1 / 29

Thought Experiments on Plate Fixed” coordinates and “Temporal coordinates”

Thought Experiments on Plate Fixed” coordinates and “Temporal coordinates” A webinar for Monthly Height Mod Meeting Dru Smith Chief Geodesist NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey. A thought experiment concerning time dependent coordinates on passive control: Possible?.

mamador
Download Presentation

Thought Experiments on Plate Fixed” coordinates and “Temporal coordinates”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Thought Experiments on Plate Fixed” coordinates and “Temporal coordinates” A webinar for Monthly Height Mod Meeting Dru Smith Chief Geodesist NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey Webinar for Monthly Height Mod Meeting

  2. A thought experiment concerning time dependent coordinates on passive control:Possible?

  3. Assume “H” was determined four different times: 1990: 2.100 1994: 2.110 2002: 2.190 2009: 2.180 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 H 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  4. If we assume the point is moving linearly through time, a line can be fit to these measurements to estimate that motion 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 H 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  5. And knowing that motion through time, we can predict “H” at any given year (in this example, at even five year intervals) 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 H 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  6. Note that in this case, we have assumed the four values of “H” are perfect, and therefore the line is a simple best fit with: H = mt+b m = 0.00495 m/y (+4.95 cm uplift per year) b(1970) = 2.002 m 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 H 2.150 H = (0.00495)(t-1970) + 2.002 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  7. 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 H 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  8. ±5.5 cm These values, in turn, can be propagated in time to determine the standard deviation of H at any time. These standard deviations grow as one moves into time before the first observation and after the last observation. 2.350 ±4.5 cm ±3.7 cm 2.300 ±3.0 cm 2.250 ±2.2 cm ±1.6 cm 2.200 H ±1.2 cm ±1.4 cm 2.150 ±1.9 cm ±2.6 cm 2.100 ±3.4 cm ±4.2 cm ±5.0 cm 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  9. However, all measurements have error. Shown here are the same values of “H”, but with error bars representing their standard deviations. 1990: 2.100 +/- 0.0375 (3.75 cm) 1994: 2.110 +/- 0.0250 (2.50 cm) 2002: 2.190 +/- 0.0200 (2.00 cm) 2009: 2.180 +/- 0.0250 (2.50 cm) 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 H 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  10. In a similar way as before, we fit a line, but now using appropriate weights to fit to the data 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 H 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  11. Note that the previous linear fit is different than the newly weighted one. We still use H = mt+b, but now: m = 0.00505 m/y (+5.05 cm uplift per year) b(1970) = 2.004 m See now that uplift is 1 mm/year more than the previous estimate. 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 H 2.150 H = (0.00505)(t-1970) + 2.004 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  12. Again, we can find H at various time intervals. 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 H 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  13. But now the error propagation through time depends on the actual measurement errors. 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 H 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  14. Overlaying the old and new estimates exemplifies the magnitude of their differences. 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 H 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  15. As such, an NGS datasheet may have a graph like this for: h (t) ? h (t) ? H (t) ? 2.350 ITRF20xx 2.300 NAD2022 NAVD2022 2.250 2.200 H 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  16. Because latitude and longitude will behave significantly differently in a plate-fixed system than in ITRF, such graphs may look different. 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 H 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  17. A thought experiment concerning “plate fixed” coordinates:How and why?

  18. “Plate-Fixed”: Historic Issue • NAD 83 was theoretically “plate fixed” • Tectonic rotation removed • Based on a now-obsolete rotation model • Should have no systematic time-dependent latitude or longitude signal in “stable” areas except at very small (< 1 mm/y) residual, non-systematic levels.

  19. “Plate-Fixed”: Historic Issue NAD 83(2011) epoch 2010.00 minus NAD 83(NSRS2007) epoch 2002.0

  20. Assumptions • Assume: • CORS exists • ITRF coordinates on CORS are known from 1994 to 2022 • Presumes the reference frame is determined continuously through time, and discontinuities in ITRF coordinates at CORS (due to earthquakes, antenna changes, etc.) are known and accounted for. • Differential GPS is used to position passive control in the ITRF by holding CORS fixed • At the epoch of the survey

  21. Assume the ITRF value of “l” was determined eight different times at one passive control point 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 l 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  22. Assume also NGS has a model of plate rotation from CORS which fits our station poorly for a few years…. 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 l 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  23. Until an earthquake occurs…. 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 l 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  24. At which point our plate rotation model still doesn’t fit perfectly. 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 l 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  25. At this point, NGS has provided good, solid scientific information about the longitude on the point within ITRF. But then what? 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 l 2.150 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  26. Should we remove the plate rotation? 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 l 2.150 That still won’t make the longitude constant in time… 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  27. Should we model the earthquake’s displacement and remove it too? 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 l 2.150 That still won’t make the longitude constant in time… 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  28. Should we model the residual deformations that are left in the station? 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 l 2.150 So now, depending on how well we model those residual deformations, the longitude gets sorta constant. 2.100 2.050 2.000 1975 1985 1980 1990 2015 2025 1995 2005 2020 2030 2000 2010 time

  29. Why? • What is the goal of modeling and removing every signal? • Do you really want your old survey longitude to match a new survey longitude in an Earthquake area? • Do you really want to ignore the fact that the point isn’t rotating at the average angular velocity of the other points on the plate?

More Related