Quality Assessment of Various CHC NAV GNSS Receiver Models

GNSS is utilized in numerous industries and applications to determine a location's (position and time). GNSS technology was quickly used for surveying because it can offer correct latitude, longitude, and height without establishing angles and distances. It's utilized worldwide in mapping and surveying. An ideal GNSS receiver for geodetic and other surveying applications must receive and monitor both code pseudo ranges and carrier phase signals, including the Y-codeless signal. Using geodetic equipment can offer the most accurate location data, but it depends on the instrument's quality. Choosing the proper equipment ensures trustworthy location data. Surveyors may pick cheap equipment caused by financial constraints. Does the data from different GNSS receiver brands have the same quality? By performing static observation on various GNSS receiver from CHC (i90, i83, i80, i73 and i70) key parameters are extracted from the data for data integrity assessment in terms of multipath, cycle slip, signal noise ratio, sky plot and others. CHC Geomatics Office 2 was used to extract the mentioned parameters for quality assessment. The two-day observation lasted from April 23 to April 25, 2022. (GPST). Data availability and data completeness are closely related criteria. For full potential analysis, receivers must be fully operating. No receiver has 100% data completeness or 24-hour data availability. Each receiver's data demonstrates that error varies by parameter. CHC i70 has the least multipath effect and CHC i80 the greatest. Overall, MP1 and MP2 multipath effects were below 0.5. CHC i70 had the lowest cycle slip ratio as it recorded the strongest signal strength while the greatest cycle slip ratio occurred to CHC i80. Each receiver's sky map exhibits the same pattern for both observation days, indicating they tracked the same satellite. Lastly, the average coordinates acquired either on various days or among the receivers indicates a maximum of 0.28m in vector displacement where it is appropriate to claim that each receiver received different coordinates since they were not locating on one place but adjacent within 1 meter radius. From the data analyzed, it is concluded that CHC i83 has best data quality among CHC models while CHC i80 obtained the worst data quality, but this does not indicate that model cannot provide good quality data.