validation and quality control for insar using trihedral
play

Validation and quality control for InSAR using trihedral radar - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Validation and quality control for InSAR using trihedral radar reflectors Delft University of Technology Petar Marinkovic, Gini Ketelaar, Freek van Leijen, Ramon Hanssen DEOS: Delft Institute of Earth Observation and Space Systems January 16,


  1. Validation and quality control for InSAR using trihedral radar reflectors Delft University of Technology Petar Marinkovic, Gini Ketelaar, Freek van Leijen, Ramon Hanssen DEOS: Delft Institute of Earth Observation and Space Systems January 16, 2008

  2. Delft test site: impressions January 2004 leveling 2

  3. Agenda Objective and motivation: • what is the quality of point scatterer phase observation in PSI? Delft test site: • corner reflector experiment • defo. monitoring under controlled circumstances Validation strategy and results: • leveling vs. InsAR vs. PSI Conclusions 3

  4. Leveling vs. InSAR CR4-CR5 CR4-CR3 ASAR ERS Leveling 4

  5. Leveling vs. InSAR: a posteriori 1sigma CR4-CR5 CR4-CR3 ASAR Leveling ERS 5

  6. Leveling vs. InSAR: a posteriori 1sigma 1Sigma_ASAR= 1.6 mm 1Sigma_ERS2 = 2.8 mm CR4-CR5 CR4-CR3 ASAR Leveling ERS 6

  7. Delft test site 7

  8. Delft test site: leveling network ● surveys every ~35 days ~200m ● high precision leveling ● redundant network CR#5 ● adjustment and outlier removal Bn#2 ● since Aug.2005 ground water CR#4 measurements CR#3 Bn#1 8

  9. Delft test site: CR heights ground watter measurements correlate with leveling ~95% CR3 CR5 CR4 9

  10. Delft test site: InSAR data [ASAR] 10

  11. Delft test site: InSAR data [ERS2] ERS2: high fDC! 11

  12. Delft test site 12

  13. Validation strategy: Leveling vs. InSAR “fixed” InSAR estimates: Leveling estimates: ● redundant network/measurements ● unwrapped wrt. leveling ● converted to vertical ● adjustment and testing ● a.posteriori 1sigma of dd ~ 1.5mm ● full VC matrix ● “connection matrix” ● “mature” technique ● SCR (signal to clutter) Mathematical framework: Analysis output: ● analysis of residuals (leveling – InSAR) • 1sigma of InSAR.dd ● constrained adjustment deformation measurements ● outlier removal • a.posteriori “error bars” ● VCE (variance component estimation) 13

  14. Leveling vs. InSAR : “raw” 1Sigma_ASAR= 2.4 mm 1Sigma_ERS2 = 10.7 mm CR4-CR5 CR4-CR3 14 ASAR ERS Leveling

  15. Doppler variations of ERS2 15

  16. Influence of viewing geometry azimuth ...compensates for unaccounted reference phase computation reference of “flat-earth phase” ground range actual location of point target reference of interferometric phase 16

  17. Influence of viewing geometry azimuth ...compensates for unaccounted reference phase computation reference of “flat-earth phase” ground range actual location of point target reference of interferometric phase sub.pixel correction: • azimuth: delta fDC dependence • range: Bperp dependence 17

  18. Doppler variations of ERS2 18

  19. Leveling vs. InSAR : “raw” 1Sigma_ASAR= 2.4 mm 1Sigma_ERS2 = 10.7 mm CR4-CR5 CR4-CR3 19 ASAR ERS Leveling

  20. Leveling vs. InSAR : sub.pixel corrected 1Sigma_ASAR= 1.7 mm 1Sigma_ERS2 = 6.9 mm CR4-CR5 CR4-CR3 20 ASAR ERS Leveling

  21. Doppler ambiguities? Doppler centroid -2*PRF +2*PRF CR3-CR4: difference InSAR vs levelling 21

  22. Leveling vs. InSAR : sub.pixel corrected CR4-CR5 CR4-CR3 22 ASAR ERS Leveling

  23. Leveling vs. InSAR : sub.pixel.no.outliers.doppler 1Sigma_ASAR= 1.6 mm 1Sigma_ERS2 = 2.8 mm CR4-CR5 CR4-CR3 ASAR ERS Leveling 23

  24. a.posteriori 1sigma of dd InSAR phase - with outlier removal - ERS2 ASAR no sub-pixel correction 4.5 mm 2.4 with sub-pixel correction 2.9 1.6 with sub-pixel and fDC correction 2.8 1.6 - without outlier removal - ERS2 ASAR no sub-pixel correction 10.7 2.4 with sub-pixel correction 6.9 1.7 with sub-pixel and fDC correction 4.1 1.7 24

  25. Leveling vs. InSAR: a posteriori 1sigma CR4-CR5 CR4-CR3 ASAR Leveling ERS 25

  26. Connection to the natural PS 26

  27. Connection to natural PS • linear velocities estimated together with periodic signal 27

  28. Natural PS vs Leveling ground watter measurements PSI Leveling CR3 CR5 CR4 28

  29. Natural PS vs Levelling vs InSAR CR4-CR5 CR4-CR3 ASAR Leveling PSI 29

  30. Conclusions • empirical 1sigma of InSAR deformation estimates: • ERS2 (high.doppler.data): ~ 2.8 mm along the vertical • ASAR : ~ 1.6 mm along the vertical • Note: ASAR in the same level of accuracy as leveling! 30

Recommend


More recommend