MULTI-GNSS PPP: An Alternative Positioning Technique for Establishing Ground Control Points

Year 2020, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 88 - 92, 26.04.2020

Berkay Bahadur Metin Nohutcu

https://doi.org/10.30897/ijegeo.710304

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Traditionally, ground control points (GCPs) are utilized to determine absolute image orientations indirectly in aerial triangulation. For a long time, differential and relative GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) positioning techniques have been extensively used to establish GCPs. In our country, the establishment and measurement of GCPs are instructed in the related regulation based on differential GNSS techniques. One of the two methods described in the related regulation is based on establishing, at least, C3 level networks with maximum base length of 10 km and with minimum 35-minute observation time. In an alternative method, without base length restriction, GCP coordinates can be determined being connected to at least 3 TUSAGA-Active stations and with minimum 120-minute static observation. The expected precision for the coordinates of GCPs are described to be better than 5 cm in horizontal and 6 cm in vertical within the regulation. Although differential techniques can provide highly accurate positioning solutions, they are required at least two receivers to mitigate GNSS error sources. Additionally, positioning accuracy obtained from these techniques are strictly dependent on the distance from reference stations. It is clear that all these raise the operational cost and system complexity of differential GNSS techniques. In recent years, Precise Point Positioning (PPP), which enables centimeter- or millimeter-level positioning accuracy with only one receiver on a global scale, has emerged as an alternative positioning method. Over the last decade, PPP has attracted considerable attention within the GNSS community due to its exceptional benefits such as operational simplicity, cost-effectiveness, elimination of base station requirement. However, the main drawback of PPP is relatively long observation period required to achieve a specific positioning accuracy, for example, nearly 50 min to reach 10 cm or better horizontal accuracy with 30 seconds sampling rate. On the other hand, the completion of GLONASS constellation and the emergence of new satellite systems, such as Galileo and BeiDou, offers considerable opportunities to improve the PPP performance. The combinations of different GNSS constellations, namely multi-GNSS, strength the number and geometry of visible satellites, and therefore, reduces the convergence time significantly. Additionally, the new generation GNSS receivers make possible to collect more observations (even up to 100Hz), which provides abundant data for PPP processing. Taking all these into account, the principal objective of this study is to investigate the usability of PPP in establishing GCPs for aerial triangulation. For this purpose, an experimental test was conducted to evaluate the positioning performance of multi-GNSS PPP with high-frequency GNSS receivers (1 Hz). The results indicate that 5 cm or better horizontal and vertical positioning accuracy can be achieved by multi-GNSS PPP process within approximately 30 minutes using high-frequency GNSS receivers. Considering these results and its operational simplicity, it can be said that PPP is a robust alternative for the establishment of GCPs.

Keywords

Ground Control Points (GCPs), GNSS, Multi-GNSS, , Precise Point Positioning (PPP)

