Advertisement

Dependence of IGS Products on the ITRF Datum

  • J. R. RayEmail author
  • P. Rebischung
  • R. Schmid
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 138)

Abstract

Throughout its nearly two decades, the International GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite Systems) Service (IGS) has sought to align its products closely to successive realizations of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF). This has been disruptive for IGS users at times, especially during the 1990s when some radical ITRF datum choices were adopted. During the past decade, IGS impacts due to ITRF updates have been smaller and mostly caused by errors in the results from the contributing space geodetic techniques.

Frame orientations (rotations) are purely conventional, so the IGS relies on the ITRF via a subset of reliable, globally distributed stations. Except for the period when ITRF93 was used, this procedure has worked well. The IGS origin in principle could be self-reliant or contributory to ITRF by direct observation of a frame origin aligned to the long-term center of mass of the entire Earth system. In practice, however, GNSS-based results have been less reliable than those from satellite laser ranging (SLR). So the ITRF origin, based on SLR only, has been adopted historically. Until the transition from ITRF2005 to ITRF2008, there have sometimes been significant origin shifts as SLR results have evolved. However, the present stability of the ITRF origin may finally have reached the few-mm level.

In many respects, the IGS dependence on the ITRF scale is most subtle and problematic. In addition to an overall Helmert alignment of the IGS frame to match the ITRF scale (and other datum parameters), since 2006 the IGS calibration values for the GNSS satellite antenna z-offsets depend directly on the same ITRF scale (due to high correlations if the IGS frame scale is not fixed). We therefore face a non-linear situation to maintain full consistency between all IGS products and the ITRF scale: each IGS frame contribution to ITRF based on one set of antenna calibrations must be used, together with frames from other techniques, to determine an updated ITRF and new antenna calibrations, which are then no longer strictly consistent with the starting IGS frame. One can hope that the process will iteratively converge eventually. But large shifts in the ITRF scale, such as the −1ppb change from ITRF2005 to ITRF2008, are highly disturbing, much more so than the associated rotational or translational shifts.

Only SLR and very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) have been considered reliable and accurate enough to be used for the ITRF scale. But experience and theoretical studies have shown that neither is accurate to better than about 1ppb. Note in particular that a 1ppb uncertainty in the GM constant fundamentally limits the possible scale agreement between SLR and VLBI to no better. Consequently, the authors strongly urge that the ITRF scale hereafter be fixed conventionally to the ITRF2008 scale indefinitely until it is convincingly shown that VLBI and/or SLR can determine the ITRF scale within 0.5ppb. If this is not done, the IGS might maintain its own ITRF2008 scaled frame to minimize future operational dislocations.

Keywords

Reference frames International GNSS service (IGS) International terrestrial reference frame (ITRF) Terrestrial scale Antenna calibration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The private and very helpful contributions of Jan Kouba are greatly appreciated. Xavier Collilieux has been instrumental in developing the framework to determine PCO estimates using prior analysis solutions with a fixed terrestrial scale. All components of the IGS (Dow et al. 2009) have been indispensible in carrying out this work.

References

  1. Altamimi Z, Collilieux X, Métivier L (2011) ITRF2008 : an improved solution of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame. J Geod 85(8):457–473. doi:  10.1007/s00190-011-0444-4 Google Scholar
  2. Barnes RTH, Hide R, White AA, Wilson CA (1983) Atmospheric angular momentum fluctuations, length-of-day changes and polar motion. Proc R Soc Lond A 387:31–73. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1983.0050 Google Scholar
  3. Cardellach E, Elósegui P, Davis JL (2007) Global distortion of GPS networks associated with satellite antenna model errors. J Geophys Res 112:B07405. doi: 10.1029/2006JB004675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dow JM, Neilan RE, Rizos C (2009) The International GNSS Service in a changing landscape of Global Navigation Satellite Systems. J Geod 83(3–4):191–198. doi: 10.1007/s00190-008-0300-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gendt G, Griffiths J, Nischan T, Ray J (2010) IGS reprocessing – summary of orbit/clock combination and first quality assessment. Presentation at IGS Workshop, Newcastle upon Tyne, available at acc.igs.org/repro1/repro1_IGSW10.pdfGoogle Scholar
  6. Gross RS, Fukumori I, Menemenlis D (2005) Atmospheric and oceanic excitation of decadal-scale Earth orientation variations. J Geophys Res 110:B09405. doi: 10.1029/2004JB003565 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hugentobler U (2005) Models in GNSS data analysis. Presentation at COMET – Advances in GPS data processing and modeling for geodynamics. University College London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. IGS ACC (2010) IGS Analysis Center Coordinator. Website at acc.igs.orgGoogle Scholar
  9. Kouba J (2005) Comparison of polar motion with oceanic and atmospheric angular momentum time series for 2-day to Chandler periods. J Geod 79(1-3):33–42. doi: 10.1007/s00190-005-0440-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kouba J (2010) ITRF2008 and IGS repro1 polar motion comparisons with AAM + OAM. Private communication, available electronically at acc.igs.org/trf/ITRF08ERPcomp.pdfGoogle Scholar
  11. Petit G, Luzum B (eds) (2010) IERS Conventions (2010) IERS Technical Note 36, Verlag des Bundesamts für Kartographie und Geodäsie, Frankfurt am Main, 179 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Salstein DA, Rosen RD (1997) Global momentum and energy signals from reanalysis systems. In: 7th Conference on climate variations. American Meteorological Society, Boston, pp 344–348Google Scholar
  13. Schmid R, Steigenberger P, Gendt G, Ge M, Rothacher M (2007) Generation of a consistent absolute phase center correction model for GPS receiver and satellite antennas. J Geod 81(12):781–798. doi: 10.1007/s00190-007-0148-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NOAA National Geodetic SurveySilver SpringUSA
  2. 2.IGN/LAREG, Université Paris DiderotParisFrance
  3. 3.Institut für Astronomische und Physikalische GeodäsieTechnische Universität MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations