Institut für Erdmessung (IfE), Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany Quality Assessment of GOCE Gradients Phillip Brieden, Jürgen Müller living planet.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Impact of GOCE on lithospheric modelling in active plate margins ESA Living Planet Symposium 2013 Edinburgh, Michael Hosse (1), Roland Pail.
Advertisements

A Comparison of topographic effect by Newton’s integral and high degree spherical harmonic expansion – Preliminary Results YM Wang, S. Holmes, J Saleh,
Repeat station crustal biases and accuracy determined from regional field models M. Korte, E. Thébault* and M. Mandea, GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam (*now.
Fourier series With coefficients:. Complex Fourier series Fourier transform (transforms series from time to frequency domain) Discrete Fourier transform.
Determination of Gravity Variations in Northern Europe from GRACE Jürgen Müller, Matthias Neumann-Redlin Institut für Erdmessung, University of Hannover,
Correlation and spectral analysis Objective: –investigation of correlation structure of time series –identification of major harmonic components in time.
J. Ebbing & N. Holzrichter – University of Kiel Johannes Bouman – DGFI Munich Ronny Stolz – IPHT Jena SPP Dynamic EarthPotsdam, 03/04 July 2014 Swarm &
Motivation: much of the deep ocean floor is uncharted by ships high spatial resolution gravity can reveal tectonic fabric, uncharted seamounts, and seafloor.
Modeling Airborne Gravimetry with High-Degree Harmonic Expansions Holmes SA, YM Wang, XP Li and DR Roman National Geodetic Survey/NOAA Vienna, Austria,
Use of G99SSS to evaluate the static gravity geopotential derived from the GRACE, CHAMP, and GOCE missions Daniel R. Roman and Dru A. Smith Session: GP52A-02Decade.
GEODETIC INSTITUTE LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY OF HANNOVER GERMANY Ingo Neumann and Hansjörg Kutterer The probability of type I and type II errors in imprecise.
Error Analysis of the NGS Gravity Database Jarir Saleh, Xiaopeng Li, Yan Ming Wang, Dan Roman and Dru Smith, NOAA/NGS/ERT Paper: G , 04 July 2011,
Advances and Best Practices in Airborne Gravimetry from the U.S. GRAV-D Project Theresa M. Damiani 1, Vicki Childers 1, Sandra Preaux 2, Simon Holmes 3,
Calibration in the MBW of simulated GOCE gradients aided by ground data M. Veicherts, C. C. Tscherning, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen,
ESA Living Planet Symposium, Bergen, T. Gruber, C. Ackermann, T. Fecher, M. Heinze Institut für Astronomische und Physikalische Geodäsie (IAPG)
“ New Ocean Circulation Patterns from Combined Drifter and Satellite Data ” Peter Niiler Scripps Institution of Oceanography with original material from.
1.Introduction 2.Description of model 3.Experimental design 4.Ocean ciruculation on an aquaplanet represented in the model depth latitude depth latitude.
ESA living planet symposium 2010 ESA living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010, Bergen, Norway GOCE data analysis: realization of the invariants approach.
GOCE ITALY scientific tasks and first results Fernando Sansò and the GOCE Italy group.
Towards repeat-track measurements of elevation change using ICESat/GLAS B. E. Smith Funded by the ICESat science team With thanks to Charlie Bentley, Charlie.
GOCE OBSERVATIONS FOR DETECTING UNKNOWN TECTONIC FEATURES BRAITENBERG C. (1), MARIANI P. (1), REGUZZONI M. (2), USSAMI N. (3) (1)Department of Geosciences,
1 Average time-variable gravity from GPS orbits of recent geodetic satellites VIII Hotine-Marussi Symposium, Rome, Italy, 17–21 June 2013 Aleš Bezděk 1.
The In-flight Calibration of the GOCE Gradiometer Stefano Cesare(1), Giuseppe Catastini(1), Rune Floberghagen(2), Daniel Lamarre(2) (1) Thales Alenia.
SCIAMACHY long-term validation M. Weber, S. Mieruch, A. Rozanov, C. von Savigny, W. Chehade, R. Bauer, and H. Bovensmann Institut für Umweltphysik, Universität.
Data Requirements for a 1-cm Accurate Geoid
Numerical aspects of the omission errors due to limited grid size in geoid computations Yan Ming Wang National Geodetic Survey, USA VII Hotine-Marussi.
EGU General Assembly 2011, 3 rd – 8 th April 2011, Vienna, Austria EGU EIGEN-6 A new combined global gravity field model including GOCE data from.
Spectral characteristics of the Hellenic vertical network - Validation over Central and Northern Greece using GOCE/GRACE global geopotential models Vassilios.
Improved Satellite Altimeter data dedicated to coastal areas :
Progress in Geoid Modeling from Satellite Missions
Case study on heterogeneous geoid/ quasigeoid based on space borne and terrestrial data combination with special consideration of GOCE mission data impact.
International Symposium on Gravity, Geoid and Height Systems GGHS 2012, Venice, Italy 1 GOCE data for local geoid enhancement Matija Herceg Per Knudsen.
