Limits of static processing in a dynamic environment Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
2006 AGU Fall Meeting. 14 Dec. 2006, San Francisco – Poster #G43A-0985 Jim Ray (NOAA/NGS), Tonie van Dam (U. Luxembourg), Zuheir Altamimi (IGN), Xavier.
Advertisements

Track Short Course: Track Introduction and Commands Lecture 01 Thomas Herring, MIT Room A
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue | A | Cambridge MA V F.
Use of Kalman filters in time and frequency analysis John Davis 1st May 2011.
Seasonal Position Variations and Regional Reference Frame Realization Jeff Freymueller Geophysical Institute University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Jake Griffiths & Jim Ray NOAA/National Geodetic Survey Acknowledgement: Kevin Choi SUBDAILY ALIAS AND DRACONITIC ERRORS IN THE IGS ORBITS Harmonics of.
A quick GPS Primer (assumed knowledge on the course!) Observables Error sources Analysis approaches Ambiguities If only it were this easy…
Effects of azimuthal multipath heterogeneity and hardware changes on GPS coordinate time series Sibylle Goebell, Matt King
Tidal Modulation of Stick-Slip Ice Stream Motion
Limits of static processing in a dynamic environment Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.
Space Weather influence on satellite based navigation and precise positioning R. Warnant, S. Lejeune, M. Bavier Royal Observatory of Belgium Avenue Circulaire,
GTECH 201 Session 08 GPS.
The IGS contribution to ITRF2014 Paul Rebischung, Bruno Garayt, Zuheir Altamimi, Xavier Collilieux 26th IUGG General Assembly, Prague, 28 June.
03/18/05OSU GAMIT/GLOBK1 TRACK: GAMIT Kinematic GPS processing module
Ground-Based Altimetry Using a Single- Receiver Single-Frequency GNSS Phase Ambiguity Resolution Technique G. Stienne* S. Reboul J.-B. Choquel M. Benjelloun.
13/06/13 H. Rho Slide 1 Geodetic Research Laboratory Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering University of New Brunswick Evaluation of Precise.
Geodetic Survey Division EARTH SCIENCES SECTOR Slide 1 Real-Time and Near Real-Time GPS Products and Services from Canada Y. Mireault, P. Tétreault, F.
Principles of the Global Positioning System Lecture 11 Prof. Thomas Herring Room A;
Assessment of 3D hydrologic deformation using GRACE and GPS Fall AGU 2009 Paper G13A-08 G13A: Results of the Reprocessing of Space Geodetic Observations.
SVY 207: Lecture 4 GPS Description and Signal Structure
Mission Planning and SP1. Outline of Session n Standards n Errors n Planning n Network Design n Adjustment.
Part VI Precise Point Positioning Supported by Local Ionospheric Modeling GS894G.
SRI Seminar 2005 Time series of GPS stations For reference, monitoring and geophysics Günter Stangl Federal Office of Metrology and Surveying.
1 LAVAL UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF GEOMATICS Mohammed Boukhecha (Laval University) Marc Cocard (Laval University) René Landry (École technique supérieure.
1 SVY 207: Lecture 11 GPS Error Sources: Review Where can errors occur? –Satellite: ephemeris, clock, S/A (history) A/S –Propagation: ionosphere, troposphere,
SVY 207: Lecture 13 Ambiguity Resolution
EUREF Symposium, Paris, 6-8 June 2012 Impact of Individual GNSS Antenna Calibration Used in the EPN on Positioning Q. Baire, E. Pottiaux, C. Bruyninx,
Matt A. King 1, Christopher S. Watson 2 1 School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University, UK 2 School of Geography.
01/0000 HEO and Daylight Ranging “Reality and Wishes” Ramesh Govind ILRS Fall Workshop, 4 th October 2005.
Surveying with the Global Positioning System Phase Observable.
P. Wielgosz and A. Krankowski IGS AC Workshop Miami Beach, June 2-6, 2008 University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
09/24/2008Unavco Track Intro1 TRACK: GAMIT Kinematic GPS processing module
A Geodesist’s View of the Ionosphere Gerald L. Mader National Geodetic Survey Silver Spring, MD.
Airborne GPS Positioning with cm-Level Precisions at Hundreds of km Ranges Gerald L. Mader National Geodetic Survey Silver Spring, MD National Geodetic.
