Comparative analysis of blind tropospheric correction models in Ghana

IF 0.9 Q4 REMOTE SENSING
S. Osah, Akwasi Acheampong, C. Fosu, I. Dadzie
{"title":"Comparative analysis of blind tropospheric correction models in Ghana","authors":"S. Osah, Akwasi Acheampong, C. Fosu, I. Dadzie","doi":"10.1515/jogs-2020-0104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The impact of the earth’s atmospheric layers, particularly the troposphere on Global Navigation satellite system (GNSS) signals has become a major concern in GNSS accurate positioning, navigation, surveillance and timing applications. For precise GNSS applications, tropospheric delay has to be mitigated as accurately as possible using tropospheric delay prediction models. However, the choice of a particular prediction model can signifi-cantly impair the positioning accuracy particularly when the model does not suit the user’s environment. A performance assessment of these prediction models for a suitable one is very important. In this paper, an assessment study of the performances of five blind tropospheric delay prediction models, the UNB3m, EGNOS, GTrop, GPT2w and GPT3 models was conducted in Ghana over six selected Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) using the 1˚x1˚ gridded Vienna Mapping Function 3 (VMF3) zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD) product as a reference. The gridded VMF3-ZTD which is generated for every six hours on the 1˚x1˚ grids was bilinearly interpolated both space and time and transferred from the grid heights to the respective heights of the CORS locations. The results show that the GPT3 model performed better in estimating the ZTD with an overall mean (bias: 2.05 cm; RMS: 2.53 cm), followed by GPT2w model (bias: 2.32cm; RMS: 2.76cm) and GTrop model (bias: 2.41cm; 2.82cm). UNB3m model (bias: 6.23 cm; RMS: 6.43 cm) and EGNOS model (bias: 6.70 cm; RMS: 6.89 cm) performed poorly. A multiple comparison test (MCT) was further performed on the RMSE of each model to check if there is significant difference at 5% significant level. The results show that the GPT3, GPT2w and GTrop models are significantly indifferent at 5% significance level indicating that either of these models can be employed to mitigate the ZTD in the study area, nevertheless, the choice of GPT3 model will be more preferable.","PeriodicalId":44569,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Geodetic Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Geodetic Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jogs-2020-0104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REMOTE SENSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The impact of the earth’s atmospheric layers, particularly the troposphere on Global Navigation satellite system (GNSS) signals has become a major concern in GNSS accurate positioning, navigation, surveillance and timing applications. For precise GNSS applications, tropospheric delay has to be mitigated as accurately as possible using tropospheric delay prediction models. However, the choice of a particular prediction model can signifi-cantly impair the positioning accuracy particularly when the model does not suit the user’s environment. A performance assessment of these prediction models for a suitable one is very important. In this paper, an assessment study of the performances of five blind tropospheric delay prediction models, the UNB3m, EGNOS, GTrop, GPT2w and GPT3 models was conducted in Ghana over six selected Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) using the 1˚x1˚ gridded Vienna Mapping Function 3 (VMF3) zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD) product as a reference. The gridded VMF3-ZTD which is generated for every six hours on the 1˚x1˚ grids was bilinearly interpolated both space and time and transferred from the grid heights to the respective heights of the CORS locations. The results show that the GPT3 model performed better in estimating the ZTD with an overall mean (bias: 2.05 cm; RMS: 2.53 cm), followed by GPT2w model (bias: 2.32cm; RMS: 2.76cm) and GTrop model (bias: 2.41cm; 2.82cm). UNB3m model (bias: 6.23 cm; RMS: 6.43 cm) and EGNOS model (bias: 6.70 cm; RMS: 6.89 cm) performed poorly. A multiple comparison test (MCT) was further performed on the RMSE of each model to check if there is significant difference at 5% significant level. The results show that the GPT3, GPT2w and GTrop models are significantly indifferent at 5% significance level indicating that either of these models can be employed to mitigate the ZTD in the study area, nevertheless, the choice of GPT3 model will be more preferable.
加纳对流层盲校正模式的对比分析
摘要地球大气层特别是对流层对全球导航卫星系统(GNSS)信号的影响已成为GNSS精确定位、导航、监视和授时应用中关注的主要问题。对于精确的GNSS应用,必须使用对流层延迟预测模型尽可能准确地减轻对流层延迟。然而,特定预测模型的选择会严重影响定位精度,特别是当模型不适合用户的环境时。对这些预测模型进行性能评估,选择一个合适的模型是非常重要的。本文以1˚x1˚网格维也纳映射函数3 (VMF3)天顶对流层延迟(ZTD)产品为参考,在加纳选定的6个连续运行参考站(CORS)上,对UNB3m、EGNOS、GTrop、GPT2w和GPT3 5种盲对流层延迟预测模型进行了性能评估研究。在1˚x1˚网格上每6小时生成一次网格化的VMF3-ZTD,在空间和时间上进行双线性插值,并从网格高度转移到CORS位置的相应高度。结果表明,GPT3模型对ZTD的估计效果较好,总体平均偏差为2.05 cm;RMS: 2.53 cm),其次是GPT2w模型(偏差:2.32cm;RMS: 2.76cm)和GTrop模型(偏差:2.41cm;2.82厘米)。UNB3m模型(偏差:6.23 cm;RMS: 6.43 cm)和EGNOS模型(偏差:6.70 cm;RMS: 6.89 cm)表现不佳。进一步对各模型的RMSE进行多重比较检验(multiple comparison test, MCT),检验在5%显著水平下是否存在显著性差异。结果表明,GPT3模型、GPT2w模型和GTrop模型在5%显著性水平下均存在显著性差异,表明GPT3模型均可用于缓解研究区ZTD,但GPT3模型更可取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Geodetic Science
Journal of Geodetic Science REMOTE SENSING-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
3
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信