IAG Scientific Assembly – Cairns, Australia, August 2005 The GOCE Mission GOCE (Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer) will be.
Full Resolution Geoid from GOCE Gradients for Ocean Modeling Matija Herceg & Per Knudsen Department of Geodesy DTU Space living planet symposium 28 June.
C.C.Tscherning, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. Improvement of Least-Squares Collocation error estimates using local GOCE Tzz signal standard.
A comparison of different geoid computation procedures in the US Rocky Mountains YM Wang 1, H Denker 2, J Saleh 3, XP Li 3, DR Roman 1, D Smith 1 1 National.
Bouman et al, GOCE Gravity Gradients, ESA Living Planet Symposium 2010 GOCE Gravity Gradients in Instrument and Terrestrial Frames J. Bouman, Th. Gruber,
New improvements on the Dynamic Atmospheric Corrections L. Carrère, F. Lefèvre, F. Briol, J. Dorandeu (CLS), L. Roblou, E. Jeansou, G. Jan (Noveltis),
Earthquake source modelling by second degree moment tensors Petra Adamová Jan Šílený Geophysical Institute, Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic.
1 st post launch SCIAMACHY calibration & Verification Meeting L1b Astrium Friedrichshafen – Germany 24 July 2002 First level 1b Leakage current analysis.
ESA living planet symposium Bergen Combination of GRACE and GOCE in situ data for high resolution regional gravity field modeling M. Schmeer 1,
Improving Regional Geoid by optimal Combination of GRACE Gravity Model and Surface Gravity Data YM Wang, DR Roman and J Saleh National Geodetic Survey.
ESA Living Planet - Begen – June B. Christophe, J-P. Marque, B. Foulon ESA LIVING PLANET SYMPOSIUM June 28 th -July 2 nd 2010 Bergen (Norway)
Mayer-Gürr et al.ESA Living Planet, Bergen Torsten Mayer-Gürr, Annette Eicker, Judith Schall Institute of Geodesy and Geoinformation University.
ESA Living Planet Symposium 28 June - 2 July 2010, Bergen, Norway A. Albertella, R. Rummel, R. Savcenko, W. Bosch, T. Janjic, J.Schroeter, T. Gruber, J.
Gradiometer In-Flight Calibration Living Planet Symposium Bergen June Alternative In-Flight Calibration of the GOCE Gradiometer: ESA-L Method Daniel.
4.Results (1)Potential coefficients comparisons Fig.3 FIR filtering(Passband:0.005~0.1HZ) Fig.4 Comparison with ESA’s models (filter passband:0.015~0.1HZ)
The OC in GOCE: A review The Gravity field and Steady-state Ocean Circulation Experiment Marie-Hélène RIO.
Astronomical Institute University of Bern Astronomical Institute, University of Bern Swarm Gravity Field Results with the CMA Adrian Jäggi, Daniel Arnold,
The use of absolute gravity data for validation of GOCE-based GGMs – A case study of Central Europe 1), 2) Walyeldeen Godah 2) Jan Krynski 2) Malgorzata.
An oceanographic assessment of the GOCE geoid models accuracy S. Mulet 1, M-H. Rio 1, P. Knudsen 2, F. Siegesmund 3, R. Bingham 4, O. Andersen 2, D. Stammer.
Use of topography in the context of the GOCE satellite mission – some examples Moritz Rexer, Christian Hirt, Sten Claessens, Carla Braitenberg 5 th INTERNATIONAL.
Bouman et al, GOCE Calibration, ESA Living Planet Symposium 2010, Bergen, Norway Overview of GOCE Gradiometer Cal/Val Activities J. Bouman, P. Brieden,
How Do we Estimate Gravity Field? Terrestrial data –Measurements of surface gravity –Fit spherical harmonic coefficients Satellite data –Integrate equations.
D.N. Arabelos, M. Reguzzoni and C.C.Tscherning HPF Progress Meeting # 26, München, Feb , Global grids of gravity anomalies and vertical gravity.
ESA Living Planet Symposium, 29 June 2010, Bergen (Norway) GOCE data analysis: the space-wise approach and the space-wise approach and the first space-wise.
1 UPWARD CONTINUATION OF DOME-C AIRBORNE GRAVITY AND COMPARISON TO GOCE GRADIENTS AT ORBIT ALTITUDE IN ANTARCTICA Hasan Yildiz (1), Rene Forsberg (2),
SC4MGV – ESA Contract No /13/NL/MV 5th International GOCE User Workshop November 2014, Paris, France ESA SC4MGV Search strategy for.
Exploring and Validating LM Performances at Very High Resolution M. Didone, D. Lüthi, H.C Davies Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zürich.
(2) Norut, Tromsø, Norway Improved measurement of sea surface velocity from synthetic aperture radar Morten Wergeland Hansen.
Satellite Altimetry for Gravity, geoid and marine applications (MSS + LAT) Dr Ole B. Andersen, DTU Space, Denmark,
Dynamic Planet 2005 Cairns, Australia August 2005
Nils Holzrichter, Jörg Ebbing
Chairs: H. Sünkel, P. Visser
TEST OF GOCE EGG DATA FOR SPACECRAFT POSITIONING
D. Rieser *, R. Pail, A. I. Sharov
Ho Jung Paik University of Maryland E-GRAAL January 10, 2018
Martin Pitoňák1, Michal Šprlák2 and Pavel Novák1
Daniel Rieser, Christian Pock, Torsten Mayer-Guerr
Advances and Best Practices in Airborne Gravimetry from the U. S
Presentation transcript:

