GPS Solutions

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 345–354 | Cite as

Assessment of troposphere mapping functions using three-dimensional ray-tracing

  • Landon Urquhart
  • Felipe G. Nievinski
  • Marcelo C. Santos
Original Article

Abstract

The troposphere delay is an important source of error for precise GNSS positioning due to its high correlation with the station height parameter. It has been demonstrated that errors in mapping functions can cause sub-annual biases as well as affect the repeatability of GNSS solutions, which is a particular concern for geophysical studies. Three-dimensional ray-tracing through numerical weather models (NWM) is an excellent approach for capturing the directional and daily variation of the tropospheric delay. Due to computational complexity, its use for positioning purposes is limited, but it is an excellent tool for evaluating current state-of-the-art mapping functions used for geodetic positioning. Many mapping functions have been recommended in the past such as the Niell Mapping Function (NMF), Vienna Mapping Function 1 (VMF1), and the Global Mapping Function (GMF), which have been adopted by most IGS analysis centers. A new Global Pressure Temperature model (GPT2) has also been developed, which has been shown to improve upon the original atmospheric model used for the GMF. Although the mapping functions mentioned above use the same functional formulation, they vary in terms of their atmospheric source and calibration approach. A homogeneous data set of three-dimensional ray-traced delays is used to evaluate all components of the mapping functions, including their underlying functional formulation, calibration, and compression method. Additionally, an alternative representation of the VMF1 is generated using the same atmospheric source as the truth data set to evaluate the differences in ray-tracing methods and their effect on the end mapping function. The results of this investigation continue to support the use of the VMF1 as the mapping function of choice when geodetic parameters are of interest. Further support for the GPT2 and GMF as reliable back-ups when the VMF1 is not available was found due to their high consistency with the NWM-derived mapping function. Additionally, a small latitude-dependent bias in station height was found in the current mapping functions. This bias was identified to be due to the assumption of a constant radius of the earth and was largest at the poles and at the equator. Finally, an alternative version of the VMF1 is introduced, namely the UNB-VMF1 which provides users with an independent NWM-derived mapping function to support geodetic positioning.

Keywords

Troposphere Numerical weather models Mapping functions 

References

  1. Boehm J, Schuh H (2004) Vienna mapping functions in VLBI analyses. Geophys Res Lett 31:L01603. doi:10.1029/2003GLO18984 Google Scholar
  2. Boehm J, Niell AE, Tregoning P, Schuh H (2006a) Global Mapping Function (GMF): A new empirical mapping function based on numerical weather model data. Geophys Res Lett 33:L07304-1–L07304-4. doi:10.1029/2005GL025546
  3. Boehm J, Werl B, Schuh H (2006b) Troposphere mapping functions for GPS and very long baseline interferometry from European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts operational analysis data. J Geophys Res 111:B02406. doi:10.1029/2005JB003629 Google Scholar
  4. Boehm J, Heinkelmann R, Schuh H (2007) Short note: a global model of pressure and temperature for geodetic applications. J Geod 81(10):679–683. doi:10.1007/s00190-007-0135-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boehm J, Kouba J, Schuh H (2008) Forecast vienna mapping functions 1 for real-time analysis of space geodetic observations. J Geod 83:397–401. doi:10.1007/s00190-008-0216-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dow JM, Neilan RE, Rizos C (2009) The international GNSS Service in a changing landscape of global navigation satellite systems. J Geod 83:191–198. doi:10.1007/s00190-008-0300-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eresmaa R, Nordman M, Poutanen M, Syrjärinne J, Luntama J-P, Järvinen H (2008) Parameterization of tropospheric delay correction for mobile GNSS positioning: a case study of a cold front passage. Meteorol Appl 15:447–454. doi:10.1002/met.86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Herring TA (1992) Modelling atmospheric delays in the analysis of space geodetic data. In: de Munck JC, Spoelstra TAT (eds) Proceedings of the symposium refraction of transatmospheric signals in geodesy. The Netherlands, The Hague, pp 157–164Google Scholar
  9. Hobiger T, Shimada S, Shimizu S, Ichikawa R, Koyama Y, Kondo T (2010) Improving GPS positioning estimates during extreme weather situations by the help of fine-mesh numerical weather models. J Atmos Sol-Terr Phys 72:262–270. doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.11.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ichikawa R, Hobiger T, Koyama Y, Kondo T (2008) An evaluation of the practicability of current mapping functions using ray-traced delays from JMA mesoscale numerical weather data. Proceedings of the international symposium on GPS/GNSS. The Institute of Positioning, Navigation and Timing of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, pp 5–12Google Scholar
  11. Kouba J (2008) Implementation and testing of the gridded Vienna Mapping Function 1 (VMF1). J Geod 82:193–205. doi:10.1007/s00190-007-0170-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lagler K, Schindelegger M, Böhm J, Krásná H, and Nilsson T (2013) GPT2: empirical slant delay model for radio space geodetic techniques. Geophys Res Lett 40:1069–1073. doi:10.1002/grl.50288 Google Scholar
  13. MacMillan DS, Ma C (1998) Using meteorological data assimilation models in computing tropospheric delays at micrwave [sic] frequencies. Phys Chem Earth 23:97–102. doi:10.1016/S0079-1946(97)00249-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marini JW (1972) Correction of satellite tracking data for an arbitrary tropospheric profile. Radio Sci 7:223–231. doi:10.1029/RS007i002p00223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Niell AE (1996) Global mapping functions for the atmosphere delay at radio wavelengths. J Geophys Res 101:3227–3246. doi:10.1029/95JB03048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nievinski FG, Santos M (2010) Ray-tracing options to mitigate the neutral atmosphere delay in GPS. Geomatica 64:191–207Google Scholar
  17. Pany A, Boehm J, Schuh H, Hobiger T, Ichikaya R (2009) Modeling azimuthal asymmetries of the troposphere delay during a 14-days typhoon period in Tsukuba. Proceedings of the 19th Working Meeting on European VLBI for Geodesy and AstrometryGoogle Scholar
  18. Rüeger JM (2002) Refractive index formulae for radio waves. FIG XXII International Congress, Washington, DC., USA, April 19-26Google Scholar
  19. Tesmer V, Boehm J, Heinkelman R, Schuh H (2007) Effect of different tropospheric mapping functions on the TRF, CRF and position time-series estimated from VLBI. J Geod 81:409–421. doi:10.1007/s00190-006-0126-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Urquhart L, Nievinski FG, Santos MC (2012) Ray-traced slant factors for mitigating the tropospheric delay at the observation level. J Geod 86:149–160. doi:10.1007/s00190-011-0503-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vey S, Dietrich R, Fritsche M, Rülke A, Rothacher M, Steigenberger P (2006) Influence of mapping function parameters on global GPS network analyses: comparisons between NMF and IMF. Geophys Res Lett 33:L01814. doi:10.1029/2005GL024361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Landon Urquhart
    • 1
    • 2
  • Felipe G. Nievinski
    • 3
  • Marcelo C. Santos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geodesy and Geomatics EngineeringUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada
  2. 2.Nexteq NavigationCalgaryCanada
  3. 3.Department of Aerospace Engineering SciencesUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations