For the same antenna type, numerical differences among the phase center correction (PCC) models released by different institutes can reach several millimeters, which is far beyond the nominal calibration accuracy. This contribution introduces a new method to evaluate the consistency of these PCC models. We first investigated the coupling of phase center offset (PCO) and phase center variation (PCV) through simulation experiments, and the results show that the calibrated PCO values under different strategies may result in large differences, and so do PCV values due to strong coupling with PCO. This is further confirmed by field calibration experiments. Moreover, a new datum parameter is introduced to equivalently transform the PCC models to assess the consistency of PCC models of the same antenna type calibrated under different strategies or by different facilities. It is also essential to perform consistency analysis of PCC models in the coordinate domain. We further investigated these PCC models through a simulated positioning experiment. The results show that millimeter-level consistency of PCC models will lead to the same level of positioning precision in the coordinate domain. Moreover, as a comparison, both baseline positioning and PPP were performed with an antenna-type JAV_RINGANT_G3T NONE based on real observations. Multiday results showed that the average RMS of the positioning differences between PCC models from robot and anechoic chamber calibration is less than 1 mm for the baseline solution and 4 mm for the PPP solution, although the PCC model differences can reach 6 mm in L1 and 4 mm in L2, respectively. Finally, we also investigated the distribution of position biases without PCC or with inaccurate PCC. Considering the actual GPS constellation, we found that position biases have a strong correlation with latitude, if PCV values fluctuate greatly with the users’ elevation angle.

With the advancement of multi-GNSS systems, the field calibration of GNSS receiver antennas has been updated at Wuhan University. Benefiting from the use of a six-axis robot that can change its position and attitude precisely, multisession calibration experiments were implemented for several antennas of two types. The calibrations show a high stability of 1 mm for both the phase center offset and phase variation estimation. Compared to the models disclosed in igs14.atx and igsR3.atx, phase center correction differences at the 1 mm level can be obtained for most signals for elevation angles above 15°. For lower elevations, the consistency with the reference model increases to 2–3 mm or more. The consistency of calibrations with different receivers was investigated, and root mean square of differences between these models was better than 0.15 mm. In a short-baseline positioning experiment, the coordinate discrepancies introduced by an antenna phase center (APC) model between GPS and BDS-3 signals could be significantly reduced to the 1 mm level. Compared to the reference coordinates, the positioning accuracies for GPS and BDS-3 were both less than 2 mm with the adoption of the calibrated APC model. The multi-GNSS calibration system tested in this experiment is preliminarily proven reliable and could be applied to future antenna calibration for multi-GNSS applications.