Low-cost positioning performance using remotely sensed ionosphere

Abstract

Low-Cost Positioning [Single Frequency Receivers (SFR)] using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) can become a precise alternative to Dual Frequency Receivers (DFRs) in different applications. Ionospheric delay is one of the significant provenances of errors in GPS navigation and positioning. These blunders in both Phase range and pseudo range can differ according to the receiver location, solar cycle, time, and geomagnetic activity.Some ground receivers over Egypt and Europe were regarded in This publication to examine various ionosphere correction products' capability. Data from IGS stations spanning various latitudes and solar activity times (high, medium, or small) are taken into account. The findings demonstrate that the sub-meter level's precision is obtainable using single-frequency data using suitable mitigation approaches for ionospheric impacts.The implications for GNSS positioning (especially on horizontal precision) of ionospheric corrections have been studied. The findings demonstrate that all ionosphere corrections clearly enhance the accuracy of the vertical positions where the absolute vertical error is about 30 cm, 32.3 cm, and 57.2 cm for LIMs (Local Ionosphere Maps), GIMs (Global Ionosphere Maps), and BKP (Broadcasted Klobuchar Parameter). However, the horizontal enhancement is lower than the vertical, and even worse, the horizontal error can be increased with ionosphere correction. The horizontal error ranges from 2.7 to 51.8 cm by using LIMs, while ranges from 4.5 to 47.2 cm by using GIMs but the maximum horizontal error obtained by applying BKP, which ranges from 20.7 to 100.2 cm. In comparison, the north bias plays a vital role in reducing horizontal precision. If north bias were not resolved correctly with ionosphere corrections, the horizontal positioning efficiency would deteriorate.The significant efficiency of mid-latitude Egyptian ionosphere correction (estimated by LIMs) in stormy and quiet geomagnetic environments rather than GIMs and BKP, 3D RMS error improved by 16 %, and GIMs up 63 %. Furthermore, in low solar activity, 3D RMS error improved 6% compared to GIMs and 87% compared to BKP.