Calibration of geodetic (dual frequency) GPS receivers Implications for TAI and for the IGS G. Petit.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
RESULTS Time Scale Stability Time Scale Stability The instability of the new time scale compared to the old was calculated using the Hadamard deviation.
Advertisements

GPS and Time Metrology GPS is base for the most common used long-haul time and frequency measurement methods within the time community, it is: –precise.
Progress in the Link Calibration for UTC Time Transfer -- attainable uncertainty of the METODE (MEasurement of the TOtal DElay) Abstract The dominant part.
Use of Kalman filters in time and frequency analysis John Davis 1st May 2011.
5/4/2015rew Accuracy increase in FDTD using two sets of staggered grids E. Shcherbakov May 9, 2006.
1 NCSLI Conference 2013 Inter-Laboratory Comparison Study Using Modular Instrumentation and Lessons Learned Author:Dimaries Nieves – National Instruments.
Spring INTRODUCTION There exists a lot of methods used for identifying high risk locations or sites that experience more crashes than one would.
The Calibration Process
1 Seventh Lecture Error Analysis Instrumentation and Product Testing.
1 Time Scales Virtual Clocks and Algorithms Ricardo José de Carvalho National Observatory Time Service Division February 06, 2008.
13/06/13 H. Rho Slide 1 Geodetic Research Laboratory Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering University of New Brunswick Evaluation of Precise.
Aviation Considerations for Multi-Constellation GNSS Leo Eldredge, GNSS Group Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) December 2008 Federal Aviation Administration.
Geodetic Survey Division EARTH SCIENCES SECTOR Slide 1 Real-Time and Near Real-Time GPS Products and Services from Canada Y. Mireault, P. Tétreault, F.
2010 CEOS Field Reflectance Intercomparisons Lessons Learned K. Thome 1, N. Fox 2 1 NASA/GSFC, 2 National Physical Laboratory.
V. Rouillard  Introduction to measurement and statistical analysis ASSESSING EXPERIMENTAL DATA : ERRORS Remember: no measurement is perfect – errors.
OPUS Projects (beta) status and plans Improved solutions for simultaneous or repeated observations harvest data from multiple observers share upload &
V-1 Common-View LORAN-C for Precision Time and Frequency Recovery Tom Celano, Timing Solutions Corp LT Kevin Carroll, USCG Loran Support Unit Michael Lombardi,
Relative vs Absolute Antenna Calibrations: How, when, and why do they differ? A Comparison of Antenna Calibration Catalogs Gerald L Mader 2, Andria L Bilich.
1 Validation & Verification Chapter VALIDATION & VERIFICATION Very Difficult Very Important Conceptually distinct, but performed simultaneously.
Mission Planning and SP1. Outline of Session n Standards n Errors n Planning n Network Design n Adjustment.
Linking GPS to Tide Gauges and Tide Gauge Benchmarks Tilo Schöne GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam Understanding Sea-level Rise and Variability, WCRP Workshop,
Part VI Precise Point Positioning Supported by Local Ionospheric Modeling GS894G.
Modern Navigation Thomas Herring MW 11:00-12:30 Room A
Circuits 2 Overview January 11, 2005 Harding University Jonathan White.
Space Geodesy (1/3) Geodesy provides a foundation for all Earth observations Space geodesy is the use of precise measurements between space objects (e.g.,
10/7/ Innovative Solutions International Satellite Navigation Division ION NTM 01 Capabilities of the WAAS and EGNOS For Time Transfer SBAS, an Alternate.
GPS: Global Positioning System  The Geographer’s best friend!  You can say with confidence… “I’m not lost!, I’m never lost!”* *Of course, where everybody.
GPS derived TEC Measurements for Plasmaspheric Studies: A Tutorial and Recent Results Mark Moldwin LD Zhang, G. Hajj, I. Harris, T. Mannucci, X. PI.
Compatibility of Receiver Types for GLONASS Widelane Ambiguity Resolution Simon Banville, Paul Collins and François Lahaye Geodetic Survey Division, Natural.
EUREF Symposium, Paris, 6-8 June 2012 Impact of Individual GNSS Antenna Calibration Used in the EPN on Positioning Q. Baire, E. Pottiaux, C. Bruyninx,
Uncertainties Using & Calculating Uncertainties for Electrical Measurement.
National Time Service Center. CAS Time Standard and Ensemble Pulsar Time Scale Ding Chen, George & Bill, Dick, PPTA team 2011 年 5 月 9 日, Beijing.
Surveying with the Global Positioning System Phase Observable.
1 Timing with loran Judah Levine Time and Frequency Division NIST/Boulder (303)
