initial combination of our slr weekly solutions ... - nasa
Post on 09-May-2022
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
中国科学院上海天文台天文地球动力学研究中心
Shanghai Astronomical Observatory,CAS
21st International Workshop on Laser Ranging in Canberra, Australia,Nov 5
Fan Shao1,2, Xiaoya Wang1,2
1.Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;
Email: fanshao@shao.ac.cn
Initial combination of our SLR weekly solutions
with other Analysis Centers
Outline
1、 SLR Post Processing
2、precision of our weekly solutions
2
3、Combination Of SINEX
4、 Conclusions and Future plans
3
Measurement modelsTroposphere
Mendes mapping function and Mendes-Pavlis zenith delay
model
Satellite center of massstation dependent in accordance with the official ILRS COM
data
Orbit Models
Geopotential EGM2008,100×100degree
Solid earth tides IERS 2010 Conventions model
Ocean tides FES2004
Ephemeris JPL DE421
Reference Frames
Terrestrial SLRF2014 (a priori station coordinates and station velocities)
Tidal corrections IERS 2010 Conventions
Ocean loading FES2004
Earth Orientation Parameters IERS 14 C04 a priori
Estimated Parameters
Stations
definition: SLR monument (eccentricities subtracted) at mean
epoch of each arc
a priori values: SLRF2014
a priori standard deviation: 1 m
EOP
definition: x-pole, y-pole, UT1-UTC and LOD
epoch: at noon of each day
frequency: daily
a priori values: IERS 14 C04
a priori standard deviation: 20 masec, 2 msec
Range biasesRange biases
for some (non-core) stations
a priori value: 0 m
a priori standard deviation: 1m
1、SLR Post Processing
Tab1 SLR Post Processing strategy
Introducing a modified Fuzzy C-Means
(FCM) clustering algorithm into the
determination of the weights of SLR
station observations.
4
Fig1 Lageos1 Post processing RMS Fig2 Lageos2 Post processing RMS
1、SLR Post Processing
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20180.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Time
lageos1 p
ost
pro
cessin
g w
rms/m
m
MEAN=0.0116m
STD=0.0024m
m
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20180.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Time
lageos2 p
ost
pro
cessin
g w
rms/m
m
MEAN=0.0100m
STD=0.0031m
m
5Fig3 the precision of some core station
1、SLR Post Processing
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Time
lageos1 p
ost
pro
cessin
g O
-C /
mm
7080
MEAN=0.0069m
STD=0.0107m
m
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Time
lageos1 p
ost
pro
cessin
g O
-C /
mm
7110
MEAN=0.0081
STD=0.0122
m
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Time
lageos1 p
ost
pro
cessin
g O
-C /
mm
7825
MEAN=0.0086m
STD=0.0143m
m
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Time
lageos1 p
ost
pro
cessin
g O
-C /
mm
7839
MEAN=0.0064m
STD=0.0087m
m
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Time
lageos1 p
ost
pro
cessin
g O
-C /
mm
7840
MEAN=0.0064m
STD=0.0093m
m
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Time
lageos1 p
ost
pro
cessin
g O
-C /
mm
7941
MEAN=0.0109m
STD=0.0154m
m
6
2、precision of our weekly solutions
2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 2018-1
0
1
X-p
ole
[m
as]
2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 2018-1
0
1x 10
-3
Y-p
ole
[m
as]
2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 2018-0.5
0
0.5
LO
D [m
s]
time/year
SHAO EOP residuals w.r.t EOP C04
mean=0.01,std=0.06
mean=0.08,std=0.17
mean=0.11,std=0.21
2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 20180
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
time/year
mm
3-D coordinate residuals w.r.t. SLRF2014
SHAO all sites
SHAO core sites
All sites : MEAN=14.66mm STD=3.52mmCore sites: MEAN=9.86mm STD=2.88mm
Fig4 Time series of SHAO 3-D coordinate residuals w.r.t.SLRF2014
Fig5 Time series of EOP residuals w.r.t.C04
X-pole: MEAN=0.11mas STD=0.21mas
Y-pole: MEAN=0.08mas STD=0.17mas
LOD: MEAN=0.01mas STD=0.06ms
7
3、Combination of SINEX
2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 20180
