Abstract
A global combined GNSS velocity field with almost 13,400 sites has been derived by the International Association of Geodesy’s Joint Working Group 3.2. The combined field is aligned to the ITRF2020 and gathers global and regional velocity fields computed by nineteen groups using different approaches. In addition to the combined velocities and their uncertainties, the combination also provides the alignment of each velocity field to the ITRF2020, the scaling of their velocity uncertainty and the estimated repeatability of the velocity estimates across the different groups at almost 3,000 sites. The median repeatability is at the level of 0.17 and 0.27 mm/yr for the horizontal and vertical velocities. Up to 11 % of the sites show poor velocity repeatability exceeding 3 times the median values.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Keywords
1 Introduction
GNSS velocities estimated by different groups differ due to several factors including the different strategies to compute the station positions from the raw GNSS observations, the completeness of the time series, their level of noise, the removed position discontinuities, and the alignment to a terrestrial reference frame. Among these factors, the detection and handling of position discontinuities that populate the GNSS time series has probably the biggest impact on the velocity estimates (Williams 2003; Griffiths and Ray 2016). Even when using the same GNSS position time series, it is common for different analysts to provide different velocity estimates and uncertainties, mainly due to the different choices of handling position discontinuities (Gazeaux et al. 2013).
Position discontinuities can be classified in four groups. The first group includes apparent position discontinuities generated when the GNSS antennas are replaced. They are an indication that the phase center corrections obtained from antenna calibrations do not reflect in general the actual antenna radiation pattern on the field, creating an apparent position change when antennas are replaced (Wanninger 2009). The second group includes a wide range of situations, often poorly understood, related to changes of the antenna environment, the signal tracking or the settings of the receiver’s frontend. The third group includes those situations where the position discontinuity is generated when estimating the station positions from the raw GNSS observations, for instance due to an incorrect use of the station’s metadata: outdated antenna calibration, wrong antenna model, wrong antenna orientation or wrong antenna eccentricity. Discontinuities from the previous three groups can introduce changes in the estimated station position that do not reflect any position change of the station’s benchmark. The last fourth group of discontinuities are generated by earthquakes, which can offset the position of the station’s benchmark if estimated in a conventional coordinate frame that is not affected by the earthquake itself. Not all the antenna changes, nor all the earthquakes, will introduce a significant position discontinuity. This fact, and the potential occurrences of discontinuities from the second and third groups, implies that different analysts will remove different sets of position discontinuities, even if they use exactly the same series (Gazeaux et al. 2013).
The International Association of Geodesy’s Joint Working Group 3.2 “Global combined GNSS velocity field” (2019–2023) was created to support the scientific community using GNSS velocities in fields such as tectonics, sea-level change, land subsidence and global isostatic adjustment (GIA) modelling. The objective of this JWG is to combine and compare the available global and regional GNSS velocity fields obtained by different groups from both network and precise point positioning (PPP) solutions.
This contribution presents the combined global GNSS velocity field, the methodology followed to combine the input velocity fields and the results of their comparison.
2 Input GNSS Velocity Fields
Nineteen GNSS velocity fields have been gathered and used in the combination (Table 1). The geographical distribution of each velocity field is shown in Figure 1 of the supplemental material.
The input velocity fields considered for the combination include:
-
The International Terrestrial Reference Frame 2020 velocity field (Altamimi et al. 2023), which is the velocity field used as datum to constrain the origin, orientation and scale of the combined velocity field, i.e., no global drift exists between the ITRF2020 and the combined velocity field. This velocity field is available at https://itrf.ign.fr/ftp/pub/itrf/itrf2020/ITRF2020-IGS-TRF.SNX.gz (Dec 6 2021)
-
Solutions from several IAG regional commissions, like EUREF (Legrand 2022), available at https://epncb.oma.be/ftp/station/coord/EPN/EPN_IGb14_C2235.SNX.Z (Oct 13 2023); APREF (John Dawson, personal communication, Jan 31 2022) and SIRGAS (Sánchez and Drewes 2020), available at https://hs.pangaea.de/model/VEMOS2017/SIR17P01.zip (Oct 13 2023). The velocity field of the NAREF commission was not finalized in time, but its main components were included in the combination, namely the velocity fields from NGS (MYCS2, Phillip McFarland, personal communication, May 9 2022) and NRCAN (CBN, Michael Craymer, personal communication, May 5 2022).