APPLICATION OF GPS TECHNOLOGY TO ARCHAEOLOGY GROUP PROJECT.
SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute Real-Time GPS Processing with Carrier Phase FILTER PARAMETER INFLUENCE ON GPS CARRIER PHASE REAL-TIME.
Introduction Ian Thomas, Matt King, Peter Clarke, Nigel Penna, David Lavallée Global GPS Processing strategy Conclusions and Future Work The preliminary.
Geocenter Variations Derived from GRACE Data Z. Kang, B. Tapley, J. Chen, J. Ries, S. Bettadpur Joint International GSTM and SPP Symposium GFZ Potsdam,
1 SVY 207: Lecture 12 GPS Error Sources: Part 2 –Satellite: ephemeris, clock, S/A, and A/S –Propagation: ionosphere, troposphere, multipath –Receiver:antenna,
Issues in GPS Error Analysis What are the sources of the errors ? How much of the error can we remove by better modeling ? Do we have enough information.
M. Gende, C. Brunini Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina. Improving Single Frequency Positioning Using SIRGAS Ionospheric Products.
Reference Frame Theory & Practice: Implications for SNARF SNARF Workshop 1/27/04 Geoff Blewitt University of Nevada, Reno.
Principles of the Global Positioning System Lecture 12 Prof. Thomas Herring Room ;
Short-session Static and Kinematic Processing Short-session static: GAMIT processing, sessions 1-3 hours long Kinematic: TRACK processing, coordinates.
1 SVY 207: Lecture 12 Modes of GPS Positioning Aim of this lecture: –To review and compare methods of static positioning, and introduce methods for kinematic.
October 02, st IHOP_2002 Water Vapor Intercomparison Workshop Status of intercomparisons and the next steps  Characterize moisture measuring techniques.
Pseudoranges to Four Satellites
1 SVY 207: Lecture 6 Point Positioning –By now you should understand: F How receiver knows GPS satellite coordinates F How receiver produces pseudoranges.
SVY207: Lecture 10 Computation of Relative Position from Carrier Phase u Observation Equation u Linear dependence of observations u Baseline solution –Weighted.
Modeling Errors in GPS Vertical Estimates Signal propagation effects –Signal scattering ( antenna phase center/multipath ) –Atmospheric delay ( parameterization,
Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research The University of Colorado 1 STATISTICAL ORBIT DETERMINATION Kalman Filter with Process Noise Gauss- Markov.
12/12/01Fall AGU Vertical Reference Frames for Sea Level Monitoring Thomas Herring Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences
Relative positioning with Galileo E5 AltBOC code measurements DEPREZ Cécile Dissertation submitted to the University of Liège in partial requirements for.
Issues in GPS Error Analysis What are the sources of the errors ? How much of the error can we remove by better modeling ? Do we have enough information.
Formosat-3/COSMIC WorkshopNov 28 - Dec 1, 2006Taipei, Taiwan Estimates of the precision of LEO orbit determination and GPS radio occultations from the.
Application of a Charge Transfer Model to Space Telescope Data Paul Bristow Dec’03
SVY207 Lecture 8: The Carrier Phase Observable
AXK/JPL SBAS Training at Stanford University, October 27-30, 2003 Satellite Based Augmentation Systems Brazilian Ionosphere Group Training at Stanford.
Errors in Positioning Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.
Astronomical Institute University of Bern 1 Astronomical Institute, University of Bern, Switzerland * now at PosiTim, Germany 5th International GOCE User.
09/24/2008Unavco Track Intro1 TRACK: GAMIT Kinematic GPS processing module R King overview from longer T Herring.
Limits of static processing in a dynamic environment Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.
Geodesy & Crustal Deformation
Reference Frame Representations: The ITRF from the user perspective
Geodesy & Crustal Deformation
Geodesy & Crustal Deformation
Geodesy & Crustal Deformation
Assessing the Compatibility of Microwave Geodetic Systems
Principles of the Global Positioning System Lecture 11
Agenda Background and Motivation
Presentation transcript:

