Upload
hilde
View
30
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Vertical Reference Frames for Sea Level Monitoring. Thomas Herring Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences http://www-gpsg.mit.edu/~tah. Overview. Examine scale variations in global reference (system scale directly effects heights) Effects of satellite phase center positions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 1
Vertical Reference Frames for Sea Level Monitoring
Thomas Herring
Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences
http://www-gpsg.mit.edu/~tah
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 2
Overview
• Examine scale variations in global reference (system scale directly effects heights)
• Effects of satellite phase center positions
• Systematic variations in scale and position
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 3
Acknowledgements
• Scripps Orbit and Permanent Array Center (SOPAC) for making available re-processed permanent GPS array data. Available as full-covariance, loosely-constrained solutions
• Mike Heflin at JPL for reprocessed GIPSY analyses. Time series of results.
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 4
Analysis from SOPAC reprocessed GPS data between 1992 and 2001
• GPS phase measurements at L1 and L2 from a global distribution of station used
• Analysis here is “un-constrained”– All site positions estimated– Atmospheric delay parameters estimated– “Real” bias parameters for each satellite global, integer
values for regional site combinations (<500 km)– Orbital parameters for all satellites estimated (1-day
orbits, 2-revolutions)• 6 Integration constants• 3 constant radiation parameters • 6 once-per-revolution radiation parameters
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 5
Global GPS analysis
• Data used between 1992-2001• Full analysis has ~600 stations (analysis
here restricted to ~100 sites that have more than 5 years of data
• Large density of sites (~300) in California• Total data set has > 2 billion phase
measurements
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 6
Specific sites analyzed
• Total of 100 sites analyzed of which 50 were used to realize coordinate system based on ITRF2000
• Since analysis has little constraint, it is:– Free to rotate
– Possibly free to translate (explicit estimation)
– Possibly free to change scale (explicit estimation)
• Latter two effects should not be present but these we will explore here.
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 7
Network used in analysis
Black: Frame sites; Red other sites
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 8
Results from analysis
• “Common Mode” errors seen in regional frames
• Scale variations: Comparison with ITRF-2000 and recent JPL analysis (Mike Heflin)
• Satellite phase center positions effects
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 9
Scale estimates
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
1994.0 1995.0 1996.0 1997.0 1998.0 1999.0 2000.0 2001.0 2002.0
GAMIT Δ ( )scale ppb ( )JPL Scale ppb
Year
2000 51- (0.9 / , 0.14 / )ITRF site average mm yr ppb yr
-0.24 /GAMIT Rate ppb yr -0.10 /JPL Rate ppb yr
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 10
Estimated height rates as function of latitude
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
-80.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
GAMIT H rate (mm/yr)
H Rate (ITRF00)
H rate (IGSP51) Mean rate 0.9 mm/yr
Latitude (deg)
1 mm/yr error bars shown
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 11
Effects of changes in the satellite phase center position
ψ Zenith Distance
γ
dhδργ
R
a
= dh cos ; sin = (R/a) sin ; (R/a) = 0.24
As the position of the phase center changes, an elevation angle dependent error is introduced.
dh is change in radial component
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 12
Height changes per unit offset as function of minimum and maximum elevation angles used in data analysis
Polar sites will have limited max elevationTypical effect is 0.03 m/m
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 13
Summary of effects
• GAMIT scale rate -0.24 ppb/yr; JPL scale rate -0.10 ppb/yr
• 51-GPS reference sites in ITRF2000 have average height rate of 0.9 mm/yr (0.14 ppb/yr)
• Satellite phase center: Block II 1.023 m or 0.953 m? expected scale change 0.35 ppb
12/12/01 Fall AGU 2001 14
Conclusion• Both GAMIT and JPL analyses show negative
scale rate. Height rates 1.5-0.6 mm/yr.• Common annual signals in time series are likely
to be real (atmospheric/snow loading effect). ITRF may need non-secular components to site positions to be better define the terrestrial system.
• Evolution of GPS constellation with time might explain part of the scale change or Average height rates in ITRF2000 may be biased.