| Literature DB >> 31618874 |
Haiyang Li1, Guigen Nie2, Dezhong Chen1, Shuguang Wu1, Kezhi Wang3.
Abstract
Deformation monitoring of engineering structures using the advanced Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) has attracted research interest due to its high-precision, constant availability and global coverage. However, GNSS application requires precise coordinates of points of interest through quick and reliable resolution of integer ambiguities in carrier phase measurements. Conventional integer ambiguity resolution algorithms have been extensively researched indeed in the past few decades, although the application of GNSS to structural health monitoring is still limited. In particular, known a priori information related to the structure of a body of interest is not normally considered. This study proposes a composite strategy that incorporates modified least-squares ambiguity decorrelation adjustment (MLAMBDA) method with priori information of the structural deformation. Data from the observation sites of Baishazhou Bridge are used to test method performance. Compared to MLAMBDA methods that do not consider priori information, the ambiguity success rate (ASR) improves by 20% for global navigation satellite system (GLONASS) and 10% for Multi-GNSS, while running time is reduced by 60 s for a single system and 180 s for Multi-GNSS system. Experimental results of Teaching Experiment Building indicate that our constrained MLAMBDA method improves positioning accuracy and meets the requirements of structural health monitoring, suggesting that the proposed strategy presents an improved integer ambiguity resolution algorithm.Entities:
Keywords: GNSS deformation monitoring; MLAMBDA; constraint conditions; integer ambiguity resolution; known priori information; multi-GNSS
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31618874 PMCID: PMC6832500 DOI: 10.3390/s19204462
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Flowchart for the proposed constrained Multi-GNSS MLAMBDA Method.
Comparison of experimental results for the site of interest S012.
| Baseline Length (m) | Multi-GNSS | Method | Running Time (s) | Epoch-to-First Fixed Ambiguity | ASR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2480.4751 | GPS | constrained | 719.451 | 5 | 95.9 |
| unconstrained | 788.561 | 60 | 91.6 | ||
| BDS | constrained | 768.111 | 1 | 99.8 | |
| unconstrained | 838.462 | 51 | 99.6 | ||
| GLONASS | constrained | 674.581 | 2231 | 89.2 | |
| unconstrained | 760.271 | 5272 | 65.1 | ||
| GPS+BDS | constrained | 1162.402 | 1 | 94.0 | |
| unconstrained | 1280.622 | 1 | 87.6 | ||
| GPS+BDS+GLONASS | constrained | 1763.982 | 90 | 76.9 | |
| unconstrained | 1945.271 | 1655 | 66.3 |
Figure 2Ambiguity alternative group size for the S012 monitoring site.
Figure 3Satellite number of the S012 experiment.
Internal accuracy statistics of the S012 monitoring site for the E, N, U and total displacement V directions (in mm).
| Multi-GNSS | Method | E | N | U | V |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPS | constrained | 6.13 | 7.84 | 13.56 | 16.82 |
| unconstrained | 9.51 | 11.03 | 18.47 | 23.52 | |
| BDS | constrained | 3.29 | 3.87 | 7.15 | 8.77 |
| unconstrained | 4.13 | 4.24 | 8.64 | 10.47 | |
| GLONASS | constrained | 11.84 | 13.57 | 24.52 | 35.35 |
| unconstrained | 176.42 | 195.52 | 403.12 | 481.52 | |
| GPS+BDS | constrained | 7.84 | 8.61 | 15.45 | 19.35 |
| unconstrained | 13.46 | 14.57 | 26.87 | 33.40 | |
| GPS+BDS+GLONASS | constrained | 72.14 | 85.21 | 143.87 | 182.11 |
| unconstrained | 154.58 | 162.82 | 334.87 | 403.17 |
Comparison of experimental results for the Teaching Experiment building, Wuhan.
| Baseline Length (m) | Method | Running Time (s) | ASR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 427.8865 | constrained | 486.681 | 99.8 |
| unconstrained | 508.970 | 93.8 |
Figure 4Displacements of mobile quantitative observations in the E, N, and U directions for the proposed constrained algorithm.
Accuracy statistics for tests on the Teaching Experiment building for the E, N and U directions, and the total displacement V (in mm).
| E | N | U | V | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constrained | Internal accuracy | 2.65 | 2.14 | 4.31 | 5.49 |
| External accuracy | 3.89 | 3.22 | 5.05 | 7.14 | |
| Unconstrained | Internal accuracy | 3.05 | 2.69 | 5.13 | 6.53 |
| External accuracy | 3.98 | 3.54 | 6.11 | 8.11 |