GPS for Subsidence Detection, the Case Study of Aguascalientes

Esquivel, R.; Hernández, Arellano; Zermeño, M. E.

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-38596-7_31

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we excluded a few stations that are well known to have non‐unique velocity estimations in the ITRF solution due to large post‐seismic disruptions. Finally, we excluded two stations that present very large subsidence due to local anthropogenic reasons (BOGT and INEG stations [ Blanco et al , 2010; Esquivel et al , 2006]). Our selected network contains about 80% of the initial GNSS network.…”

Section: Itrf2008 Network and Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

ITRF2008 contribution to glacial isostatic adjustment and recent ice melting assessment

Métivier

Collilieux

Altamimi

2012

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] We investigate what information station vertical velocities of the ITRF2008 provide on global geodetic parameters and by extension on glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) and recent ice melting (RIM) processes. We infer degree-2 spherical harmonic coefficients (SHC) of the Earth figure change and the J 2 gravity rate (J˙2), which we compare with five GIA models. We find J˙2 to be (0.0 AE 2.4) Â 10 À11 yr À1 , which is consistent with recent studies that propose a J˙2 change in the 1990s, due to RIM whose contribution to the J˙2 would be today around (3.5-4.0 AE 2.4) Â 10 À11 yr À1 . Such results favor Peltier (2004) VM2 or Paulson et al. (2007) GIA models. The ITRF2008 SHC that are directly impacted by the GIA rotational feedback, confirm with a good precision recent results from GRACE mission that initiated a debate on GIA rotational feedback and about Peltier GIA model quality. We find a coefficient consistent with Paulson's (and other) model and more than 7 times smaller than coefficients in Peltier's models. Two explanations are possible: (1) if the model of Peltier (2004) VM2 were to be correct, then the strong rotational feedback in the model must be counteracted by a strong rotational feedback in the opposite direction generated by current ice loss, (2) if the model of Paulson et al. (2007) were to be correct, therefore GIA and RIM separately induce negligible rotational feedbacks. Both answers are quite extreme and call for more investigation on GIA modeling and rotational feedback. Citation: Métivier, L., X. Collilieux, and Z. Altamimi (2012), ITRF2008 contribution to glacial isostatic adjustment and recent ice melting assessment, Geophys.

show abstract

Section: Itrf2008 Network and Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

ITRF2008 contribution to glacial isostatic adjustment and recent ice melting assessment

Métivier

Collilieux

Altamimi

2012

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A case study on displacement analysis of Vasa warship

Eshagh¹,

Johansson²,

Karlsson³

et al. 2018

Journal of Geodetic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring deformation of man-made structures is very important to prevent them from a risk of collapse and save lives. Such a process is also used for monitoring change in historical objects, which are deforming continuously with time. An example of this is the Vasa warship, which was under water for about 300 years. The ship was raised from the bottom of the sea and is kept in the Vasa museum in Stockholm. A geodetic network with points on the museum building and the ship’s body has been established and measured for 12 years for monitoring the ship’s deformation. The coordinate time series of each point on the ship and their uncertainties have been estimated epoch-wisely. In this paper, our goal is to statistically analyse the ship’s hull movements. By fitting a quadratic polynomial to the coordinate time series of each point of the hull, its acceleration and velocity are estimated. In addition, their significance is tested by comparing them with their respective estimated errors after the fitting. Our numerical investigations show that the backside of the ship, having highest elevation and slope, has moved vertically faster than the other places by a velocity and an acceleration of about 2 mm/year and 0.1 mm/year2, respectively and this part of the ship is the weakest with a higher risk of collapse. The central parts of the ship are more stable as the ship hull is almost vertical and closer to the floor. Generally, the hull is moving towards its port and downwards

show abstract

Accuracy of Sentinel-1 PSI and SBAS InSAR Displacement Velocities against GNSS and Geodetic Leveling Monitoring Data

Cigna,

Esquivel Ramírez,

Tapete

2021

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Correct use of multi-temporal Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) datasets to complement geodetic surveying for geo-hazard applications requires rigorous assessment of their precision and accuracy. Published inter-comparisons are mostly limited to ground displacement estimates obtained from different algorithms belonging to the same family of InSAR approaches, either Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI) or Small BAseline Subset (SBAS); and accuracy assessments are mainly focused on vertical displacements or based on few Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) or geodetic leveling points. To fill this demonstration gap, two years of Sentinel-1 SAR ascending and descending mode data are processed with both PSI and SBAS consolidated algorithms to extract vertical and horizontal displacement velocity datasets, whose accuracy is then assessed against a wealth of contextual geodetic data. These include permanent GNSS records, static GNSS benchmark repositioning, and geodetic leveling monitoring data that the National Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Informatics (INEGI) of Mexico collected in 2014−2016 in the Aguascalientes Valley, where structurally-controlled land subsidence exhibits fast vertical rates (up to −150 mm/year) and a non-negligible east-west component (up to ±30 mm/year). Despite the temporal constraint of the data selected, the PSI-SBAS inter-comparison reveals standard deviation of 6 mm/year and 4 mm/year for the vertical and east-west rate differences, respectively, thus reassuring about the similarity between the two types of InSAR outputs. Accuracy assessment shows that the standard deviations in vertical velocity differences are 9−10 mm/year against GNSS benchmarks, and 8 mm/year against leveling data. Relative errors are below 20% for any locations subsiding faster than −15 mm/year. Differences in east-west velocity estimates against GNSS are on average −0.1 mm/year for PSI and +0.2 mm/year for SBAS, with standard deviations of 8 mm/year. When discrepancies are found between InSAR and geodetic data, these mostly occur at benchmarks located in proximity to the main normal faults, thus falling within the same SBAS ground pixel or closer to the same PSI target, regardless of whether they are in the footwall or hanging wall of the fault. Establishing new benchmarks at higher distances from the fault traces or exploiting higher resolution SAR scenes and/or InSAR datasets may improve the detection of the benchmarks and thus consolidate the statistics of the InSAR accuracy assessments.

show abstract

GPS for Subsidence Detection, the Case Study of Aguascalientes

Cited by 5 publications

References 2 publications

ITRF2008 contribution to glacial isostatic adjustment and recent ice melting assessment

ITRF2008 contribution to glacial isostatic adjustment and recent ice melting assessment

A case study on displacement analysis of Vasa warship

Accuracy of Sentinel-1 PSI and SBAS InSAR Displacement Velocities against GNSS and Geodetic Leveling Monitoring Data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About