Performance Analysis of Tandem-L Mission for Modeling ...seom.esa.int/fringe2015/files/presentation213.pdfModelling Precision-Okada II DLR.de • Chart 15 > Tandem-L Performance Analysis
Post on 19-Oct-2020
0 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Performance Analysis of Tandem-L Mission for Modeling Volcanic and
Seismic Deformation Sources
Homa Ansari 1,2
Kanika Goel 1, Alessandro Parizzi 1, Henriette Sudhaus 3, Nico Adam 1 , Michael Eineder 1,2
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 1
(1) German Aerospace Center (DLR) (2) Technical University of Munich (TUM) (3) University of Potsdam
Technical
University
of Munich
The Proposed Tandem-L Mission
• Systematic monitoring of dynamic processes of the Earth
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 2
Data Characteristics
Wide Swath ~ 350 [km]
High Resolution Rg.: 85 , 20 + 5 [MHz]
Az. : 3 , 10 [m]
Coherent Revisit 16 [Days]
Wavelength ~ 24 [cm]
Tandem-L Coverage for Seismology and Volcanos
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 3
• Biomass/forest areas
• High strain areas (Twice in 16 days)
• Volcanos (Twice in 16 days)
Why performance analysis
• Assessing the geometric acquisition modes in deformation monitoring
In particular: Do we need the expensive left-looking acquisition mode for better precision?
• Assessing the performance of InSAR in deformation source modeling
• Having a flavor of the significance of different InSAR noise components on the modeling
• The achievable precision of the L-band data
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 4
Satellite ground track
Antenna right looking swath
Antenna left looking swath
Why performance analysis
• Assessing the geometric acquisition modes in deformation monitoring
In particular: Do we need the expensive left-looking acquisition mode for better precision?
• Assessing the performance of InSAR in deformation source modeling
• Having a flavor of the significance of different InSAR noise components on the modeling
• The achievable precision of the L-band data
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 5
Deformation Source Modeling with InSAR
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 6
𝑑 → 𝑑𝐿𝑂𝑆
Differential InSAR Geophysical model
© ESA, Bam EQ
𝑥7
𝑥3
𝑥4
𝑥1
𝑑 = 𝐺(𝑥 )
Parameter Estimation : 𝒙 = 𝐺−1 𝑑𝐿𝑂𝑆
𝒙 =
𝑥1𝑥2⋮𝑥𝑛
→ Precision assessment: 𝒑𝒅𝒇(𝒙 )
Volcanic Modelling
• Point source model: (Mogi)
• Location of the centroid:
East
North
Depth
• Volume change inside the spherical chamber
Δ𝑉
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 7
centroid
Depth
Δ𝑉
Seismic Modelling
Rectangular dislocation model: (Okada)
Fault plane parameters
Location: east, north, depth
Extension: width, length
Orientation: strike, dip
Fault displacement parameters
Magnitude of the relative displacement: slip
Direction of the displacement: rake
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 8
Depth
dip
strike width
hypocenter
Precision Assessment
• First order reliability method: 𝑗𝑖,𝑘 = 𝜕𝑑𝑖/𝜕𝑥𝑘
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 9
1. Geometric assessment: (Acquisition and Ground Motion ) 𝑄𝑥 = 𝐽 . 𝐽𝑇
2. Stochastic assessment: (InSAR noise) 𝑄𝑥 = 𝐽. 𝑄𝐼𝑛𝑆𝐴𝑅 . 𝐽𝑇
𝑄𝑥 =
𝜎21,1 𝜎1,2 … 𝜎1,𝑛
𝜎2,1 𝜎22,2 … 𝜎2,𝑛
⋮𝜎𝑛,1
⋮𝜎𝑛,2
⋱…
⋮𝜎2𝑛,𝑛
→ 𝑄𝑖,𝑗 = 𝜎2𝑖,𝑖 𝜎𝑖,𝑗
𝜎𝑖,𝑗 𝜎2𝑗,𝑗
→ Eigen Value Analysis →
Error ellipses: cross section of the bivariate Gaussian distribution
• Approximations: Gaussian pdf, linearization
Geometric Performance (Acquisition and Ground Motion)
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 10
InSAR Sensitivity to 3D Deformation
• Single-aspect InSAR : Projection of 3D deformation on LOS
𝑑𝐿𝑜𝑆 = 𝑒 𝐿𝑂𝑆 . 𝑑
𝑒 𝐿𝑜𝑆 = −sin 𝜃 cos 𝛼 sin 𝜃 sin 𝛼
cos 𝜃 , 𝑑 =
𝑑𝑒𝑑𝑛𝑑𝑢
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 11
Near-polar sun-synchronous orbit Min sensitivity to the north component
• Multi-aspect fusion : improving the sensitivity to 3D motion
Scenario Heading ang.: α Incidence ang.: θ Mode
Single aspect -12° 43° Asc. R.
Multi-aspect Right looking -12° 43° Asc. R.
-168° 43°, 23° Desc. R.
Multi-aspect Left/Right looking
-12° 43° Asc. R.
-168° 43° Desc. R.
-12 -23° Asc. L.
-168 -23° Desc. L.
Normalization by the number of
measurements
↓ Isolating the effect of geometry
Modelling Precision-Mogi
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 12
-500 0 500-1000
-500
0
500
1000
East Coor.
No
rth
Co
or.
-500 0 500-1000
-500
0
500
1000
East Coor.
Dep
th
-500 0 500-2
-1
0
1
2x 10
6
East Coor.
Vo
lum
e C
han
ge
-1000 -500 0 500 1000-1000
-500
0
500
1000
North Coor.
Dep
th
-1000 -500 0 500 1000-2
-1
0
1
2x 10
6
North Coor.
Vo
lum
e C
han
ge
-1000 0 1000-2
0
2x 10
6
Depth
Vo
lum
e C
han
ge
Single Aspect
Multi Aspect Right
Multi Aspect Left/Right
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right175
180
185
ST
D [
m]
East Coor
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right190
200
210
ST
D [
m]
North Coor
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right230
240
250
ST
D [
m]
Depth
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right5.5
6
6.5x 10
5
ST
D [
m3]
Volume Change
Simulated source parameters: [east, north, depth, Volume change] = [0, 0, 3 km, 6 × 106 m³]
Modelling Precision-Okada I
• Asymmetric horizontal deformation pattern governed by fault and slip orientation: strike, dip, rake
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 13
Defo
rmati
on
[m
]
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Defo
rmati
on
[m
]
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
First case: strike, dip, rake = 90°, 26°, 90° Second case: strike, dip, rake = 0°, 50°, 90°
Min North Deformation Max North Deformation
Simulated Source
Parameters
Mw 7
Depth 5.5 [km]
Length 20 [km]
Width 11 [km]
Slip 5 [m]
Modelling Precision-Okada I
• Asymmetric horizontal deformation pattern governed by fault and slip orientation: strike, dip, rake
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 14
Defo
rmati
on
[m
]
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Defo
rmati
on
[m
]
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
First case: strike, dip, rake = 90°, 26°, 90° Second case: strike, dip, rake = 0°, 50°, 90°
Min North Deformation Max North Deformation
Simulated Source
Parameters
Mw 7
Depth 5.5 [km]
Length 20 [km]
Width 11 [km]
Slip 5 [m]
Modelling Precision-Okada II
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 15
First case: max. north deformation
strike, dip, rake = 90°, 26°, 90°
Second case: min. north deformation
strike, dip, rake = 0°, 50°, 90°
Simulated Source
Parameters
Mw 7
Depth 5.5 [km]
Length 20 [km]
Width 11 [km]
Slip 5 [m]
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right0
0.5
1
1.5
2
ST
D [
deg
]
Strike
Dip
Rake
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
ST
D [
m]
Slip
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right
60
80
100
120
140
ST
D [
m]
East Coor
North Coor
Depth
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right
150
200
250
ST
D [
m]
Width
Length
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right60
80
100
120
140
STD
[m
]
East Coor
North Coor
Depth
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right
150
200
250
STD
[m
]
Width
Length
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right0
0.5
1
1.5
2
ST
D [
deg]
Strike
Dip
Rake
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
ST
D [
m]
Slip
Modelling Precision-Okada II
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 16
First case: max. north deformation
strike, dip, rake = 90°, 26°, 90°
Second case: min. north deformation
strike, dip, rake = 0°, 50°, 90°
Simulated Source
