Ionospheric effects in uncalibrated phase delay estimation and ambiguity-fixed PPP based on raw observable model

Zero-difference (ZD) ambiguity resolution (AR) reveals the potential to further improve the performance of precise point positioning (PPP). Traditionally, PPP AR is achieved by Melbourne-Wubbena and ionosphere-free combinations in which the ionosphere effect are removed. To exploit the ionosphere characteristics, PPP AR with L1 and L2 raw observable has also been developed recently. In this study, we apply this new approach in uncalibrated phase delay (UPD) generation and ZD AR and compare it with the traditional model. The raw observable processing strategy treats each ionosphere delay as an unknown parameter. In this manner, both a priori ionosphere correction model and its spatio-temporal correlation can be employed as constraints to improve the ambiguity resolution. However, theoretical analysis indicates that for the wide-lane (WL) UPD retrieved from L1/L2 ambiguities to benefit from this raw observable approach, high precision ionosphere correction of better than 0.7 total electron content unit (TECU) is essential. This conclusion is then confirmed with over 1 year data collected at about 360 stations. Firstly, both global and regional ionosphere model were generated and evaluated, the results of which demonstrated that, for large-scale ionosphere modeling, only an accuracy of 3.9 TECU can be achieved on average for the vertical delays, and this accuracy can be improved to about 0.64 TECU when dense network is involved. Based on these ionosphere products, WL/narrow-lane (NL) UPDs are then extracted with the raw observable model. The NL ambiguity reveals a better stability and consistency compared to traditional approach. Nonetheless, the WL ambiguity can be hardly improved even constrained with the high spatio-temporal resolution ionospheric corrections. By applying both these approaches in PPP-RTK, it is interesting to find that the traditional model is more efficient in AR as evidenced by the shorter time to first fix, while the three-dimensional positioning accuracy of the RAW model outperforms the combination model by about . This reveals that, with the current ionosphere models, there is actually no optimal strategy for the dual-frequency ZD ambiguity resolution, and the combination approach and raw approach each has merits and demerits.