4.7 Article

A shipborne experiment using a dual-antenna reflectometry system for GPS/BDS code delay measurements

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEODESY
卷 94, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00190-020-01421-4

关键词

GNSS-Reflectometry; Altimetry; BDS-3; Code-level altimetry; Shipborne GNSS-R

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41604003, 41704017, 41874032, 41731069]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2017M612274]
  3. NationalKey Research andDevelopment Program of China [2016YFB0501701]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global navigation satellite system-reflectometry (GNSS-R) has great potential to be a novel technique for altimetry, which can be used to derive sea surface heights (SSH). Shipborne altimetry is an important method to measure local SSH with high spatial resolution. In order to test the feasibility of shipborne dual-antenna GNSS-R reflector height retrieval, we developed a GNSS-R receiver system and performed experiments on a research vessel. In this study, direct and reflected GPS/BDS signals were collected using the same setup, and processed to estimate the reflector heights on the basis of path-delay measurements. A strategy of obtaining the GPS/BDS code-level path delay based on 10-ms coherent integration waveforms was adopted. We analyzed the relationship between the path-delay error and the error of the estimated reflector height, and we pointed out that the error in the path delay was amplified when the satellite elevation was low. We also performed reflector height retrieval based on BDS-3 signals for the first time. We evaluated the precisions of the BDS-R and GPS-R derived reflector heights with 30 degrees and 50 degrees cut-off elevations. The results show that the standard deviation of solutions at different cases is around 1.0 m and precisions are slightly better for a 50 degrees cut-off angle compared with a 30 degrees cut-off angle. In general, the mean values of different cases are close, with differences of several centimeters for the experiments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据