-
Several global solutions such as the JPL (repro2018a, Heflin et al. 2020), available at https://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/post/tables/table2.html (Jan 4 2022); NCL (NCL20, Vardić et al. 2022), available at https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.935079 (May 5 2022); NGL (MIDAS5, Blewitt et al. 2018), available at http://geodesy.unr.edu/velocities/midas.IGS14.txt (Oct 14 2023); SOPAC/ESESES (Bock et al. 2021), available at https://cddis.nasa.gov/archive/GPS_Explorer/archive/time_series/V1/2022/GLB_Clean_TrendNeuTimeSeries_sopac_20220117.tar.gz (Jan 17 2022); and ULR (ULR7a, Gravelle et al. 2023), available at https://www.sonel.org/IMG/txt/ulr7_vertical_velocities.txt (Oct 20 2023).
-
Several regional solutions, mostly in Europe and North America, such as the EOST (SPOTGINS, Michel et al. 2021; personal communication, Jan 7 2022), EPND (D2200, Kenyeres et al. 2019), available at https://epnd.sgo-penc.hu/downloads/D2200/EPND_D2200_IGS14NEU.VEL (Oct 14 2023); the EPOS solutions from INGV (v2.0, INGV RING 2016), LTK, and UGA (Socquet and Janex 2019), available at https://gnssproducts.epos.ubi.pt/filemanager (Jan 20 2022); the EarthScope solutions (Herring et al. 2016) from CWU, NMT and PBO velocity fields, available at https://gage-data.earthscope.org/archive/gnss/products/velocity (Feb 17 2024).
The inclusion of large global velocity fields in the combination, like NGL and JPL (see Table 1), helps making more robust the alignment of sparse regional velocity fields, like SIRGAS, by maximizing the number of sites used in the alignment to the ITRF2020. The number of common sites between each input velocity field is given in Table 1 of the supplemental material. Velocity fields with a geographical extension smaller than the continental scale were not considered in the combination due to limitations in their accurate alignment to a global reference frame (see Table 3 of the supplemental material).
The numbers of sites given in Table 1 correspond to the sites that were considered from each input velocity field. The sites retained for the combination have at least 5 years of data and a constant velocity, i.e., sites with velocity discontinuities were excluded. The threshold of 5 years of data was considered as a tradeoff between including the maximum number of sites and minimizing the secular velocity errors due to interannual deformation (Santamaría-Gómez and Mémin 2015). Other criteria to exclude sites were null velocity uncertainty or velocity uncertainty larger than 1 mm/yr, which should reject sites with strong non-linearity, excessive amount of discontinuities or substantial missing data.
The sites retained in each input velocity field were verified for duplicates, i.e., sites with the same 4-character IDs located at different places. Comparison of the coordinates of all the sites resulted in 223 duplicated sites being renamed (see Table 2 of the supplemental material).
After the verification of duplicated sites, the coordinates of each site were still slightly different across the input velocity fields, mainly due to the chosen reference epoch, which was unknown in most of the input velocity fields. The coordinates of the sites in each velocity field were replaced by a set of common coordinates. This way, the weighting of each velocity field in the combination process will only include the contribution of the velocity residuals.
A final preprocessing of the input velocity fields involved their conversion into SINEX format when necessary. Most of the input velocity fields are provided as ASCII tables in topocentric coordinates (see Table 1). These velocity fields were transformed into Cartesian coordinates while keeping the velocity covariances between the coordinates. Still in the case of velocity fields provided as ASCII tables, the velocity covariances between sites are unknown and were set to zero. For the velocity fields already provided in SINEX format, the covariances between sites were also set to zero to avoid down weighting these velocity fields.
3 Combination Method
The velocity field combination was carried out using the CATREF software (Altamimi et al. 2016) and involved four steps.