Parameters
Mw 7
Depth 5.5 [km]
Length 20 [km]
Width 11 [km]
Slip 5 [m]
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right0
0.5
1
1.5
2
ST
D [
deg
]
Strike
Dip
Rake
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
ST
D [
m]
Slip
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right
60
80
100
120
140
ST
D [
m]
East Coor
North Coor
Depth
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right
150
200
250
ST
D [
m]
Width
Length
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right60
80
100
120
140
STD
[m
]
East Coor
North Coor
Depth
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right
150
200
250
STD
[m
]
Width
Length
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right0
0.5
1
1.5
2
ST
D [
deg]
Strike
Dip
Rake
Single Aspect Multi Aspect Right Multi Aspect Left/Right
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
ST
D [
m]
Slip
Necessity of the Left-looking Acquisition scenario in source modeling:
• Complexity of the model in use
• Asymmetry of the horizontal deformation in the model
• Share of the north component in the total deformation
Models constrain our view of the reality!
Left looking scenario is more beneficial for retrieval of the model-free
deformation field
Precision of Motion Decomposition-Single Point
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 17
Data characteristics Azimuth resolution 10 m
Range resolution Asc. [2.5 - 4.5] m
Desc. [11 - 18] m
Multi look window 50 × 50 m²
Average coherence 0.4
Ionospheric error [0.8 – 1.3] cm
Tropospheric error 1.5 cm
Estimation Precision 𝝈𝐸𝑎𝑠𝑡 [m]
𝝈𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ [m]
𝝈𝑈𝑝 [m]
Asc/Desc Right 0.02 0.32 0.05
Asc/Desc Left/Right 0.02 0.09 0.01
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04-0.5
0
0.5
East [m]
Nort
h [
m]
Cor =0.32
Cor =0.12
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04-0.1
0
0.1
East [m]
Up [
m]
Cor =0.33
Cor =0.013
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4-0.1
0
0.1
North [m]
Up [
m]
Cor =0.96
Cor =0.26
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04-0.1
0
0.1
East [m]
Up
[m
]
Asc./Desc. Right
Asc./Desc. Right/Left
Precision of Motion Decomposition-Single Point
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 18
Estimation Precision 𝝈𝐸𝑎𝑠𝑡 [m]
𝝈𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ [m]
𝝈𝑈𝑝 [m]
Asc/Desc Right 0.02 0.32 0.05
Asc/Desc Left/Right 0.02 0.09 0.01
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04-0.5
0
0.5
East [m]
Nort
h [
m]
Cor =0.32
Cor =0.12
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04-0.1
0
0.1
East [m]
Up [
m]
Cor =0.33
Cor =0.013
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4-0.1
0
0.1
North [m]
Up [
m]
Cor =0.96
Cor =0.26
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04-0.1
0
0.1
East [m]
Up
[m
]
Asc./Desc. Right
Asc./Desc. Right/Left• Improved precision
• Resolved correlation/ambiguity between
the motion components
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 19
Stochastic Performance
InSAR Measurement Stochastic Model:
• Stochastic model:
𝑄InSAR = 𝑄Dec. + 𝑄APS + 𝑄Iono
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 20
𝛾tot = 𝛾𝑖𝑖 → 𝜎𝜙 → 𝜎𝑑𝐿𝑂𝑆
Residual ionospheric error after correction by the Split
Bandwidth methods:
𝜎𝑆.𝐵𝑊 → 𝜎𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑜 → 𝜎𝜙 → 𝜎𝑑𝐿𝑂𝑆 [2]
Spatial covariance between the
single measurements :
𝐶𝑜𝑣 𝜌, 𝜎 𝐴𝑃𝑆 [1]
[2] Gomba, G., et al., “Towards an Operational Split-Spectrum Processor for Compensation of Differential Ionospheric Propagation Delay in SAR Interferograms,” (in preparation)
