DATA INTEGRITY AND QUALITY ANALYSIS OF LOW COST ZED-F9P U-BLOX GNSS RECEIVER

Yıl 2023, , 660 - 667, 01.09.2023

Sermet Öğütcü , Salih Alçay , Hüseyin Duman , Behlül Numan Özdemir , Ülkünur Koray

https://doi.org/10.36306/konjes.1268932

Öz

Thanks to the rapidly emerging low-cost dual-frequency GNSS receivers, a feasible alternative for geodetic-grade GNSS receivers became available for some GNSS applications. In this study, the performance of data integrity and quality of a low-cost ZED-F9P u-blox GNSS receiver was investigated by comparing it with a geodetic-grade GNSS receiver. Availability of the epoch and phase/code signal channels, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), code multipath, and cycle slips were analyzed for the geodetic-grade and low-cost ZED-F9P u-blox GNSS receivers. One month’s data of GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo constellations were analysed using the RINEX files of the receivers. The results showed that the epoch availability of the geodetic-grade and u-blox GNSS receiver is comparable to each other, while the availability of phase/code signal channels of the geodetic-grade receiver is higher than the u-blox receiver. In terms of data quality, SNR values from both receivers are comparable, while the multipath level of the u-blox GNSS receiver is significantly higher than the geodetic-grade one. The results also showed that the number of cycle slips of the u-blox receiver is significantly higher than the geodetic-one.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cyle Slip, GNSS, Low-cost, Multipath, U-blox

Kaynakça

• D. Janos, and P. Kuras, “Evaluation of low-cost GNSS receiver under demanding conditions in RTK network mode,” Sensors, 21(16), 5552, 2021.
• R. Hohensinn, R. Stauffer, M.F. Glaner, I.D. Herrera Pinzón, E. Vuadens, Y. Rossi and M. Rothacher, “Low-Cost GNSS and Real-Time PPP: Assessing the Precision of the u-blox ZED-F9P for Kinematic Monitoring Applications,” Remote Sensing, 14(20), 5100, 2022.
• N. Wielgocka, T. Hadas, A. Kaczmarek, and G. Marut, “Feasibility of using low-cost dual-frequency gnss receivers for land surveying,” Sensors, 21(6), 1956, 2021.
• S. Mahato, M. Goswami, S. Kundu, and A. Bose, “On usability of dual-frequency, compact GNSS modules for long baseline RTK,” In 2022 3rd URSI Atlantic and Asia Pacific Radio Science Meeting (AT-AP-RASC) (pp. 1-4). IEEE, 2022.
• A. Elmezayen, and A. El-Rabbany, “Performance assessment of real-time multiconstellation GNSS PPP using a low-cost dual-frequency GNSS module,” Artificial Satellites: Journal of Planetary Geodesy, 56, 3, 2021
• A. Cina, and M. Piras, “Performance of low-cost GNSS receiver for landslides monitoring: test and results,” Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 6(5-7), 497-514, 2015.
• Z. Nie, F. Liu and Y. Gao, “Real-time precise point positioning with a low-cost dual-frequency GNSS device,” Gps Solutions, 24, 9, 2020.
• D. Janos and P. Kuras, “Evaluation of low-cost GNSS receiver under demanding conditions in RTK network mode,” Sensors, 21(16), 5552, 2021.
• N. Wang, Z. Li, B. Duan, U. Hugentobler, and L. Wang, “GPS and GLONASS observable-specific code bias estimation: comparison of solutions from the IGS and MGEX networks,” Journal of Geodesy, 94, 74, 2020.
• M.S. Circiu, M. Felux, B. Belabbas, M. Meurer, J. Lee, M. Kim, and S. Pullen, “Evaluation of GPS L5, Galileo E1 and Galileo E5a performance in flight trials for multi frequency multi constellation GBAS”. In Proceedings of the 28th International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS+ 2015) (pp. 897-906), 2015.
• F. Guo, X. Li, X. Zhang, and J. Wang, “Assessment of precise orbit and clock products for Galileo, BeiDou, and QZSS from IGS Multi-GNSS Experiment (MGEX),” GPS solutions, 21(1), 279-290, 2017.
• M. Glaner, and R. Weber, “PPP with integer ambiguity resolution for GPS and Galileo using satellite products from different analysis centers,” GPS Solutions, 25, 102, 2021.
• S. Ogutcu, “Assessing the contribution of Galileo to GPS+ GLONASS PPP: Towards full operational capability,” Measurement, 151, 107143, 2020.
• J. Douša and P. Václavovic, “G-Nut/Anubis User Manual”.
• R. Hohensinn, R. Stauffer, M.F. Glaner, I.D. Herrera Pinzón, E. Vuadens, Y. Rossi and M. Rothacher “Low-Cost GNSS and Real-Time PPP: Assessing the Precision of the u-blox ZED-F9P for Kinematic Monitoring Applications,” Remote Sensing, 14(20), 5100, 2022.
• S.B. Bisnath, “Efficient, automated cycle-slip correction of dual-frequency kinematic GPS data”. In Proceedings of the 13th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GPS 2000) (pp. 145-154), 2000.
• I.V. Bezmenov, I.Y. Blinov, A.V. Naumov and S.L. Pasynok, “An algorithm for cycle-slip detection in a Melbourne–Wübbena combination formed of code and carrier phase GNSS measurements,” Measurement Techniques, 62, 415-421, 2019.
• D. Chai, W. Sang, G. Chen, Y. Ning, J. Xing, M. Yu and S. Wang, “A novel method of ambiguity resolution and cycle slip processing for single-frequency GNSS/INS tightly coupled integration system,” Advances in Space Research, 69(1), 359-375, 2022.
• Q. Zhao, B. Sun, Z. Dai, Z. Hu, C. Shi and J. Liu, “Real-time detection and repair of cycle slips in triple-frequency GNSS measurements,” GPS solutions, 19, 381-391, 2015.