Toward “Broadband Exploration” of Tectonic-Magmatic Interactions: Demonstration of Self-Consistent, "All-in-One" Rapid Analysis of GPS Mega-Networks using.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Overview of Real-Time GPS Operations in Menlo Park RTGPS integrated system consists of the following three modules: 1. Data Acquisition: Telemetry monitoring.
Advertisements

Principles of the Global Positioning System Lecture 19 Prof. Thomas Herring Room A;
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue | A | Cambridge MA V F.
Effect of Surface Loading on Regional Reference Frame Realization Hans-Peter Plag Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and Seismological Laboratory University.
June 12-14, 2013, Ottawa, Canada From dual- to triple-frequency PPP: method, problems and application in California Jianghui Geng, Yehuda Bock Scripps.
A quick GPS Primer (assumed knowledge on the course!) Observables Error sources Analysis approaches Ambiguities If only it were this easy…
Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne  2002 Modified for CSCI 399, Royden, Operating System Concepts Operating Systems Lecture 19 Scheduling IV.
2-3 November 2009NASA Sea Level Workshop1 The Terrestrial Reference Frame and its Impact on Sea Level Change Studies GPS VLBI John Ries Center for Space.
Effects of azimuthal multipath heterogeneity and hardware changes on GPS coordinate time series Sibylle Goebell, Matt King
A Reference Frame for PBO: What do we Have; What do we Need? Geoff Blewitt Nevada Bureau of Mines & Geology, and Seismological Laboratory, University of.
Limits of static processing in a dynamic environment Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.
Southern California Integrated GPS Network (SCIGN) Kenneth W. Hudnut U. S. Geological Survey This presentation will probably involve audience discussion,
National Survey and Cadastre - Denmark Crustal deformations at permanent GPS sites in Denmark Shfaqat Abbas Khan and Per Knudsen, Geodetic Dept., Kort.
GTECH 201 Session 08 GPS.
SOPAC's Instantaneous Global Plate Motion Model: Yehuda Bock, Linette Prawirodirdjo, Peng Fang, Paul Jamason, Shimon Wdowinski (TAU, UMiami) Scripps Orbit.
13/06/13 H. Rho Slide 1 Geodetic Research Laboratory Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering University of New Brunswick Evaluation of Precise.
How Global Positioning Devices (GPS) work
Object Oriented Analysis and Design Introduction.
1 North American Reference Frame (NAREF) Working Group Mike Craymer Geodetic Survey Division, Natural Resources Canada 2nd SNARF Workshop Montreal, May.
1 GPS Requirements for Tsunami Detection Y. Tony Song & Geoff Blewitt Yoaz Bar-Sever, Richard Gross, Vindell Hsu, Kenneth Hudnut, Hans-Peter Plag, Mark.
MARsite kickoff meeting December 19-20, 2012, Istanbul WP5 - TASK 2 Near real-time determination of the earthquake finite-fault source parameters and models,
A New & Improved National Spatial Reference System Refinements of the North American Datum of 1983 through the Multi-Year CORS Solution and the National.
Part VI Precise Point Positioning Supported by Local Ionospheric Modeling GS894G.
NGS GPS ORBIT DETERMINATION Positioning America for the Future NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION National Ocean Service National Geodetic.
Chapter 8: The future geodetic reference frames Thomas Herring, Hans-Peter Plag, Jim Ray, Zuheir Altamimi.
Reference Frame Theory and Practice Kristine Larson University of Colorado.
Part Va Centimeter-Level Instantaneous Long-Range RTK: Methodology, Algorithms and Application GS894G.
Compatibility of Receiver Types for GLONASS Widelane Ambiguity Resolution Simon Banville, Paul Collins and François Lahaye Geodetic Survey Division, Natural.
SVY 207: Lecture 13 Ambiguity Resolution
Applications for Precision GPS: Seismology, Volcanic Eruptions, Ice Sheet Dynamics, and Soil Moisture Kristine M. Larson Dept. of Aerospace Engineering.
Space-Time Mesoscale Analysis System A sequential 3DVAR approach Yuanfu Xie, Steve Koch John McGinley and Steve Albers Global Systems Division Earth System.
Blue – comp red - ext. blue – comp red - ext blue – comp red - ext.
GPS: “Where goeth thou” Thomas Herring With results from Jen Alltop: Geosystems Thesis Katy Quinn: Almost graduated Ph.D
SNARF: Theory and Practice, and Implications Thomas Herring Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT
Surveying with the Global Positioning System Phase Observable.
Positioning America for the Future NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION National Ocean Service National Geodetic Survey GPS Products & Services.
P. Wielgosz and A. Krankowski IGS AC Workshop Miami Beach, June 2-6, 2008 University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue | Cambridge MA V F
TASHKENT UNIVERSITY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES Lesson №18 Telecommunication software design for analyzing and control packets on the networks by using.
A Geodesist’s View of the Ionosphere Gerald L. Mader National Geodetic Survey Silver Spring, MD.
Earth Sciences Sector SLIDE 1 NAREF & CBN Velocity Solutions for a New Version of SNARF Mike Craymer Joe Henton Mike Piraszewski 8th SNARF Workshop AGU.
GSI Japan - 21st of June 1999 GPS-Positioning using Virtual Reference Stations - Theory, Analysis and Applications Herbert Landau Spectra Precision Terrasat.
Jayne Bormann and Bill Hammond sent two velocity fields on a uniform grid constructed from their test exercise using CMM4. Hammond ’ s code.
Geocenter motion estimates from the IGS Analysis Center solutions P. Rebischung, X. Collilieux, Z. Altamimi IGN/LAREG & GRGS 1 EGU General Assembly, Vienna,
PPP Workshop: Reaching Full Potential
Introduction Ian Thomas, Matt King, Peter Clarke, Nigel Penna, David Lavallée Global GPS Processing strategy Conclusions and Future Work The preliminary.
JPL Status Report, SCIGN Annual Meeting, 4/26/2004 JPL Update Danan Dong Michael Heflin Sharon Kedar Brian Newport Frank Webb.
Reference Frame Theory & Practice: Implications for SNARF SNARF Workshop 1/27/04 Geoff Blewitt University of Nevada, Reno.
Application of a North America reference frame to the Pacific Northwest Geodetic Array (PANGA) M M Miller, V M Santillan, Geodesy Laboratory, Central Washington.
Presented by: Technical contributions from: THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GEODESY AND PRECISE POINT POSITIONING.
Constructing a Continuous Phase Time History from TDMA Signals for Opportunistic Navigation Ken Pesyna, Zak Kassas, Todd Humphreys IEEE/ION PLANS Conference,
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.
Pseudoranges to Four Satellites
Water vapour estimates over Antarctica from 12 years of globally reprocessed GPS solutions Ian Thomas, Matt King, Peter Clarke Newcastle University, UK.
Towards a standard model for present-day signals due to postglacial rebound H.-P. Plag, C. Kreemer Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and Seismological.
On the Way to Full PPP Potential Pierre Héroux Geodetic Survey Division, Natural Resources Canada.
Image Enhancement Objective: better visualization of remotely sensed images visual interpretation remains to be the most powerful image interpretation.
12/12/01Fall AGU Vertical Reference Frames for Sea Level Monitoring Thomas Herring Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences
NAPEOS: The ESA/ESOC Tool for Space Geodesy
GALOCAD GAlileo LOcal Component for nowcasting and forecasting Atmospheric Disturbances R. Warnant, G. Wautelet, S. Lejeune, H. Brenot, J. Spits, S. Stankov.
Software Development: Massive, Rapid Network Processing with Ambiguity Resolution Geoff Blewitt.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey USGS Menlo Park GPS data processing and archiving J.L. Svarc, J.R. Murray, Fred Pollitz, Scott Haefner,
SVY207 Lecture 8: The Carrier Phase Observable
Errors in Positioning Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.
Limits of static processing in a dynamic environment Matt King, Newcastle University, UK.
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.
Reference Frame Representations: The ITRF from the user perspective
Appliance of IceCORS network 2017 by Dalia Prizginiene
Geodesy & Crustal Deformation
Presentation transcript:

Toward “Broadband Exploration” of Tectonic-Magmatic Interactions: Demonstration of Self-Consistent, "All-in-One" Rapid Analysis of GPS Mega-Networks using the Ambizap Algorithm Geoff Blewitt, Corné Kreemer, Bill Hammond, and Hans-Peter Plag Nevada Geodetic Laboratory, University of Nevada, Reno, USA

Introduction Transients in station positions Reflect rheological responses to history of stress change in the “solid Earth” Over a broad spatio-temporal spectrum Spectral connections are possible: Common forcing factors (earthquakes, magma,…) Feedback between forcing factors “Broadband exploration” must be consistent across the spatio-temporal spectrum Can consistency be provided by GPS??

Tectonic-Magmatic Transients Late 2003: Few-mm transient at Slide Mountain, Sierra Nevada, USA Deep (~20 km) crustal magma intrusion in non-volcanic region!! Is this a method to accommodate tectonic extension? [Smith et al., 2004] Associated with ~1000 km extensional transients? [Davis et al., 2006] Detection by GPS requires carrier phase ambiguity resolution Problem: this is computationally prohibitive for large networks So networks are pieced together – difficult to manage – inconsistencies.

Objectives “Broadband exploration” using GPS Develop a GPS analysis scheme that is: Spatially consistent (1–10,000 km) Temporally consistent ( yr) “All-in-one” network analysis approach Requires a method for consistent ambiguity resolution for highly densified global networks

Remind me – What is carrier phase ambiguity resolution? range = ( phase + n ) × wavelength for each station, number of parameters: NPAR = 3(xyz) + 1(clock) + 3(tropo) + 30(n) = 37 first estimate all n as real-valued Now, if we resolve n exactly as integers: NPAR = 3(xyz) + 1(clock) + 3(tropo) + 1(n) = 8 fewer parameters improves precision of xyz

So what is Ambizap then? Ambizap enhances PPP precision PPP = “Precise Point Positioning” invented 1997 by Jim Zumberge, JPL 1-station carrier phase + orbits + clocks takes ~10 sec / station / day of data Ambizap = rapid ambiguity resolution additional ~5 sec / station / day of data factor ~2 improvement in horizontal

What’s the big deal? Ambiguity resolution since ~1989 BUT, for classical network ambiguity resolution, processing time scales as: T ~ N 4 takes 24 hrs to process N =100 stations Ambizap time scales linearly: T ~ N takes < 9 minutes for N =100 takes < 2 hrs for N =1000

Enables routine processing of…

Example: Western US networks IGS, PBO, NEARNET, SCIGN, PANGA, BARGEN, EBRY, BARD, …

Why is Ambizap so fast? Classical ambiguity resolution uses “bootstrapping” technique resolve best-determined n first improve estimates of all remaining n then resolve next-best n (and so on…) Ambizap treat N stations as N–1 baselines only bootstrap within each baseline so process time scales linearly with N

What’s the catch? Ambizap does give same answer if ambiguities are successfully resolved But lack of full network bootstrapping limits Ambizap to lines of L < 2000 km But but… no problem… just use all the stations in the world, then baselines of L < 2000 km can connect all stations

Interesting paradox Classical ambiguity resolution strictly limited to N << 100 for any reasonable processing time smaller networks are easier to handle Ambizap limited to N >> 100 for global networks larger networks are easier to handle e.g., include badly monumented stations too!!

Another catch Classical ambiguity resolution can be easily used to improve satellite orbits and satellite clock parameters (but typically N ~ 60 ) Ambizap strictly for PPP solutions so no orbit and clock improvement (yet) covariance matrix not complete

Why does Ambizap give the same answer? “Fixed point theorem” centroid of a baseline (hence entire network) invariant to ambig. resolution network origin fixed by initial PPP solution Only relative positions are affected N–1 baselines specify all relative positions e.g., (A-C) = (A-B) – (B-C) so initial PPP + N–1 baselines has all the information of full network solution take care not to count PPP data twice

Implementation Add-on software for JPL’s GIPSY go to ftp://gneiss.unr.edu/ambizapftp://gneiss.unr.edu/ambizap main script and most modules in c-shell couple of routines in FORTRAN-95 User group now doing “beta testing” Could in principle be implemented for any software with PPP capability undifferenced phase processing

Benefits Speed Can rapidly reprocess data, try different models, etc. Very large networks now possible Hence no need for sub-networks Just one unified global network! Easy and fast to add extra station(s) to an existing network solution No need to recompute entire solution

Future concept (in collaboration with JPL) 1. As now, solve for orbits and clocks with full ambiguity resolution using N~60 stations 2. Produce PPP solutions for N~ Run Ambizap to resolve biases n 4. With N~300, solve for orbits and clocks, holding fixed the biases n Will improve PPP, LOD positioning Will improve geocenter, reference frame Will improve vertical motion interpretation

Conclusions Ambizap will enable “broadband exploration” of tectonic-magmatic processes Now routinely processing ~1300 stations Approx. 4 hours PPP + 2 hours Ambizap (1 cpu) Simplifies data management No need to process sub-networks Easy to add extra stations later Opens possibility to future scheme to improve GPS orbits + clocks, and PPP