10
20
30
40
50
time/year
Th
e v
aria
nce
fa
cto
rs o
f e
ach
AC
asi
bkg
dgfi
esa
gfz
grgs
jcet
nsgf
shao
ILRSC ASI BKG DGFI ESA GFZ GRGS JCET NSGF SHAO
Mean 8.85 11.43 20.21 11.67 14.97 10.5 11.75 10.45 11.19
Std deviation 15.37 22.15 23.04 15.66 17.78 15.57 21.77 18.86 18.66
ILRSB ASI BKG DGFI ESA GFZ GRGS JCET NSGF SHAO
Mean 2.87 3.2 17.5 4.16 7.04 4.92 10.87 7.93 *
Std deviation 15.9 4.2 75.74 2.3 4.21 4.46 21.45 10.05 *
Tab2 Mean variance factors of each ac(ILRSC here represents our combined solutions)
Variance factors of each AC
ILRSA ASI BKG DGFI ESA GFZ GRGS JCET NSGF
Mean 7.59 8.03 19.68 8.48 8.75 14.61 8.83 10.53
Std deviation 49.5 18.0 62.31 19.43 15.44 40.51 30.88 17.00
Tab3 Mean scaling factors of each ac
Fig7 The variance factors of each ac in our combined solutions
8
2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 20180
5
10
15
203-D coordinate residuals w.r.t. SLRF2014 - core sites
mm
time/year
shao
ilrsa
ilrsb
ilrsc
2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 2018-1
0
1EOP residuals w.r.t. C04
X-p
ole
[m
as]
2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 2018-1
0
1
Y-p
ole
[m
as]
2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 2018-0.5
0
0.5
LO
D [m
s]
time/year
shao
ilrsa
ilrsc
shao
ilrsa
ilrsc
shao
ilrsa
ilrsc
SHAO ILRSA ILRSB ILRSC
Mean 10.86 7.73 10.71 8.63
Std 3.88 2.30 2.56 3.05
SHAO ILRSA
XP YP LOD XP YP LOD
Mean 0.11 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.005
Std 0.21 0.17 0.06 0.14 0.11 0/02
ILRSB ILRSC
XP YP LOD XP YP LOD
Mean* * *
0.09 0.05 0.008
* * *0.14 0.12 0.03
Fig8 3-D WRMS of the core site coordinates residuals with respect to SLRF2014
Fig9 EOP residuals with respect to C04
Tab4 3-D WRMS of the core site coordinates residuals with respect to SLRF2014 (mm)
Tab5 EOP residuals with respect to C04 (mas, ms)
3、Combination of SINEX
9
2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 2018-20
-10
0
10
20TX w.r.t. SLRF2014
mm
2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 2018-20
-10
0
10
20TY w.r.t. SLRF2014
mm
2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 2018-20
-10
0
10
20TZ w.r.t. SLRF2014
mm
time/year
ILRSC
ILRSA
ILRSB
2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 2018-1
0
1
2
3
time/year
ppb
ILRSC
ILRSA
ILRSB
ILRSA ILRSB
TX TY TZ scale TX TY TZ scale
Mean 0.01 1.89 -6.12 1.36 0.82 1.79 -8.46 1.30
Std 3.72 3.15 5.56 0.46 4.43 3.84 8.25 0.47
SHAO ILRSC
TX TY TZ scale TX TY TZ scale
Mean -1.90 1.65 -0.03 1.13 -0.84 1.25 -0.83 0.86
Std 3.40 3.76 6.66 0.51 3.49 3.36 5.44 0.44
Fig10 The translation parameter with respect to SLRF2014
Fig11 The scale parameter with respect to SLRF2014
Tab6 The translation and scale parameter with respect to SLRF2014 (mm, ppb)
3、Combination of SINEX
Why?
Is it normal?Why?
10
4.Conclusions and Future plans
The precision of our SHAO weekly solutions can meet the needs of ILRS, the mean value of 3-D coordinate residuals w.r.t. SLRF2014 for all sites is 14.66mm,for core sites is 9.86mm, and the mean value of EOP residuals w.r.t. CO4 for XP is 0.11mas, for YP is 0.08mas and for LOD is 0.01ms.
The calculated variance factors show that our SHAO weekly solutions have a same precision with other ACs.
3-D coordinate residuals w.r.t. SLRF2014 and EOP residuals w.r.t. CO4 of our combined product show a good consistency with ILRSA and ILRSB
The trend of our translation parameter TZ and scale Parameter w.r.t. SLRF2014 are different from ILRSA and ILRSB. Why?
11
4.Conclusions and Future plans
Add satellite ETALON1 and ETALON2 to regenerate our SHAO weekly SINEX files and combined products.
Comparing our translation parameters with dynamic geocenter motion.
Comparing our scale parameters with the scale derived from VLBI.
中国科学院上海天文台天文地球动力学研究中心
Shanghai Astronomical Observatory,CAS
21st International Workshop on Laser Ranging in Canberra, Australia,Nov 5
Thank you for your attention!
Email: fanshao@shao.ac.cn
top related