[1] Knospe, S., & Jonsson, S.. “Covariance estimation for dInSAR surface deformation measurements in the presence of anisotropic atmospheric noise,” IEEE TGRS
Error Assessment-Volcanic Modelling
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 21
Simulated Source Parameters
East 0
North 0
Depth 3 [km]
𝚫𝐕 𝟔 × 𝟏𝟎𝟔 [m]
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
60
80
100
120
140
160
Average Coherence
ST
D [
m]
East Coor
North Coor
Depth
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 12.5
3
3.5
4
4.5x 10
5
Average Coherence
ST
D [
m3 ]
V
Multi-aspect right-looking (3 aspects)
Fixed APS (𝜎 ∶ 15 𝑚𝑚 , 𝜌. 1.5 𝑘𝑚)
Error Assessment-Volcanic Modelling
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 22
Simulated Source Parameters
East 0
North 0
Depth 3 [km]
𝚫𝐕 𝟔 × 𝟏𝟎𝟔 [m]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400
100
200
300
400
APS Error [mm]
STD
[m
]
East Coor
North Coor
Depth
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400
2
4
6
8
10
12x 10
5
APS Error [mm]
STD
[m
3 ]
V
Multi-aspect right-looking (3 aspects)
Fixed Coherence (𝛾 ∶ 0.4)
Error Assessment-Volcanic Modelling
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 23
Simulated Source Parameters
East 0
North 0
Depth 3 [km]
𝚫𝐕 𝟔 × 𝟏𝟎𝟔 [m]
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 500060
80
100
120
140
APS Correlation Length [m]
ST
D [
m]
East Coor North Coor Depth
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 50002
3
4
5
6x 10
5
APS Correlation Length [m]
ST
D [
m3 ]
V
Multi-aspect right-looking (3 aspects)
Fixed Coherence (𝛾 ∶ 0.4)
Correlation between the APS and
geophysical signal with similar spatial scale
Correlation of the APS and the Geophysical Signal
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 24
APS Cor. Length [km]
So
urc
e D
ep
th [
km
]
2 3 4 5
2
4
6
8
APS Cor. Length [km]
So
urc
e D
ep
th [
km
]
2 3 4 5
2
4
6
8
APS Cor. Length [km]
So
urc
e D
ep
th [
km
]
2 3 4 5
2
4
6
8
APS Cor. Length [km]
So
urc
e D
ep
th [
km
]
2 3 4 5
2
4
6
8
200
400
600
800
200
400
600
800
1000
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
x 105
East North
Depth 𝚫𝐕
East North
Depth 𝚫𝐕
East
APS Corr. Length [km]
Mogi D
epth
[km
]
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
North
APS Corr. Length [km]
Mogi D
epth
[km
]
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Depth
APS Corr. Length [km]
Mogi D
epth
[km
]1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8Normalized Error
APS Corr. Length [km]
Mogi D
epth
[km
]
2 3 4 5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
No
rmali
zed
Err
or
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
APS Cor. Length [km]
So
urc
e D
ep
th [
km
]
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
2
4
6
8
APS Cor. Length [km]
So
urc
e D
ep
th [
km
]
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
2
4
6
8
APS Cor. Length [km]
So
urc
e D
ep
th [
km
]
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
2
4
6
8
APS Cor. Length [km]
So
urc
e D
ep
th [
km
]
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
2
4
6
8
East North
Depth 𝚫𝐕
Error Assessment-Seismic Modelling
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 25
Simulated Source
Parameters
Mw 6.16
Depth 4 [km]
Length 10 [km]
Width 8 [km]
Slip 0.7 [m]
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Average Coherence
ST
D [
m]
East
North
Depth
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.5
1
1.5
Average Coherence
ST
D [
deg
]
Strike
Dip
Rake
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Average Coherence
ST
D [
m]
Width
Length
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Average Coherence
ST
D [
m]
