Improved Hybrid Geoid Modeling and the FY 2000 Geoid Models Dr. Daniel R. Roman January 16, 2001 9:30 - 10:30 Conference Room 9836.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Comparison of topographic effect by Newton’s integral and high degree spherical harmonic expansion – Preliminary Results YM Wang, S. Holmes, J Saleh,
Advertisements

Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research The University of Colorado ASEN 5070 OD Accuracy Assessment OD Overlap Example Effects of eliminating parameters.
L.M. McMillin NOAA/NESDIS/ORA Regression Retrieval Overview Larry McMillin Climate Research and Applications Division National Environmental Satellite,
Basic geostatistics Austin Troy.
Class 25: Even More Corrections and Survey Networks Project Planning 21 April 2008.
OPUS-Database: Supplemental Data for Better Datum Conversion Models D.R. Roman and N.D. Weston F.I.G. Working Week Session TS04A: National Geodesy I Marrakech,
Datum-shift, error-estimation and gross-error detection when using least-squares collocation for geoid determination. by C.C.Tscherning Department of Geophysics,
Curve-Fitting Regression
Refinements to the North American Datum of 1983 Multi-Year CORS Solution and the National Adjustment of 2011 Dr. Neil D. Weston Chief, Spatial Reference.
Principles of Sea Level Measurement Long-term tide gauge records  What is a tide station?  How is sea level measured relative to the land?  What types.
NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey USGG2009 & GEOID09: New geoid height models for surveying/GIS ACSM-MARLS-UCLS-WFPS Conference FEB 2009 Salt Lake.
RLSELE Adaptive Signal Processing 1 Recursive Least-Squares (RLS) Adaptive Filters.
Datum Shifts and Geoid Height Models
Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research The University of Colorado STATISTICAL ORBIT DETERMINATION Project Report Unscented kalman Filter Information.
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.
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,
CPE 619 Simple Linear Regression Models Aleksandar Milenković The LaCASA Laboratory Electrical and Computer Engineering Department The University of Alabama.
Simple Linear Regression Models
Oceanography 569 Oceanographic Data Analysis Laboratory Kathie Kelly Applied Physics Laboratory 515 Ben Hall IR Bldg class web site: faculty.washington.edu/kellyapl/classes/ocean569_.
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,
1 Assessment of Geoid Models off Western Australia Using In-Situ Measurements X. Deng School of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Australia R.
ESA Living Planet Symposium, Bergen, T. Gruber, C. Ackermann, T. Fecher, M. Heinze Institut für Astronomische und Physikalische Geodäsie (IAPG)
Chapter 8: The future geodetic reference frames Thomas Herring, Hans-Peter Plag, Jim Ray, Zuheir Altamimi.
Geoid Height Models at NGS Dan Roman Research Geodesist.
Lecture 7 – More Gravity and GPS Processing GISC February 2009.
Curve-Fitting Regression
Lecture 18: Vertical Datums and a little Linear Regression GISC March 2009 For Geoid96.
B ≥ 4 H & V, KNOWN & TRUSTED POINTS? B LOCALIZATION RESIDUALS-OUTLIERS? B DO ANY PASSIVE MARKS NEED TO BE HELD? RT BASE WITHIN CALIBRATION (QUALITY TIE.
20 FEB 2009 Salt Lake City, UTACSM-MARLS-UCLS-WFPS Conference 2009 Geoid Modeling, GRAV-D and Height Mod.
NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey USGG2009 & GEOID09: New geoid height models for surveying/GIS ACSM-MARLS-UCLS-WFPS Conference FEB 2009 Salt Lake.
Improved Covariance Modeling of Gravimetric, GPS, and Leveling Data in High-Resolution Hybrid Geoids Daniel R. Roman, Ph.D. Research Geodesist.
Data Requirements for a 1-cm Accurate Geoid
Modern Navigation Thomas Herring MW 11:00-12:30 Room
Numerical aspects of the omission errors due to limited grid size in geoid computations Yan Ming Wang National Geodetic Survey, USA VII Hotine-Marussi.
Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research The University of Colorado 1 STATISTICAL ORBIT DETERMINATION The Minimum Variance Estimate ASEN 5070 LECTURE.
Lecture 21 – The Geoid 2 April 2009 GISC-3325.
Tide corrections from KGPS and a precise geoid
International Symposium on Gravity, Geoid and Height Systems GGHS 2012, Venice, Italy 1 GOCE data for local geoid enhancement Matija Herceg Per Knudsen.
Recent Investigations Towards Achieving a One Centimeter Geoid Daniel R. Roman & Dru A. Smith U.S. National Geodetic Survey GGG 2000, Session 9 The Challenge.
Autoregressive (AR) Spectral Estimation
Catherine LeCocq SLAC USPAS, Cornell University Large Scale Metrology of Accelerators June 27 - July 1, 2005 Height Systems 1 Summary of Last Presentation.
Lecture 7 – Gravity and Related Issues GISC February 2008.
ST236 Site Calibrations with Trimble GNSS
September 28, 2000 Improved Simultaneous Data Reconciliation, Bias Detection and Identification Using Mixed Integer Optimization Methods Presented by:
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.
Geodetic Applications of GNSS within the United States Dr. Gerald L. Mader National Geodetic Survey NOS/NOAA Silver Spring, Maryland USA Munich Satellite.
GEOID03 in Louisiana and Alaska Dr. Yan M Wang and Dr. Daniel R Roman Geodesist, NGS/NOAA ACSM Annual Conference and Technology Exhibition Orlando, FL.
Investigation of the use of deflections of vertical measured by DIADEM camera in the GSVS11 Survey YM Wang 1, X Li 2, S Holmes 3, DR Roman 1, DA Smith.
Improving Regional Geoid by optimal Combination of GRACE Gravity Model and Surface Gravity Data YM Wang, DR Roman and J Saleh National Geodetic Survey.
Mayer-Gürr et al.ESA Living Planet, Bergen Torsten Mayer-Gürr, Annette Eicker, Judith Schall Institute of Geodesy and Geoinformation University.
GRAV-D: NGS Gravity for the Re- definition of the American Vertical Datum Project V. A. Childers, D. R. Roman, D. A. Smith, and T. M. Diehl* U.S. National.
Nic Donnelly – Geodetic Data Analyst 5 March 2008 Vertical Datum Issues in New Zealand.
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.
Integration of Gravity Data Into a Seamless Transnational Height Model for North America Daniel Roman, Marc Véronneau, David Avalos, Xiaopeng Li, Simon.
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.
Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research The University of Colorado 1 STATISTICAL ORBIT DETERMINATION Statistical Interpretation of Least Squares ASEN.
Improvements to the Geoid Models
MECH 373 Instrumentation and Measurements
B. Amjadiparvar(1), E. Rangelova(1), M. G. Sideris(1) , C. Gerlach(2)
Why Model? Make predictions or forecasts where we don’t have data.
Satellite Altimetry for Gravity, geoid and marine applications (MSS + LAT) Dr Ole B. Andersen, DTU Space, Denmark,
ASEN 5070: Statistical Orbit Determination I Fall 2015
Autocorrelation.
An T Nguyen (MIT) Thomas A Herring (MIT)
OVERVIEW OF LINEAR MODELS
Lecture 17: Geodetic Datums and a little Linear Regression
OVERVIEW OF LINEAR MODELS
Daniel Rieser, Christian Pock, Torsten Mayer-Guerr
Testing the Fit of a Quantal Model of Neurotransmission
Autocorrelation.
Presentation transcript:

Improved Hybrid Geoid Modeling and the FY 2000 Geoid Models Dr. Daniel R. Roman January 16, : :30 Conference Room 9836

OUTLINE Introduction G99SSS GPSBM’s, alternative geoid height point data Residual values from GPSBM’s - G99SSS Overview of LSC GEOID99 Overview of studies Iterative-LSC Multi-Matrix-LSC Summary of Modeling FY2000 Geoid Models Conclusions Future Research

Introduction GEOID90/GEOID93 used gravimetric data GEOID96/GEOID99 were hybrids created from gravimetric & other geoid height data FOCUS: on the approach taken to combine these different data sources and the best solutions for modeling remaining signal Data are the same as used for the GEOID99 computation to facilitate comparison

The gravimetric geoid model, G99SSS Derived from more than three million terrestrial, marine and altimeter gravity data EGM96 gravity removed to create residuals Gridded at one arcminute to maximize the resolution of the gravity field Reference datum is ITRF96(1997.0) Converted to residual geoid height grid with 1D FFT and restored EGM96 geoid values

GPSBM’s, alternative geoid height point data GPS-derived ellipsoid heights on spirit- leveled Bench Marks (GPSBM’s) give a spot estimate of the geoid height GPS heights are WRT NAD 83 (ellipsoidal) Leveling is WRT NAVD 88 (orthometric) Accuracy of geoid heights is dependent on the quality of the ellipsoid and orthometric point values

Residual values from GPSBM’s - G99SSS Interpolating G99SSS to the GPSBM locations gives two geoid height estimates The differences between them should be zero values assuming perfect models, observations, and interpolation algorithms Any residuals derive from errors in the gravimetric geoid, the GPS-derived ellipsoid heights, and/or the spirit-leveling

Simply gridding residuals yields no error analysis - what is signal and what is noise? Must find broader signal in the residuals that correlates over longer distances Signal amplitude matches the auto- correlated variance (A 0 ) of the residuals The character of the correlated signal drop off with distance (D) is defined by A 0, the correlation length (L) and a constant (  ) Overview of LSC

100% 50% Correlation (L) length Correlated Signal Power (cm 2 ) Distance (D) from Reference Point (km) Elements of a Correlation Curve 0% signal amplitude (A 0 ) 0 if: D ll = L then: C L = 0.5 A 0 increasing distance => if: D ll = L then: it is easier to think in terms of cm than cm 2, so use standard deviation instead of the variance

Overview of LSC (cont.) Find the best fitting  L and A 0 values in Mode 1: Iterate for a posteriori data sigma ( ) in Mode 2: Use the correlation parameters determined between the 6169 GPSBM points to find the expected correlation at the nodes of the desired grid (s) in Mode 3:

A national bias of 51.7 cm & trend of 0.15 ppm (azimuth = 327 o ) were removed from the GPSBM-G99SSS residuals Best fit parameters of A 0 = (18.2 cm) 2,  L = 400 km & = (4.6 cm) 2 were determined for the remaining residual signal Note the discrepancy between the empirical data (+) and the modeled values (line) GEOID99

Empirical (+) Versus Modeled (-) Correlation

GEOID99 (cont.) The conversion surface contains data at 30’ intervals but was regridded to 1’ G99SSS - conversion surface = GEOID99 GEOID99 is then compared to GPSBM’s to determine final residual values for analysis of the 4.6 cm final RMS difference, 2.6 cm is correlated with a 23 km correlation length

Empirical (+) Versus Modeled (-) Correlation

Overview of studies Iterative-LSC (lower then upper) Minimum Curvature (MC) of GPSBM- G99SSS residuals MC of GEOID99 LSC point estimates Single-pass LSC with corr. length = 33 km Iterative-LSC (left then right) MC of GPSBM- GEOID99 residuals Weighted-LSC of GPSBM-G99SSS res. Weighted-LSC of GPSBM-GEOID99 res. Multi-Matrix-LSC

A 0 = (15.0 cm) 2,  L = 550 km, & = (5.2 cm) 2 were chosen for best fit of the broader signal in the GPSBM-G99SSS residuals (lower hump) The resulting grid, the national trend & bias, and a conversion from ITRF96 to NAD 83 are all used to create a conversion surface The conversion surface is removed from G99SSS to create the intermediate geoid Iterative-LSC

Empirical (+) Versus Modeled (-) Correlation

Iterative-LSC (cont.) Revised residuals are generated by removing interpolated values from the intermediate geoid from the GPSBM’s (GPSBM’s - inter. geoid = rev. residuals)  L=33 km, A 0 =(3.0 cm) 2 and = (2.3 cm) 2 were selected to best fit these residuals Note the uncorrelated signal component Resulting grid = 2nd conversion surface