In the first step we attributed an a priori weight to each input velocity field, i.e., before any comparison of the velocity estimates. The approach followed to compute the velocity uncertainties varies among the input velocity fields, and they do not necessarily reflect realistic velocity errors in an absolute sense. They can nevertheless be assumed to reflect the relative proportions of the velocity errors of different sites within a given velocity field. Therefore, variance factors were computed to harmonize the uncertainties of the input velocity fields. The a priori variance factors were estimated with the starting assumption that all input velocity fields have the same average velocity error. Assuming an average velocity error of 0.1 mm/yr and 0.3 mm/yr for horizontal and vertical velocities respectively, the average 3D velocity error was set to \( \sqrt{0.1^{{}^2}+{0.1}^{{}^2}+{0.3}^{{}^2}}=\sqrt{0.11} \) mm/yr. The a priori variance factor of each input velocity field i was thus computed as:
where \( {\sigma}_{3{D}_i}^2 \) represents the average squared 3D velocity uncertainty of the velocity field i. Due to the different numbers and geographic distributions of sites among the input velocity fields, the average 3D uncertainty was obtained from a subset of common sites between the input velocity fields.
In the second step, the input velocity fields were iteratively combined using the variance factors from the first step. Drifts in the origin, orientation and scale of each input velocity field were estimated with respect to the ITRF2020 velocity field. After each iteration, sites with velocity residuals larger than 0.7 or 2 mm/yr for the horizontal and vertical velocities, respectively, were considered as outliers and removed from the next iteration. These thresholds were chosen as being 7 times the a priori average velocity error in the first step, so that only extreme velocity errors were removed. Only one site per velocity field and only one velocity estimate per site present in several velocity fields was removed at each iteration.
Once there were no more outliers to eliminate, in a third step, a posteriori variance factors were estimated based on the variance of the residuals of each velocity field. The outliers iteratively removed in the second step ensure the gaussianity of the velocity residuals, from which the a posteriori variance factors were obtained.
In the fourth and last step, a final iterative combination was carried out using the a posteriori variance factors from the third step to weight the input velocity fields. Due to the change of the weights of the input velocity fields, all the previously removed outliers were included and assessed again. Velocity outliers were removed using similar criteria as in the second step. For each iteration, we removed one velocity outlier per site, but only for those sites for which the outlier velocity could be identified unambiguously, i.e., sites having more than two velocity estimates available and a velocity residual that is significantly larger than the rest. This way, the combined velocity field includes sites for which the estimated velocity among the input velocity fields is ambiguous, which is reflected by a larger repeatability and uncertainty of the combined velocity. In addition, since changes of the weight of each input velocity field barely affects their estimated alignment, the alignment parameters (origin, orientation and scale drifts) of the velocity fields were held fixed to the ones obtained in the second step. This way, multiple velocity outliers could be removed from each input velocity field in the same iteration, which drastically reduced the number of iterations needed with no loss of rigor in the results. In total, 223 velocity outliers were removed, ranging between 0 and 55 outliers among the input velocity fields (see Table 7 of the supplemental material). The final combined velocity field was obtained from the last iteration once all the velocity outliers were removed.
4 Results of the Combination
Table 2 shows the square-roots of the a posteriori variance factors used to weight each input velocity field. Applying these (square-root) variance factors to each input velocity field allows comparing them in terms of their average 3D velocity uncertainty (also in Table 2), which is inversely equivalent to their relative weight in the combination. Most of the input velocity fields have comparable a posteriori 3D median velocity uncertainties, mostly in the range 0.2–0.4 mm/yr. The two rightmost columns of Table 2 shows the WRMS of the 3D velocity differences between each input velocity field and the combined field, with and without correcting their alignment bias (see Table 3 of the supplemental material). Only stations present in several velocity fields were used to compute the WRMS. This WRMS can be interpreted as the distance between the combined and each input velocity field, also taking into account their misalignment.
The alignment parameters of the input velocity fields with respect to the ITRF2020 are well determined, with uncertainties in general smaller than 0.05 mm/yr, rising up to the level of 0.1 mm/yr for some of the regional velocity fields with a small number of sites (see Table 3 of the supplemental material). We also noticed a larger translation and scale drift in some of the regional velocity fields, most likely due, in part, to the correlation between the seven transformation parameters for velocity fields of small geographical extent.