Slip
10 20 300
1000
2000
3000
4000
APS Error [mm]
ST
D [
m]
East
North
Depth
10 20 300
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
APS Error [mm]
ST
D [
deg
]
Strike
Dip
Rake
10 20 300
2000
4000
6000
8000
APS Error [mm]
ST
D [
m]
Width
Length
10 20 300.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
APS Error [mm]
ST
D [
m]
Slip
1000 2000 3000 4000 50000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
APS Cor. Length [m]
ST
D [
m]
East North Depth
1000 2000 3000 4000 50000
0.5
1
1.5
APS Cor. Length [m]
ST
D [
deg
]
Strike Dip Rake
1000 2000 3000 4000 50000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
APS Cor. Length [m]
ST
D [
m]
Width
Length
1000 2000 3000 4000 50000.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
APS Cor. Length [m]
ST
D [
m]
Slip
Summary
• Geometrical assessment:
• Multi aspect InSAR from left/right looking acquisitions:
• Improvement of the precision and resolving the ambiguity in motion decomposition
• Improvement of the modeling precision depends on the:
• Complexity of the model
• Asymmetry of the horizontal deformation
• Share of the north motion component
• Stochastic assessment:
• Quantification of the impact and significance of the coherence and correlated APS signals
on the precision of the inverted deformation source parameters
Ref. : Fringe2015 proceedings (Ansari et al.)
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 26
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 27
Thank you for your attention!
Homa.ansari@dlr.de
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 28
Back-Up Slides
Precision of Motion Decomposition-Single Point (Az. Res. : 3 m)
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 29
Data characteristics
Azimuth resolution 3 m
Range resolution Asc. [2.5 – 4.5 ] m
Desc. [11 - 18] m
Multi look window 50 × 50 m²
Average coherence 0.4
Ionospheric error [0.4 – 1] cm
Tropospheric error 1.5 cm
Estimation Precision 𝝈𝐸𝑎𝑠𝑡 [m]
𝝈𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ [m]
𝝈𝑈𝑝 [m]
Asc/Desc Right 0.02 0.25 0.04
Asc/Desc Left/Right 0.02 0.07 0.01
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02-0.5
0
0.5
East [m]
Nort
h [
m]
Cor =0.3
Cor =0.05
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02-0.05
0
0.05
East [m]
Up [
m]
Cor =0.34
Cor =0.01
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4-0.05
0
0.05
North [m]
Up [
m]
Cor =0.95
Cor =0.20
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04-0.1
0
0.1
East [m]U
p [
m]
Asc./Desc. Right
Asc./Desc. Right/Left
Azimuth Shifts In 3D Decomposition (Az. Resolution = 10 m)
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 30
Estimation Precision 𝝈𝐸𝑎𝑠𝑡 [m]
𝝈𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ [m]
𝝈𝑈𝑝 [m]
Asc/Desc Right 0.02 0.32 0.05
Asc/Desc R. + Shifts 0.02 0.29 0.05
Asc/Desc Left/Right 0.02 0.09 0.01
Data characteristics
Azimuth resolution 10 m
Range resolution Asc. [2.5 - 4.5] m
Desc. [11 - 18] m
Multi look window 50 × 50 m²
Average coherence 0.4
Ionospheric error [0.8 – 1.3] cm
Tropospheric error 1.5 cm
Azimuth Shifts In 3D Decomposition (Az. Resolution = 3 m)
> Tandem-L Performance Analysis > Homa Ansari • EGU 2015 > 15.04.2015 DLR.de • Chart 31
Estimation Precision 𝝈𝐸𝑎𝑠𝑡 [m]
𝝈𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ [m]
𝝈𝑈𝑝 [m]
Asc/Desc Right 0.02 0.25 0.04
Asc/Desc R. + Shifts 0.02 0.19 0.03
Asc/Desc Left/Right 0.02 0.07 0.01
Data characteristics
Azimuth resolution 3 m
Range resolution Asc. [2.5 – 4.5 ] m
Desc. [11 - 18] m
Multi look window 50 × 50 m²
Average coherence 0.4
Ionospheric error [0.4 – 1] cm
Tropospheric error 1.5 cm
top related