Empirical (+) Versus Modeled (-) Correlation

Iterative-LSC (cont.) The second conversion surface is removed from the intermediate hybrid geoid to create the final hybrid geoid model Heights from this model are removed from the GPSBM’s for final residuals of the 3.3 cm final RMS difference, 2.4 cm is correlated with a 14 km correlation length

Empirical (+) Versus Modeled (-) Correlation

Multi-Matrix-LSC The combination of two or more correlation matrices that best model all the signal in the GPSBM-G99SSS residuals (both humps) Matrices: Adding 2 positive definite matrices yields a positive definite matrix The combined matrix is used in the LSC solution

Multi-Matrix-LSC (cont.) Correlation length and amplitude for each matrix are varied to find the overall best fit 1 st matrix: A 0 = (14.0 cm) 2 and  L = 650 km 2 nd matrix: A 0 = (11.6 cm) 2 and  L = 100 km The resulting grid, national trend & bias, and ITRF96 conversion are combined into a conversion surface

Empirical (+) Versus Modeled (-) Correlation

Multi-Matrix-LSC (cont.) This conversion surface is removed from G99SSS to create the final hybrid geoid Heights from this model are removed from the GPSBM’s for final residuals of the 3.0 cm final RMS difference, 1.7 cm is correlated with an 8 km correlation length

Empirical (+) Versus Modeled (-) Correlation

Summary of Modeling Studies Two approaches gave improved results in modeling GPSBM-G99SSS residual signals The iterative-LSC process models broader signal with a single matrix, generating an intermediate geoid and revised residuals that are modeled with another single matrix Multi-Matrix-LSC uses multiple matrices in a single pass to best fit the initial residuals

Summary of Relevant Statistics

FY 2000 Geoid Models Two hybrid geoids were created using FY 2000 GPSBM data and G99SSS The first, XUSHG2000A, was generated using the same methods as for GEOID99 (single-pass and single-matrix) The other, XUSHG2000B, was generated using Iterative-LSC (multi-pass and single- matrix)

FY 2000 GPSBM Data Pulled on September 15, total points = 254 rejected kept Of the 7521 retained points, 1358 were new covering more regions than FY 1999 More FBN/CBN values with increased accuracies for ellipsoid heights (12 states)

XUSHG2000A Model: single-pass, single-matrix Correlation Parameters: A 0 = (17.7 cm) 2,  L = 400 km and = (4.5 cm) 2 Comparison with FY 2000 GPSBM’s: of the final 4.5 cm RMS difference, 2.7 cm correlated with a 22 km correlation length

Empirical (+) Versus Modeled (-) Correlation

XUSHG2000B Model: multi-pass, single-matrix Parameters first iteration: A 0 = (14.5 cm) 2,  L = 550 km and = (5.0 cm) 2 About the same as for Iterative-LSC(99) Parameters second iteration: A 0 = (2.0 cm) 2,  L = 50 km and = (3.3 cm) 2 Truncated to minimize uncertainties in the short wavelengths of the residuals

Empirical (+) Versus Modeled (-) Correlation

XUSHG2000B (cont.) The two conversion surfaces are removed from G99SSS to create XUSHG2000B Heights from this model are removed from the GPSBM’s for final residuals of the final 3.5 cm RMS difference, 1.9 cm correlated with an 11 km correlation length

Empirical (+) Versus Modeled (-) Correlation

Statistical Comparison of FY 1999 and 2000 Hybrid Geoids

Conclusions for Modeling It is possible to incorporate more of the residual signal between gravimetric and GPSBM data into a hybrid geoid model Iterative-LSC modeled increasingly shorter correlation lengths, which also aided in analyzing signals in different bandwidths Multi-Matrix-LSC modeled the most of the signal in one pass with the best results

Conclusions for FY 2000 Geoids FY 1999 and 2000 GPSBM data have been culled to about the same level XUSHG2000A is very similar to GEOID99 Use of iterative-LSC permits selective inclusion of residual signal XUSHG2000B does incorporate more of the correlated residual signal than the FY 1999 iterative-LSC model.

Future Research Source(s) of residual values Focus will be on relationship with nodes in Basic Net A of NAVD 88 Better understanding of sources will aid in determining how much of the signal to use in future hybrid models