References

• Ackermann, F., 1994. Practical experience with GPS supported aerial triangulation. The Photogrammetric Record, 14(84): 861–874.
• Bahadur, B., Nohutcu, M., 2018. PPPH: a MATLAB-based software for multi-GNSS precise point positioning analysis. GPS Solutions, 22:113.
• Böhm, J., Niell, A., Tregoning, P., Schuh, H., 2006. Global Mapping Function (GMF): A new empirical mapping function based on numerical weather model data. Geophysical Research Letters, 33.
• Cai, C., Gao, Y., 2013. Modelling and assessment of combined GPS/GLONASS precise point positioning. GPS Solutions,17(2): 223-236.
• Cai, C., Gao, Y., Pan, L., Zhu, J., 2015. Precise point positioning with quadconstellations: GPS, BeiDou, GLONASS, and Galileo. Advances in Space Research, 56 (1): 133–143.
• Choy, S., Bisnath, S., Rizos, S., 2017. Uncovering common misconceptions in GNSS Precise Point Positioning and its future prospect. GPS Solutions, 21(1):13–22.
• Kouba, J., Héroux, P., 2001. Precise Point Positioning Using IGS Orbit and Clock Products. GPS Solutions 5(2):12-28.
• Kouba, J., 2015. A Guide to Using International GNSS Service (IGS) Products, https://kb.igs.org/hc/en-us/articles/201271873-A-Guide-to-Using-the-IGS-Products
• Lagler, K., Schindelegger, M., Böhm, J., Krásná, H., Nilsson, T., 2013. GPT2: Empirical slant delay model for radio space geodetic techniques. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(6):1069-1073.
• Li, X., Ge, M., Dai, X., Ren, X., Fritsche, M., Wickert, J., Schuh, H., 2015. Accuracy and reliability of multi-GNSS real-time precise positioning: GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, and Galileo. Journal of Geodesy, 89(6): 607-635.
• Montenbruck, O., Steigenberger, P., Prange, L., Deng, Z., Zhao, Q., Perosanz, F., Romero, I., Noll, C., Stürze, A., Weber, G., Schmid, R., MacLeod, K., Schaer, S., 2017. The Multi-GNSS Experiment (MGEX) of the International GNSS Service (IGS) – Achievements, prospects and challenges. Advances in Space Research 59 (7): 1671-1697.
• Murtiyoso, A., Grussenmeyer, P., 2017. Documentation of heritage buildings using close-range UAV images: dense matching issues, comparison and case studies. The Photogrammetric Record, 32(159): 206–229.
• Peppa, M.V., Mills, J.P., Moore, P., Miller, P.E. Chambers, J.E., 2016. Accuracy assessment of a UAV-based landslide monitoring system. International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 41(B5): 895–902.
• Petit, G., Luzum, B., 2010. IERS Conventions 2010, IERS Technical Note 36, Frankfurt am Main: Verlag des Bundesamts für Kartographie und Geodäsie, 179 pp., ISBN 3-89888-989-6.
• Rizos, C., Janssen, V., Roberts, C., Grinter, T., 2012. Precise point positioning: is the era of differential GNSS positioning drawing to an end, FIG Working Week 2012, Roma, Italy.
• Rizos, C., Montenbruck, O., Weber, R., Weber, G., Neilan, R., Hugentobler, U., 2013. The IGS MGEX Experiment as a Milestone for a Comprehensive Multi-GNSS Service. In: Proceedings of the ION 2013 Pacific PNT Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 2013, 289-295.
• Saastamoinen, J., 1972. Contributions to the theory of atmospheric refraction. Bulletin Geodesique, 105(1): 279–298.
• Steigenberger, P., Hugentobler, U., Loyer, S., Perosanz, F., Prange, L., Dach, R., Uhlemann, M., Gendt, G., Montenbruck, O., 2015. Galileo orbit and clock quality of the IGS Multi-GNSS Experiment. Advances in Space Research, 55(1): 269-281.
• Tegedor, J., Øvstedal, O., Vigen, E., 2014. Precise orbit determination and point positioning using GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou. Journal of Geodetic Science, 4 (1): 65–73.
• Wu, J.T., Wu, S.C., Hajj, G.A., Bertiger, W.I., Lichten, S.M., 1992, Effects of antenna orientation on GPS carrier phase, Manuscripta Geodaetica, 18(2): 91-98.
• Xu, P., Shi, C., Fang, R., Liu, J., Niu, X., Zhang, Q., Yanagidani, T., 2013. High-rate Precise Point Positioning (PPP) to measure seismic wave motions: an experimental comparison of GPS PPP with inertial measurement units. Journal of Geodesy, 87(4): 361-372. Yuan, X. X., 2009. Quality assessment for GPS-supported bundle block adjustment based on aerial digital frame imagery. The Photogrammetric Record, 24(126): 139–156.
• Zumberge, J.F., Heflin, M.B., Jefferson, D.C., Watkins, M.M., Webb, F.H., 1997. Precise point positioning for the efficient and robust analysis of GPS data from large networks. Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth 102(B3): 5005-5017.