Airborne GPS Positioning with cm-Level Precisions at Hundreds of km Ranges Gerald L. Mader National Geodetic Survey Silver Spring, MD National Geodetic.
Fundamentals of Electric Circuits Chapter 16 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.
A new Ad Hoc Positioning System 컴퓨터 공학과 오영준.
Timing Augmented GPS Update Eddie Byrne, Symmetricom January 23, 2008.
Introduction To Localization Techniques (GPS)
M. Gende, C. Brunini Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina. Improving Single Frequency Positioning Using SIRGAS Ionospheric Products.
Global Positioning System Overview
The Inter-American Metrology System (SIM) Common-View GPS Comparison Network Michael A. Lombardi and Andrew N. Novick National Institute of Standards and.
1 SVY 207: Lecture 12 Modes of GPS Positioning Aim of this lecture: –To review and compare methods of static positioning, and introduce methods for kinematic.
Advanced Science and Technology Letters Vol.44 (Networking and Communication 2013), pp Preliminary Application.
PPP for TAI time links and frequency standards comparison G. Petit, A. Harmegnies, A. Kanj Bureau International des Poids et Mesures PPP Workshop
Real Time Stream Editor for PPP  Conventional approaches to Real Time Precise Point Position use ionosphere- free combination of code and phase observables.
The Inter-Calibration of AMSR-E with WindSat, F13 SSM/I, and F17 SSM/IS Frank J. Wentz Remote Sensing Systems 1 Presented to the AMSR-E Science Team June.
Principles of the Global Positioning System Lecture 09 Prof. Thomas Herring Room A;
ELT delays absolute calibration Ivan Procházka (1), Josef Blazej (1), Anja Schlicht (2) Prepared for ESA Webex meeting(s) March 2015 (1) Czech Technical.
Use of the Moon as a calibration reference for NPP VIIRS Frederick S. Patt, Robert E. Eplee, Robert A. Barnes, Gerhard Meister(*) and James J. Butler NASA.
Real Time Stream Editor for PPP  Conventional approaches to Real Time Precise Point Position use ionosphere-free combination of code and phase observables.
Chance Constrained Robust Energy Efficiency in Cognitive Radio Networks with Channel Uncertainty Yongjun Xu and Xiaohui Zhao College of Communication Engineering,
1 1 Chapter 6 Forecasting n Quantitative Approaches to Forecasting n The Components of a Time Series n Measures of Forecast Accuracy n Using Smoothing.
IGARSS 2011, Vancuver, Canada July 28, of 14 Chalmers University of Technology Monitoring Long Term Variability in the Atmospheric Water Vapor Content.
NAPEOS: The ESA/ESOC Tool for Space Geodesy
48th CGSIC - Timing Subcommittee Outline of presentation  International time comparisons  Uncertainties  Upcoming techniques  Glonass and Galileo.
G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R TRMM Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission 2nd GPM GV Workshop TRMM Ground Validation Some Lessons and Results.
Vondrák Filtering for Timescales Demetrios Matsakis, Gianna Panfilo, and Gérard Petit USNO & BIPM.
Relative positioning with Galileo E5 AltBOC code measurements DEPREZ Cécile Dissertation submitted to the University of Liège in partial requirements for.
GPS Receiver Calibration by BIPM Aimin Zhang National Institute of Metrology(NIM), China APMP/TCTF 2012 in Wellington, New Zealand.
Astronomisches Institut der Universität Bern Global Navigation Satellite Systems for Positioning and Time Transfer T. Schildknecht, A. Jäggi R. Dach, G.
Vladimír Smotlacha, CESNET Alexander Kuna, IPE Time and Frequency Transfer in All-optical Network TNC 2011 Prague 17 May 2011.
Yasuhisa Fujii National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ) Jia-Lun Wang National Time and Freq. Standards Lab,Taiwan (TL) Michael Wouters and Bruce Warrington.
Control Methods Workshop 2010 campaign, Ispra April / 37 GNSS: how should we measure parcels in 2010 ? Cozmin LUCAU, Krasimira GANISHEVA,
Report from TCTF WG on TWSTFT Coordinator: Miho Fujieda, NICT Sub Coordinator: Yi-Jiun Huang, TL Sub Coordinator: Hideo Maeno, NICT APMP TCTF meeting Nov.
Telecommunication Laboratories Jia-Lun Wang, Shinn-Yan Lin, Yi-Jiun Huang, Huang-Tien Lin and Chia-Shu Liao APMP 2012 November 26, 2012 MSL Wellington,
CSIR National Metrology Laboratory Your measurement technology partner for global competitiveness.
The Calibration Process
Appliance of IceCORS network 2017 by Dalia Prizginiene
Interferogram Filtering vs Interferogram Subtraction
Presentation transcript:

