IGS Analysis Center Workshop, 2-6 June 2008, Florida, USA
GPS in the ITRF Combination
D. Angermann, H. Drewes, M. Krügel, B. Meisel
Deutsches Geodätisches Forschungsinstitut, MünchenE-Mail: [email protected]
OutlineOutline
ITRS Combination Center at DGFI
Input data for TRF computations
Analysis and accumulation of GPS time series
GPS in the inter-technique combination
Contribution of GPS to the datum realization
Conclusions and outlook
ITRS Combination Center at DGFIITRS Combination Center at DGFI
General concept: Combination on the normal equation level
Software: DGFI Orbit and Geodetic Parameter Estimation Software (DOGS)
Geodeticdatum
Input data sets for TRF computations (1/2)Input data sets for TRF computations (1/2)
Techn. Service / AC Data Time Period
GPS IGS / NRCan weekly solutions 1996 - 2005
VLBI IVS / IGG 24 h session NEQ 1984 - 2005
SLR ILRS / ASI weekly solutions 1993 - 2005
DORIS IGN - JPL/LCA weekly solutions 1993 - 2005
ITRF2005: Time series of station positions and EOP
ITRF2005 data sets are not fully consistent, the standards andmodels were not completely unified among analysis centers
Shortcomings concerning GPS:- IGS solutions are not reprocessed (e.g., model and software changes)- Relative antenna phase center corrections were applied
Input data sets for TRF computations (2/2)Input data sets for TRF computations (2/2)
Techn. Institutions Data Time Period
GPS GFZ daily NEQ 1994 - 2007
VLBI IGG / DGFI 24 h session NEQ 1984 - 2007
SLR DGFI / GFZ weekly NEQ 1993 - 2007
GGOS-D: Time series of station positions and EOP
Improvements of GGOS-D data compared to ITRF2005: Homogeneously processed data sets - Identical standards, conventions, models, parameters - GPS: PDR (Steigenberger et al. 2006, Rülke et al. 2008) Improved modelling - for GPS: absolute instead of relative phase centre corr. - for VLBI: pole tide model was changed
GGOS-D: German project of BKG, DGFI, GFZ and IGG funded by BMBF
TRF computation strategyTRF computation strategy
First step: Analysis of station coordinate time series and computation of a reference frame per technique
Modelling time dependent station coordinates by
- epoch positions- linear velocities - (seasonal signals)- discontinuities
Second step: Combination of different techniques by
- relative weighting- selection of terrestrial difference vectors (local ties)- combination of station velocities and EOP- realization of the geodetic datum
TRF per technique (1/4)TRF per technique (1/4)
Instrumentation changes Earthquakes Seasonal variations
Analysis of GPS station position time series
ITRF2005. 221 discontinuities in 332 GPS stations (1996 - 2005)
GGOS-D: 95 discontinuities in 240 GPS stations (1994 - 2007)
TRF per technique (2/4)TRF per technique (2/4)
Effect of annual signals ? Equating of station velocities ?
SolutionID
Velocities[mm/yr]
Sol. ID 1Sol. ID 2
4.5 ± 0.98.7 ± 0.7
Δ (2 – 1) 4.2 ± 1.2
Sol. ID 1 Sol. ID 2
obs time span
[yrs]
0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0
velocities
[mm/yr]
-37.5
3.2
-3.7
2.3
2.7
0.8
-0.3
0.5
Velocity differences w.r.t. a linear model
GPS station Irkutsk (Siberia)
GPS station Hofn (Iceland)
1997 2000 2003 20061997 2000 2003 2006
TRF per technique (3/4)TRF per technique (3/4)
Seasonal signals - Comparison with geophysical data
Models consideratmospheric,oceanic and hydrologic mass loads:
NCEP, ECCO,GLDAS
Potsdam
Krasnoyarsk
Bahrain
Correlation coefficient = 0,50
Correlation coefficient = 0,79
Correlation coefficient = 0,73
1997 1999 2 001 2003 2005
[cm]
2
0
-2
2
0
-2
2
0
-2
TRF per technique (4/4)TRF per technique (4/4)
Shape of seasonal signals can be approximated by sine/cosine annual and semi-annual functions
Brasilia Ankara
Estimation of annual signals in addition to velocities ?
Advantages:- Improved velocity estimation- Better alignment of epoch solutions
Disadvantages / open questions:- More parameters (stability) ?- Seasonal signal geophysically meaningful ?- How to parameterize seasonal signals ?
Computation of the TRF (1/3)Computation of the TRF (1/3)
Selection of local ties at co-location sites
SLR-VLBI (9)
SLR-GPS (25)
VLBI-GPS (27)
Computation of the TRF (2/3)Computation of the TRF (2/3)
ITRF2005GGOS-D
Selection of terrestrial difference vectors (1)
Three-dimensional differences between space geodetic solutions (GPS and VLBI) and terrestrial difference vectors [mm]
= stations in southern hemisphere
Krügel et al. 2007: Poster presented at AGU Fall Meeting 2007
Computation of the TRF (3/3)Computation of the TRF (3/3)
Selection of terrestrial difference vectors (2)
Mean pole difference
Network deformation
Mean pole difference: 35 as (≈1 mm)
Network deformation:≤ 0.3 mm
Number of co-locations: 19
ITRF2005:
Pole difference: 41 as
Deformation: 1.0 mm
No. co-locations: 13
Realization of the geodetic datum (1/4)Realization of the geodetic datum (1/4)
ITRF2005D(DGFI Solution)
GGOS-D
Origin SLR SLR
Scale SLR + VLBI SLR + VLBI + GPS
Orientation NNR conditionsw.r.t. ITRF2000
NNR conditionsw.r.t. ITRF2005
Orientationtime evolution
NNR conditions w.r.t. horizontal motions by using the Actual Plate Kinematic andDeformation Model (APKIM)
Realization of the geodetic datum (2/4)Realization of the geodetic datum (2/4)
Station velocity residuals for 56 core stations used to realize the kinematic datum of the ITRF2005D solution w.r.t. APKIM
Realization of the geodetic datum (3/4)Realization of the geodetic datum (3/4)
Translation and scale estimates of similarity transformations between combined PDR05 and weekly solutions (Rülke et al., JGR 2008)
Realization of the geodetic datum (4/4)Realization of the geodetic datum (4/4)
Cdatum = (GT CGPS-1 G)-1Method:
CGPS: Covariance matrix of GPS solution (loose constrained)
G: Coefficients of 7 parameter similarity transformation matrix
Cdatum: Covariance matrix of datum parameters
Datum information of GPS observations (compared to SLR)
Standard deviations for datum parameters [mm]
tx ty tz scale
GPS 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.2
SLR 1.0 0.9 2.7 2.9
Conclusions and outlookConclusions and outlook
Discontinuities: Number of jumps reduced due to homogeneous re-
processing; discontinuity tables among techniques should be adjusted.
Annual signals: Treatment of seasonal variations in station positions
(e.g., by estimating sine/cosine functions) should be investigated.
Co-locations: Discontinuities are critical; at least two GPS instruments
should be operated at each co-location site.
Geodetic datum: GPS reprocessing provides stable results for the
scale and for the x- and y-component of the origin, the z-component
shows large seasonal variations which should be investigated.
GPS reprocessing is essential for the next ITRF (unified standards
and models should be applied for different techniques).