Institut für Erdmessung (IfE), Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany Quality Assessment of GOCE Gradients Phillip Brieden, Jürgen Müller living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway

Introduction living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway Power Spectral Density (PSD) of GOCE GG Correct Data?

Contents  Filtering of GGT L1b data o Why ? o The Method o Results  Two Validation Methods 1)Reference Gradient approach 2)Cross-Over (XO) approach  Basic ideas  Results based in real GOCE data  Conclusions living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway Hanover is part of the official Cal/Val team of ESA.  data access  preliminary results!

> 0.5 E Comparison in Gradiometer Reference Frame: Measured GG – GPM (e.g. EGM 08) living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway  Quality Assessment at the level of some mE 1 E = /s² GOCE Gravity Gradients long-wavelength errors (caused by accelerometer-drift) validation within MBW  filtering is necessary! MBW: between and 0.1 Hz 0 E

Filtering GGT Components - The Idea living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway + GOCE GPM high-pass low-pass

Filtering - Used Filter living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway  Finite Impulse Response filter (FIR)  Butterworth-filter o high-pass (GOCE) o low-pass (GPM) o cut-off frequency:5 mHz  filtering and combination in time domain!  Additional filtering of the combined information o Butterworth-filter again o cut-off frequency:50 mHz spherical harmonic degree l ≈ 270  GOCE-only gravity field solutions up to degree ~250

