## 5 Precise Point Positioning (PPP)
### Kinematic PPP Solutions  
For the kinematic PPP solutions, we calculated the convergence times for four stations, namely, TOMP, ALBY, HOB2 and STR1, during the period from DOY 052 to DOY 068. RMS values of the E, N, and U components for these four stations after convergence were also obtained. The data were recorded in 30-second intervals. Considering the positioning errors caused by orbit and clock interpolation, the first and last 3 h data were abandoned in this study. The condition for convergence in kinematic PPP is that if the three-dimensional RMS values for the current epoch and the following ten epochs are all less than 0.1 m, the current epoch is set as the convergence time [45]. It should be noted that the statistical results listed here are the RMS values of the E, N, and U components after convergence. Table 11 lists the precisions and convergence times obtained for the four stations using different kinematic PPP solutions. Figure 11 shows the RMS values of the E, N, and U components and convergence times for the four stations using different solutions.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sol.Site**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TOMP**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ALBY**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**HOB2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**STR1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Average**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**} \\ \cline{2-19}  & **E** & **N** & **U** & **E** & **N** & **U** & **E** & **N** & **U** & **E** & **N** & **U** & **E** & **N** & **U** & **Con. Time** \\ \hline GPS & 1.81 & 1.26 & 2.23 & 1.81 & 1.25 & 2.23 & 1.77 & 1.22 & 2.20 & 1.79 & 1.23 & 2.23 & 1.79 & 1.24 & 2.22 & 36 \\ GB114 & 1.84 & 1.28 & 2.24 & 1.90 & 1.33 & 2.29 & 1.88 & 1.32 & 2.26 & 1.87 & 1.29 & 2.24 & 1.87 & 1.30 & 2.26 & 18.5 \\ GB134 & 1.91 & 1.27 & 2.32 & 1.88 & 1.29 & 2.34 & 1.86 & 1.25 & 2.32 & 1.88 & 1.32 & 2.33 & 1.88 & 1.28 & 2.33 & 13.5 \\ B134 & 2.42 & 1.75 & 3.68 & 2.48 & 1.83 & 3.61 & 2.50 & 1.83 & 3.78 & 2.48 & 1.81 & 3.94 & 2.47 & 1.80 & 3.75 & 43.5 \\ B114 & 2.56 & 2.00 & 3.93 & 2.59 & 2.03 & 3.97 & 2.64 & 2.07 & 4.20 & 2.62 & 2.05 & 4.45 & 2.60 & 2.04 & 4.14 & 46 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 11: RMS values of GPS, GB114, GB134, B134 and B114 solutions at the TOMP, ALBY, HOB2 and STR1 for kinematic PPP in the E, N, and U components (calculated above) and relative convergence times (Con. Time). The RMS values are in cm and the convergence times are in minutes.  
Figure 11: Average convergence times and RMS values for kinematic PPP at the TOMP, ALBY, HOB2 and STR1. The top panel shows the convergence times using five solutions, and the RMS values of the E, N, and U components are illustrated in the bottom panel.  
Among all the solutions, in terms of the RMS values, kinematic PPP using the GPS-only solution performed best for both horizontal and vertical components. Moreover, the results of kinematic PPP using GPS, GB114 and GB134 solutions were comparable and were all superior to those obtained using B134 and B114, where B114 performed worst. For convergence time, kinematic PPP using GPS-only solution needed 36 min, but when BeiDou solutions were included (GB114 and GB134), the convergence time for GB114 was improved significantly to 18.5 min, which was comparable to that reported by [PERSON] et al. [9]. Furthermore, when four BeiDou-3e satellites were involved, the convergence time was reduced to 13.5 min.  
In the case of kinematic PPP, the RMS values were much higher than those for static solutions. This may because the position coordinates are estimated in epoch wise, where a random walk model was utilized between epochs. When we compared the B134 and B114 solutions, the inclusion of BeiDou-3e satellites could improve the geometric distributions of satellites and shorten the convergence time greatly.