CGPS Data Processing of the ESEAS GPS test network Geodesy Department General Command of Mapping Ank

1
CGPS Data Processing of the ESEAS GPS test
network Geodesy Department General Command of
MappingAnkara, Turkey
2
GPS Data Analyses
Software GAMIT/GLOBK
v10.07 ESEAS CGPS sites 22 IGS stations
9
3
CGPS Data Processing Strategy Orbit and EOP.
IGS final orbits and IERS EOP
Bulletin B values.
Reference Frame ITRF2000 Elevation angle
10 degrees Tight constraints on IGS orbital
parameters
EOPs Radiation Pressure Effects
BERNE Model
( 9 parameters )
4
Solid Earth Tide IERS,1996 Ocean
LoadingScherneck model (IERS, 1992).
Saastomoinen model for zenit delay and piecewise
linear model Niell mapping function for
hydrostatic and wet delay

5
Elevation dependent Antenna Phase Center
correction No correction for Atmospheric
loading Loosely constrained Ambiguity Free
and Fix Solutions
6
Reference Frame Definition 3 Translation and 3
orientation parameters for each day are estimated
with the GLOBK (GLORG module) for reference
frame definition
7
We followed two approaches 1.Global solution
Daily solutions are combined with the
global solutions of SOPAC (Scripps Orbit and
Permanent Array Center). Then, the
reference frame was defined by minimizing the
positions of about 35 IGS stations in ITFR2000.
8
The 38 IGS Stations Used For Global Stabilization
9
The IGS Stations Used For Global Stabilization
10
2. Regional solution Daily solutions without
combination with global solutions are transformed
into the ITRF2000 by minimizing the positions of
9 IGS stations
included in the GPS processing.
11
The IGS Stations Used For Regional Stabilization
Sites used
1. ONSA 2. WTZR 3. MATE 4. GRAZ 5. NYA1 6.
VILL 7. TRO1 8. GRAS 9. POTS
Sites not used
1. KOSG 2. HERS
12
Comparison of the global and regional solutions
with GAMIT/GLOBK
13
mm
Differences (R-G) Min Max Mean RMS -10.1
7.3 1.8 2.9 mm
14
Differences (R-G) Min Max Mean RMS -5.8
2.7 -2.3 1.7 mm
15
Differences (R-G) Min Max Mean RMS -2.5
32.1 12.4 6.8 mm
16
Differences (R-G) Min Max Mean RMS -2.5
10.9 2.8 2.6 mm
17
Differences (R-G) Min Max Mean RMS -5.0
5.4 -1.4 2.0 mm
18
Differences (R-G) Min Max Mean RMS -3.2
33.6 13.2 7.2 mm
19
Differences (R-G) Min Max Mean RMS -2.8
4.6 1.7 1.5 mm
20
Differences (R-G) Min Max Mean RMS -5.2
2.1 -2.6 1.3 mm
21
Differences (R-G) Min Max Mean RMS 0.9
33.1 12.8 6.0 mm
22
Statistics of differences between regional and
global solution
Min Max Mean
RMS ABER -10.1 7.3
1.8 2.9 NSTG -2.5
10.9 2.8 2.6 EAST
TGDE -2.8 4.6 1.7
1.5 ABER -5.8
2.7 -2.3 1.7 NSTG
-5.0 5.4 -1.4 2.0
NORTH TGDE -5.2 2.1
-2.6 1.3 ABER -2.5
32.1 12.4 6.8 NSTG
-3.2 33.6 13.2 7.2
UP TGDE 0.9 33.1
12.8 6.0
23
Mean of the differences between those three
are Less than 1 mm
24
Inter-comparison of the GPS time series of
ABER NSTG TGDE
25
GPS Analysis Centers
NMA GIPSY PPP ROA GIPSY PPP UPC GIPSY PPP
UNOTT BERNESE PPP SRC BERNESE RNS
DD GCM GAMIT/GLOBK RNS DD
26
mm
27
mm
28
mm
29
mm
30
mm
31
mm
32
mm
33
mm
34
mm
35
SPECTRAL ANALYSES of CGPS COORDINATE TIME
SERIES CLEAN algorithm (Baisch and Bokelmann,
1999)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
RESULTS GCMs global and regional solutions
differ from each other significantly, especially
for the Up component, which is mainly caused from
definition of the reference frame. Comparing to
the global solution, regional solution in general
show better agreement for the Up component with
the other ACs solutions.
40
RESULTS Both solutions show periodical signal of
60-70 days for the Up component, however
amplitute in the regional solution is smaller
than the other The periodical effect may be
caused from hydrological effects. The longer GPS
time series are to contribute the understanding
of the effect in a more reliable way