Centre de documentation
scientifique

Quantitative assessment of meteorological and tropospheric Zenith Hydrostatic Delay models / Di Zhang in Advances in space research, vol 58 n° 6 (September 2016)  

Public [article]  inAdvances in space research > vol 58 n° 6 (September 2016) . - pp 1033 - 1043 Titre : Quantitative assessment of meteorological and tropospheric Zenith Hydrostatic Delay models Type de document : Article/Communication Auteurs : Di Zhang, Auteur ; Jiming Guo, Auteur ; Ming Chen, Auteur ; Junbo Shi, Auteur ; Lv Zhou, Auteur Année de publication : 2016 Article en page(s) : pp 1033 - 1043 Note générale : bibliographie Langues : Anglais (eng) Descripteur : [Termes IGN] analyse comparative [Termes IGN] erreur systématique [Termes IGN] évaluation [Termes IGN] modèle atmosphérique [Termes IGN] modèle numérique [Termes IGN] radiosondage [Termes IGN] retard troposphérique [Termes IGN] retard troposphérique zénithal [Vedettes matières IGN] Traitement de données GNSS Résumé : (auteur) Tropospheric delay has always been an important issue in GNSS/DORIS/VLBI/InSAR processing. Most commonly used empirical models for the determination of tropospheric Zenith Hydrostatic Delay (ZHD), including three meteorological models and two empirical ZHD models, are carefully analyzed in this paper. Meteorological models refer to UNB3m, GPT2 and GPT2w, while ZHD models include Hopfield and Saastamoinen. By reference to in-situ meteorological measurements and ray-traced ZHD values of 91 globally distributed radiosonde sites, over a four-years period from 2010 to 2013, it is found that there is strong correlation between errors of model-derived values and latitudes. Specifically, the Saastamoinen model shows a systematic error of about −3 mm. Therefore a modified Saastamoinen model is developed based on the “best average” refractivity constant, and is validated by radiosonde data. Among different models, the GPT2w and the modified Saastamoinen model perform the best. ZHD values derived from their combination have a mean bias of −0.1 mm and a mean RMS of 13.9 mm. Limitations of the present models are discussed and suggestions for further improvements are given. Numéro de notice : A2016-593 Affiliation des auteurs : non IGN Thématique : POSITIONNEMENT Nature : Article nature-HAL : ArtAvecCL-RevueIntern DOI : 10.1016/j.asr.2016.05.055 En ligne : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2016.05.055 Format de la ressource électronique : URL article Permalink : https://documentation.ensg.eu/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=81750 [article]