Calibration of geodetic (dual frequency) GPS receivers Implications for TAI and for the IGS G. Petit

Rationale for TAI/IGS links TAI is based on clocks in about 65 time laboratories worldwide, to be compared. GPS is the most widely used time transfer technique –About half the time labs have dual frequency geodetic receivers (which keep synch at power on) –About half of these participate to the IGS network (see Table below, expanded from K. Senior)

Receiver calibration Receiver calibration provides accurate time transfer. Two types of calibration procedures are used: absolute and differential. Absolute calibration: Laboratory measurement of delays incurred by simulated signals. –Complex and not widely used –History: NRL (White et al.2001, Petit et al. 2001; Plumb et al.2005) –Some new developments, facilitated by wider availability of signal simulators CNES (Cibiel et al. 2008) DLR (Grunert et al. 2008) –Antenna calibration still most complex –Must be done (and re-done) for each equipment Differential calibration: One reference equipment travels to be compared to all equipments to be calibrated.

Uncertainty of a differential calibration Most significant part for a geodetic receiver: Measurement of the phase relation of the input frequency vs. the Lab reference (1PPS-in) Statistical uncertainty of differential measurements well below 0.1 ns for a few hours averaging time at each frequency: no problem. Cable measurements also a few 0.1 ns contribution. Global uncertainty expected of order 2 ns at P1/P2 Should be reflected in the observed (long-term) repeatability of calibration results

Geodetic calibrations results: repeatability (1) Regular comparisons of Z12-T and Javad receiver kept at the BIPM: 10 measurements in , each lasting several days (each measurement corresponds to a complete re-installation of one system). –  P1 dispersion of results: 2.7 ns p/p (1.0 ns RMS) –  P2 dispersion of results: 3.1 ns p/p (1.2 ns RMS) –  P1-P2) dispersion of results: 1.4 ns p/p (0.5 ns RMS)

Geodetic calibrations results: repeatability (2) Regular comparisons of two Z12-T kept at the BIPM: 11 measurements over , each lasting several days (each measurement corresponds to a complete re-installation of one system). –  P1 dispersion of results: 3.3 ns p/p (1.0 ns RMS) –  P2 dispersion of results: 3.5 ns p/p (0.9 ns RMS) –  P1-P2) dispersion of results: 2.1 ns p/p (0.7 ns RMS)

Geodetic calibrations results: repeatability (3) A few years of history of repeated calibrations with Z12-T traveling receiver (a total of ~ 50 calibration measurements) Several receivers have been measured > 2 times over the years: 1-2 ns consistency is possible, but there are few very conclusive results, mostly because the operational set-up changes with time. Some examples for two receivers participating to the IGS are: –PTBB (Z12-T at PTB): 4 calibrations over show RMS of 0.5 ns for  P1) or  P2) and 0.4 ns for  P1-P2). –OPMT (Z12-T at OP): 6 calibrations over show RMS of about 1.5 ns for  P1) or  P2) (with different operational set- ups) but 0.3 ns for  P1-P2).

Calibration repeatability: conclusions Calibration of geodetic systems providing P3 measurements has been operational for some years. Differential P1 and P2 delays can change by up to several ns; a stability at 1 ns RMS is observed only in the best and most controlled cases. Differential (P1-P2) delays are generally stable at the 0.5 ns RMS level, except when the set-up changes. (P1-P2) delay is equivalent to the DCB value solved for by the IGS: [P1-P2](i) = Cte *DCB(i) for any receiver i. Therefore receiver DCB values could be expected to be constant at the level of 0.2 ns RMS for a given receiver, even on the long term.

DCB stability DCB should have long-term stability of typically 0.2 ns RMS, presumably short-term stability should be below this level. While this is verified for many receivers, this is not always the case (TWTF below). Long-term behavior of IGS DCB probably dominated by the influence of the “DCB reference” (Sum of the satellite DCBs to be zero). DCBs from a set of calibrated receivers could be used to constrain IGS solutions.

Other satellite systems GLONASS data have been available for years, but were never operationally used for time transfer, mostly because of satellite and receiver delays depend on the transmitted frequency within each band. GLONASS common-view time transfer may provide results equivalent to GPS common-view, when the two GLONASS receivers have a similar frequency response, because common-view cancels SV biases. However, common-view has limitations and is not much used any more (for GPS), thanks to the IGS SV ephemeris and clocks products. All-in-view or PPP are now used for GPS. Similar IGS products for GLONASS SV clocks are not (yet) available because of the bias problem, so that All-in-view and PPP cannot be used for GLONASS. When such problems are solved, the next problem will be to ensure the consistency of receiver calibration between the different systems.

Conclusions Time transfer accuracy is sensitive to the absolute value of receiver biases. Therefore there is an on-going effort to calibrate these biases and to estimate their long-term stability. This is labor intensive and can cover only part of the needs. IGS products may not be sensitive to absolute values of delays, but are sensitive to relative value, e.g. inter-frequency biases, or variation with time. IGS results are nearly continuous and “automated”. IGS results can help to monitor the stability of receiver delays (Senior et al. 2004). Conversely, receiver calibration results could provide a reference for the IGS solved-for receiver and satellite biases.

Issues and possible recommendations for IGS Differential code biases are typically treated as solved-for parameters with one equation to remove rank deficiency To ensure solutions that make most physical sense (and may be avoid leaks of some signal into the solved for parameters) Physical constraints should be introduced (may be they are already??) in the adjustment, e.g. based on the DCBs expected stability Reference for DCBs should also be based on physical considerations e.g. could be from the measured values for an ensemble of receivers IGS should (continue to) monitor the stability of receiver delays This approach demands more work => Check if it is worth the effort? To be discussed in the Bias and Calibration WG (S. Schaer)