Limits of static processing in a dynamic environment Matt King, Newcastle University, UK

Static Processing Good for these examples

Static Processing But what about this? Detrended 5 min positions Whillans Ice Stream

Background Common GPS processing approaches in glaciology Kinematic approach Antenna assumed moving constantly Coordinates at each and every measurement epoch Kinematic solutions often difficult due to long between-site differences Quasi-static approach Antenna assumed stationary for certain periods (~0.5-24h) 24h common for solid earth <4h common for glaciology But is this always valid?

GPS Data Processing Approaches Quasi-static Kinematic Quasi-static assumption is that site motion during each session is “averaged out” ~0.5-24h White noise or random walk model

Motion and Least Squares Functional model Should fully describe the relationship between parameters X and observation l with normally distributed residuals v F(X)=l + v Stochastic model Can attempt to mitigate or account for functional model deficiencies Unmodelled (i.e., systematic) errors will propagate according to the geometry of the solution Station-satellite geometry Estimated parameters (e.g., undifferenced “Precise Point Positioning” solutions vs double-differenced; ambiguity fixed vs ambiguity float)

Systematic Error Propagation Estimated parameters Station coordinates (X,Y,Z) AND real-valued phase ambiguity (N) parameters Clock errors differenced out (in double difference solutions) Once ambiguities estimated, statistical tests applied to fix to integers Fixing not always possible Site motion could induce incorrect ambiguity fixing

Real vs Imaginary: Example on the Amery Ice Shelf GAMIT 1hr quasi- static solutions Track Kinematic solution King et al., J Geodesy, 2003

What’s happening? Presence of motion during ‘static’ sections Violates least-squares principle of normal residuals Leads to biased parameter estimates Simulation How does a ~1m/day signal and ~1m tidal signal in 1 hr ‘static’ solutions propagate into the parameters? Real broadcast GPS orbits Precise Point Positioning approach simulated Site ~70S

What’s happening? Latitude East (m) North (m) Height (m) Ambiguity (m) Ambiguity estimates mapped Ambiguities fixed Ambiguities not fixed Satellites East of site

Horizontal Motion Only GAMIT 1h solutions over modified “zero” baseline ~0°N ~90°S Period related to satellite pass time?

Horizontal Motion Only Simulation – grounded case How does a ~1m/day signal 1 hr ‘static’ solutions propagate into the parameters? Various flow directions (N, NE, E) 1hr solutions Various latitudes Site ~70S

What’s Happening? North (m) East (m) Height (m) Ambiguities not fixed Ambiguity estimates mapped Ambiguities fixed King et al., J Glac., 2004

Whillans Ice Stream Based on simulation would expect Agreement during ‘stick’ Biases during ‘slip’ But not in kinematic solutions 4hr quasi- static solutions 5min kinematic solutions

Solid Earth Issues Propagation of mis/un-modelled periodic signals (e.g., ocean tide loading displacements) in 24h solutions Well described by Penna & Stewart (GRL, 2003) and Penna et al., JGR, Admittances in float ambiguity PPP solutions >120% in worst case (S 2 north component into local up) Depends on coordinate component of mismodelled signal & frequency & “geometry” Output frequencies depend on input frequency Annual, semi-annual and fortnightly, amongst many others

Periodic Signals Penna et al., JGR, 2007 mm

Effect in real data King et al, GRL, 2008

Conclusions Biases may exist in positions on moving ice from GPS Up to 40-50% of unmodelled vertical signal Up to ~10% of unmodelled horizontal signal May be offsets, periodic signals or both in east, north and height components Height biases of concern when validating Lidar missions Periodic signals may result in wrong interpretation as tidal modulation (or contaminate real tidal modulation) To measure bias-free ice motion using GPS Fix ambiguities to correct integers (not always possible) Use kinematic solution (may require non-commercial software) For 24h solutions Periodic signals propagate Other sub-daily signals (e.g., multipath) need further study