Geodynamics implication of GPS and satellite altimeter and gravity observations to the Eastern Mediterranean

Zahran, Khaled; Radwan, Ali M.

doi:10.1016/j.nrjag.2012.11.006

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Station ISTA is a class B EPN station; therefore, it has no determined velocities in ETRS. However, in Zahran and Radwan (2012), it can be found that intraplate velocities in this region reach up to 2 cm/y in the horizontal plane. This is also confirmed by the analysis of the weekly EPN solutions from 2017, which are consistent with the results obtained in this study.…”

Section: Compatibility Of the Results With The Cumulative Epn Solutionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Antenna phase center correction differences from robot and chamber calibrations: the case study LEIAR25

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) have been intensively modernized, resulting in the introduction of new carrier frequencies for GPS and GLONASS and the development of new satellite systems such as Galileo and BeiDou (BDS). For this reason, the absolute field antenna calibrations performed so far for the two legacy carrier frequencies, the GPS and GLONASS, seem to be insufficient. Hence, all antennas will require a re-calibration of their phase center variations for the new signals to ensure the highest measurement accuracy. Currently, two absolute calibration methods are used to calibrate GNSS antennas: field calibration using a robot and calibration in an anechoic chamber. Unfortunately, differences in these methodologies also result in a disparity in the obtained antenna phase center corrections (PCC). Therefore, we analyze the differences between individual PCC obtained with these two methods, specifically for the Leica AR-25 antenna model (LEIAR25). In addition, the influence of PCC differences on the GNSS-derived position time series for 19 EUREF Permanent GNSS Network (EPN) stations was also assessed. The results show that the calibration method has a noticeable impact on PCC models. PCC differences determined for the ionosphere-free combination may reach up over 20 mm and can be transferred to the position domain. Further tests concerning the positioning accuracy showed that for horizontal coordinates differences between solutions were mostly below 1 mm, exceeding 2 mm only at two stations for the GLONASS solution. However, the height component differences exceeded 5 mm for four, six and six stations out of 19 for the GPS, GLONASS and Galileo solutions, respectively. These differences are strongly dependent on large L2 calibration differences.

show abstract

Section: Compatibility Of the Results With The Cumulative Epn Solutionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Antenna phase center correction differences from robot and chamber calibrations: the case study LEIAR25

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Geodynamics implication of GPS and satellite altimeter and gravity observations to the Eastern Mediterranean

Cited by 1 publication

References 26 publications

Antenna phase center correction differences from robot and chamber calibrations: the case study LEIAR25

Antenna phase center correction differences from robot and chamber calibrations: the case study LEIAR25

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About