Filtering – Result (1) living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway high-pass filtered GOCE low-pass filtered EGM08 GOCE measurements MBW

Filtering – Result (2) living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway time series used for analyses  Selection of best cut-off frequency? filtering result difference: GOCE – filter result GOCE measurements

Reference Gradients from Gravity Anomalies (Reference Gradient Approach) living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway terrestrial data (incl. airborne gravimetry and satellite altimetry) of well-surveyed regional areas combined with global geopotential model (GPM) Δg´ = Δg G – Δg M – Δg RTM

Reference Gradient Approach The Evaluation Area  regional area: reference values (3D grid) available o residual values related to a GPM + terrestrial data o altitude interval:5 km o resolution:6 min latitude φ: 40.05° ° longitude λ: 00.05° ° altitude: km km living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway

Reference Gradient Approach Calculation of the Differences  regional area: reference values (3D grid) available o residual values related to a GPM + terrestrial data o altitude interval:5 km o resolution:6 min  select GOCE data across the regional area  3D-spline interpolation of reference gradients (T ij ) in gradiometer position  restore-part of the reference gradients into the interpolation point & restore-step T ij  V ij  analysis of the differences:  analysis for each track living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway ΔV ij RG = V ij GOCE – V ij RefGrad

Reference Gradient Approach Differences ΔV ij RG differences ΔV ij RG [E] color-coded (different scales!) mean value reduced (each track) living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway

Reference Gradient Approach PSD of GG-differences for all track pieces living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway average of PSDs GOCE requirements spherical harmonic degree l ≈ 270

The Cross-Over (XO) Approach Basic idea Identical measurement position  identical gravity gradient: V ij,1 = V ij,2 Attention! No repeated measurement positions!  differences in attitude and altitude that have to be reduced  GPM used for reduction living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway x y z xy z gravity gradient differences in XO  to be analyzed ij = {xx, xy, xz, yy, yz, zz} ΔV ij XO = V ij 1 – V ij 2 – red ij GPM

Cross-Over (XO) Approach Results (1)  Statistical results o Set up a threshold of maximum difference in all XOs o Percentage of differences that exceed the threshold o Distinction for each GGT component  main diagonal components living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway tensor componentthreshold [mE] percentage of XO-point differences that exceed the threshold XX % YY % ZZ %

Cross-Over (XO) Approach Results (2) living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway [mE]  Almost all ‘outliers’ have differences near the threshold  XO-approach is very suitable for GOCE data validation  Good data quality of GOCE gravity gradients GGT component: XX threshold: 11 mE ‘outliers’: 0.66 % GGT component: XX threshold: 11 mE ‘outliers’: 0.66 %

Conclusions  Longer-wavelength errors require a filtering of GG measurements o replacement of long wavelength by GPM information  selection ‘the best’ cut-off frequency  Reference Gradient Approach o results perfectly meet the requirements  Cross-Over (XO) Approach o only scattered unevenly distributed outliers  Both approaches…  confirm the somewhat higher noise level of V zz compared to the other main diagonal components V xx and V yy  suitable for the validation of GOCE GG  confirm the very good quality of GOCE GG living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway good data quality

Additional Slides living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway

Differences Along One Track Crossing the Evaluation Area living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway

Different GPMs XO-Results living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway different max-degree  no significant differences tensor component threshold [mE] percentage of XO-point differences that exceed the threshold EGM08 degree… ITG-Grace2010s degree XX % 0.24 % YY %0.63 %0.62 % ZZ %5.39 %5.38 % XZ %3.86 %3.81 % XX %0.69 %0.61 % YY %2.61 %2.57 % ZZ %15.61 %15.33 % XZ %12.75 %12.43 % Cut-off frequencies: 5 mHz - lower line 50 mHz - upper line

Different Cut-Off Frequencies living planet symposium 28 June – 2 July 2010 | Bergen | Norway