Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 479–490 | Cite as

The improvement of strain estimation using universal kriging

Article

Abstract

In this paper, universal kriging with linear trend is used to interpolate the strain tensor elements over a region along San Andreas Fault in California. The main goal of this paper is to improve the ordinary kriging interpolation results. A 7-year time series (2006–2012) of 12 permanent stations is utilized to obtain the coordinate changes in UTM coordinates system and calculate the strain tensor elements by means of finite difference method. Comparing the results we can find an improvement about 40 % for universal kriging at critical points in which ordinary kriging can’t be appropriate method of interpolation.

Keywords

Strain Ordinary kriging Universal kriging Linear model 

References

  1. Ardalan AA, Raoofian M (2008) A proposal for deformation analysis via direct computation of strain tensor elements from the time-wise changes in the distances and angles in a geodetic network; case study: deformation computation of the geodynamic network of Iran. J Phys Earth Space 35(2):37–60 (In Persian)Google Scholar
  2. Bagherifam T (2014) Investigation of strain analysis method validity in geodynamics displacements using GNSS data. Master Theses. University of Isfahan, Isfahan (In Persian)Google Scholar
  3. Bastin G, Lorent B, Duque C, Gevers M (1984) Optimal estimation of the average rainfall and optimal selection of raingage locations. Water Resour Res 20(4):463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker TW, Kaus BJP (2010) Numerical geodynamics; an introduction to computational methods with focus on solid earth applications of continuum mechanics. University of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  5. Borrough PA (1986) Principles of geographical information systems for land resources assessment. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Burbank DW, Anderson RS (2008) Tectonic geomorphology, 7th edn. Balckwell Science, Malden, Oxford, CarltonGoogle Scholar
  7. Chirlin GR, Dagan G (1980) Theoritical head variogram for steady flow in statistically homogeneous aquifers. Water Resour Res 16(6):1001–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duc H, Shannon I, Azzi M (2000) Spatial distribution characteristics of some air pollutants in Sydney. Math Comput Simul 54(1–3):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards CH, Penney DE (1982) Calculus and analytic geometry. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 146–149Google Scholar
  10. Freed AM, Ali ST, Burgmann R (2007) Evolution of stress in Southern California for the past 200 years from coseismic, postseismic and interseismic stress changes. Geophys J Int 169(3):1164–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goovaert P (1997) Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation: applied geostatitistics series. Oxford University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Gundugdu KS, Guney I (2007) Spatial analyses of groundwater levelsusing universal kriging. J Earth Syst Sci 116(1):49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hill M, Alexandar F (1989) Statistical methods used in assessing the risk of disease near a source of possible environmental pollution: a review. J R Stat Soc 152:353–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ismaeil-Zadeh A, Tackley P (2008) Computational method for geodynamics. Moscow, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Kreemer C, Holt WE, Haines AJ (2003) An integrated global model of present-day plate motions and plate boundary deformation. Geophys J Int 154(1):8–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mashhadi Hossainali M, Becker M, Groten E (2010) Comprehensive approach to the analysis of the 3D kinematics deformation with application to the Kenai Peninsula. J Geod Sci 1(1):59–73Google Scholar
  17. Palano M, Imprescia P, Gresta S (2013) Currentstressandstrain-rate fields across the Dead Sea fault system: constraints from seismological data and GPS observations. Earth Planet Sci Lett 369–370:305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rontogianni S (2010) Comparison of geodetic and seismic strain rates in Greece by using a uniform processing approach to campaign GPS measurements over the interval 1994–2000. J Geodyn 50:381–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tong X, Sandwell DT, Smith-Konter B (2012) High-resolution interseismic velocity data along the San Andreas Fault from GPS and InSAR. J Geophys 118:1–21Google Scholar
  20. Turcott DL, Schubert G (2002) Geodynamics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. White JG, Welch RM, Norvell WA (1997) Soil ZincMap of the USA using geostatistics and geographic information systems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61(1):185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geomatics Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of IsfahanEsfahānIran

Personalised recommendations