We assess the time-to-first-fix (TTFF) and the ambiguity fixing rate of two PPP wide-lane ambiguity resolution (WL-AR) methods, namely the geometry-based and ionospheric-free (GB-IF) method, and the geometry-free and ionospheric-free (GF-IF) method. First, an optimal GF-IF WL linear combination is selected based on the ratio between the code and carrier phase measurement noise ($RT$). Then, the relation between ambiguity variance and satellite geometry in the GB-IF WL-AR is investigated. Both simulated and real data from 31 GNSS stations over 37 consecutive days in 2017 were used. Numerical results show that the GF-IF WL-AR method has shorter TTFF and higher ambiguity fixing rate compared to the GB-IF method when $RT\le 150$. However, when $RT\ge 150$, the GB-IF method outperforms the GF-IF method. Depending on RT values used, 2–10 min would be required to resolve the WL ambiguities when using GNSS measurements with one second sampling rate.

我们评估两种PPP广域歧义解决方法（WL-AR）的首次定位时间（TTFF）和歧义固定率，即基于几何和无电离层（GB-IF）的方法，以及无几何和无电离层（GF-IF）方法。首先，根据码和载波相位测量噪声之间的比率选择最佳的GF-IF WL线性组合（$\mathrm{[R}Ť$）。然后，研究了GB-IF WL-AR中模糊度方差与卫星几何形状之间的关系。2017年连续31天使用了来自31个GNSS台站的模拟和真实数据。数值结果表明，与GB-IF方法相比，GF-IF WL-AR方法具有更短的TTFF和更高的歧义固定率。$\mathrm{[R}Ť\le 150$。但是，当$\mathrm{[R}Ť\ge 150$，GB-IF方法优于GF-IF方法。根据所使用的RT值，在以一秒的采样率使用GNSS测量时，需要2-10分钟来解决WL模糊性。