global Positioning Systems, 16(1), 1–11.
Li, B., Feng, Y., Gao, W., & Li, Z. (2015). Realtime kinematic positioning over long baselines using triplefrequency BeiDou signals. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 51(4), 3254–3269.
Li, B., Feng, Y., & Shen, Y. (2010a). Three carrier ambiguity resolution: Distanceindependent performance demonstrated using semigenerated triple frequency GPS signals. GPS Solutions, 14(2), 177–184.
Li, B., Feng, Y., Shen, Y., & Wang, C. (2010b). Geometryspecified troposphere decorrelation for subcentimeter realtime kinematic solutions over long baselines. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 115, B11404. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JB007549.
Li, B., Li, Z., Zhang, Z., & Tan, Y. (2017). ERTK: Extrawidelane RTK of triplefrequency GNSS signals. Journal of Geodesy, 91(9), 1031–1047.
Li, P., Jiang, X., Zhang, X., Ge, M., & Schuh, H. (2020a). GPS + Galileo + BeiDou precise point positioning with triplefrequency ambiguity resolution. GPS Solutions, 24
Li, X., Li, X., Liu, G., Feng, G., Yuan, Y., Zhang, K., et al. (2019a). Triplefrequency PPP ambiguity resolution with multiconstellation GNSS: BDS and Galileo. Journal of Geodesy, 93(8), 1105–1122.
Li, X., Liu, G., Li, X., Zhou, F., Feng, G., Yuan, Y., et al. (2020b). Galileo PPP rapid ambiguity resolution with fivefrequency observations. GPS Solutions, 24(1), 24.
Li, J., Yang, Y., He, H., & Guo, H. (2020c). Benefits of BDS3 B1C/B1I/B2a triplefrequency signals on precise positioning and ambiguity resolution. GPS Solutions, 24(4), 1–10.
Li, B., Zang, N., Ge, H., & Shen, Y. (2019b). Singlefrequency PPP models: Analytical and numerical comparison. Journal of Geodesy, 93(12), 2499–2514.
Liu, G., Zhang, X., & Li, P. (2019). Improving the performance of galileo uncombined precise point positioning ambiguity resolution using triplefrequency observations. Remote Sensing, 11(3), 341.
Niell, A. E. (1996). Global mapping functions for the atmosphere delay at radio wavelengths. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101(B2), 3227–3246.
Richert, T., & ElSheimy, N. (2007). Optimal linear combinations of triple frequency carrier phase data from future global navigation satellite systems. GPS Solutions, 11(1), 11–19.
Spit, J. (2011). Total electron content reconstruction using triple frequency GNSS signals. Ph.D. thesis, University of Liege.
Teunissen, P. J. G. (1995). The leastsquares ambiguity decorrelation adjustment: A method for fast GPS integer ambiguity estimation. Journal of Geodesy, 70(1), 65–82.
Teunissen, P. J. G. (1997). A canonical theory for short GPS baselines. Part IV: Precision versus reliability. Journal of Geodesy, 71(9), 513–525.
Wang, K., Khodabandeh, A., & Teunissen, P. J. G. (2018). Fivefrequency Galileo longbaseline ambiguity resolution with multipath mitigation. GPS Solutions, 22(3), 75.
Weber, R., & Karabatic, A. (2009). Potential improvements in GNSSbased troposphere monitoring by use of upcoming GALILEO signals. In Proceedings of the 2nd colloquiumscientific and fundamental aspects of the Galileo program.
Yang, Y., Gao, W., Guo, S., Mao, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). Introduction to BeiDou3 navigation satellite system. Navigation, 66(1), 7–18.
Zhang, X., & He, X. (2016). Performance analysis of triplefrequency ambiguity resolution with BeiDou observations. GPS Solutions, 20(2), 269–281.
Zhang, X., & Li, P. (2016). Benefits of the third frequency signal on cycle slip correction. GPS Solutions, 20(3), 451–460.
Zhang, X., Li, X., Lu, C., Wu, M., & Pan, L. (2019a). A comprehensive analysis of satelliteinduced code bias for BDS3 satellites and signals. Advances in Space Research, 63(9), 2822–2835.
Zhang, Z., Li, B., He, X., Zhang, Z., & Miao, W. (2020a). Models, methods and assessment of fourfrequency carrier ambiguity resolution for BeiDou3 observations. GPS Solutions, 24(4), 1–12.
Zhang, Z., Li, B., Nie, L., Wei, C., Jia, S., & Jiang, S. (2019b). Initial assessment of BeiDou3 global navigation satellite system: Signal quality, RTK and PPP. GPS Solutions, 23(4), 111.
Zhang, Z., Li, B., & Zou, J. (2020b). Can longrange singlebaseline RTK provide comparable service as networkRTK in Shanghai? Journal of Surveying Engineering, 146(4), 05020007.
Zhao, Q., Dai, Z., Hu, Z., Sun, B., Shi, C., & Liu, J. (2015). Threecarrier ambiguity resolution using the modified TCAR method. GPS Solutions, 19(4), 589–599.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Funds of China (41874030), The Scientific and Technological Innovation Plan from Shanghai Science and Technology Committee (18511101801), The National Key Research and Development Program of China (2017YFA0603102), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
B.L. proposed the research, developed theories, and wrote the paper. Z.Z., W.M., and G.C. checked all the formulae and conducted the computations. All the authors polished and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, B., Zhang, Z., Miao, W. et al. Improved precise positioning with BDS3 quadfrequency signals. Satell Navig 1, 30 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s4302002000030y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s4302002000030y