日本地球惑星科学連合2023年大会

講演情報

[J] オンラインポスター発表

セッション記号 S (固体地球科学) » S-TT 計測技術・研究手法

[S-TT39] 合成開口レーダーとその応用

2023年5月25日(木) 10:45 〜 12:15 オンラインポスターZoom会場 (17) (オンラインポスター)

コンビーナ:阿部 隆博(三重大学大学院生物資源学研究科)、木下 陽平(筑波大学)、姫松 裕志(国立研究開発法人 防災科学技術研究所)、朴 慧美(上智大学地球環境学研究科)


現地ポスター発表開催日時 (2023/5/24 17:15-18:45)

10:45 〜 12:15

[STT39-P12] Comparison of the GNSS tropospheric delays from different processing tools for InSAR correction

*Sardila Nurulhikmah Sailellah1Yo Fukushima2 (1.Geophysics Department, Graduate School of Science Tohoku University、2.International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University)

キーワード:Tropospheric delay, Interferometric, GNSS

The increased availability of satellite SAR data, along with improved InSAR processing algorithms, has led to higher accuracy of InSAR-derived displacements. However, a major source of challenge to obtain millimeter-level accuracy is the inability to model the changes in the propagation velocity of radar microwaves in the troposphere. The state of the atmosphere is usually different when the two SAR images are acquired. As a result, additional fringes would appear in the interferograms not related to topography or deformation. Tropospheric delays cannot be ignored because they often have a similar or larger magnitude compared to the actual deformation signals.
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) data has been used to estimate the tropospheric delay for InSAR correction. In particular, the Precise Point Positioning (PPP) analysis solves for the position with centimeter/millimeter accuracy along with the Zenith Tropospheric Delay (ZTD) estimation using one GNSS receiver. In this study, we compared the ZTD estimation calculated by the GNSS Earth Observation Network System (GEONET) and provided by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (GSI) with the ZTD estimation from other processing tools.
In the first step, we compared the ZTD estimation from two different methods, RTKLIB ZTD using the PPP-static, PPP kinematic mode, and GEONET ZTD. The preliminary result exhibited significant differences up to 7 cm, and RTKLIB ZTD tends to be lower compared to GEONET ZTD. The variability of GEONET ZTD tends to be lower than RTKLIB ZTD according to the standard deviation of the ZTDs. The comparison within RTKLIB methods, PPP-static and PPP-kinematic, shows significant differences up to 9 cm different in the mean value. For further investigation, we will expand the comparison to a wider location, including the Gipsy-X ZTD, and assess the performance on the ionospheric corrected interferogram.