Abstract

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.

Highlights

  • When discrepancies are found between Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) and geodetic data, these mostly occur at benchmarks located in proximity to the main normal faults, falling within the same Small BAseline Subset (SBAS) ground pixel or closer to the same Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI) target, regardless of whether they are in the footwall or hanging wall of the fault

  • The results after the multi-temporal InSAR processing show that within the state boundary (~5628 km2 ), the density of the retrieved coherent targets from the low-pass analysis with the SBAS method is on average 55 targets/km2 for each dataset, ascending and descending. These average figures account for the fact that sparse target networks are found in rural areas, and that very dense target distributions are obtained within the capital city Aguascalientes, other towns, and bare lands within the state

  • The reliability of InSAR techniques, either based on PSI or SBAS approaches, has already been demonstrated in the literature, and their currently increasing implementation in operational workflows suggests that InSAR can today be considered a wellestablished method for ground deformation applications and surveying

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Among the various surveying methods, two-pass and multi-temporal Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) techniques started to be exploited in the 1990s [3,4] These techniques are well-established and increasingly used by the geoscience community for scientific applications, as well as more operational tasks, such as monitoring and mapping services at a local to continental scale (e.g., [5,6,7,8,9,10]). Accuracy indicates the systematic errors of InSAR estimates against the true values (or external independent measurements) It is usually evaluated by comparing InSAR products with independent geodetic monitoring data that are used as reference. Accuracy can inform about the capability of InSAR to provide reliable estimates on the deformation process under investigation

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call