Figures 1 and 2 show the combined horizontal and vertical velocity fields, respectively. The velocity estimates and their uncertainties can be found in Table 4 of the supplemental material. The combined field includes velocity estimates at 13,395 sites, from which 2,877 were present in more than four input velocity fields. These sites were used to assess the quality of the combined velocity field via the repeatability of site velocity across the input fields. The velocity repeatability can be considered as an alternative assessment of the velocity precision compared to the formal velocity uncertainty obtained from variance propagation of the models fitted to the GNSS position time series. For instance, the velocity repeatability includes the effect of the different time series used by the different groups and the different models fitted to them. However, the velocity repeatability is only available at those sites for which several velocity estimates are available in the input velocity fields. The velocity estimates for 7,207 sites are provided by a single velocity field, most of them by the NGL (5,791) and the EPND (921) velocity fields.
Figure 3 shows the histograms of the horizontal and vertical velocity repeatabilities (WRMS of the velocity residuals) per site. The median repeatability of the velocity estimates is 0.17 and 0.27 mm/yr for horizontal and vertical velocities, respectively; in close agreement with the values used as a priori average velocity errors. The estimated velocity repeatability per site can be found in Table 5 of the supplemental material.
The combination also helped to identify 327 sites out of 2,877 (11 %) for which the velocity repeatability is either larger than 0.45 mm/yr for horizontal velocities or larger than 0.75 mm/yr for vertical velocities (3 times the median values). The velocity repeatability per site was obtained after removing velocity outliers with deviations of several mm/yr, exceeding 1 cm/yr in a few cases. The rate of removed velocity outliers is typically less than 1% of the estimated velocities, but rises up to 10% for some velocity fields (see Table 7 of the supplemental material). There are several reasons that may explain a poor velocity repeatability, like noisy time series, the removal of different discontinuities and/or non-linear deformation due to post-seismic, hydrological loading or glacier discharge, among other processes (Riva et al. 2017; Gobron et al. 2021; Young et al. 2023). These sites should be used with caution, especially if their estimated linear velocities are extrapolated for long periods of time, as is common practice in sea-level (Wöppelmann et al. 2014) and GIA studies (King et al. 2022). By simple extrapolation, around 11% of the sites of the combined velocity field, but also of each input velocity field, might have poorly estimated velocities that may or may not be reflected by their formal velocity uncertainty.
5 Conclusions and Outlook
The International Association of Geodesy’s Joint Working Group 3.2 derived a global combined GNSS velocity field aligned to the ITRF2020 that gathers nineteen global and regional GNSS velocity fields computed by different groups. The combined field provides velocity estimates for 13,395 sites with at least 5 years of observations, completing by 1,849 sites the largest individual velocity field available.
More importantly, the combination allowed comparing the velocity estimates from the different groups and assessing their repeatability at 2,877 sites for which more than four velocity estimates were available. A median velocity repeatability at the level of 0.15 and 0.25 mm/yr was obtained for the horizontal and vertical velocities, respectively. However, up to 11% of the sites show poor velocity repeatability exceeding 3 times the median values. The estimated velocities at these sites should be used with caution.
For almost half the sites in the combined velocity field, the quality of the velocity estimates is given exclusively by the formal velocity uncertainty from a single velocity field. In this regard, the combination also provides estimated variance factors, based on the velocity repeatability across the input fields, which can be used to adjust the formal uncertainties of each input velocity field.
References
Altamimi Z, Rebischung P, Métivier L, Collilieux X (2016) ITRF2014: a new release of the international terrestrial reference frame modeling nonlinear station motions. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 121(8):6109–6131. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB013098
Altamimi Z, Rebischung P, Collilieux X, Métivier L, Chanard K (2023) ITRF2020: an augmented reference frame refining the modeling of nonlinear station motions. J Geod 97(47). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-023-01738-w
Blewitt G, Hammond WC, Kreemer C (2018) Harnessing the GPS data explosion for interdisciplinary science. Eos 99. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EO104623
Bock Y, Moore AW, Argus D, Fang P, Golriz D, Guns K, Jiang S, Kedar S, Knox SA, Liu Z, Sullivan A (2021) Extended solid earth science ESDR system (ES3): algorithm theoretical basis document, NASA MEaSUREs project #NNH17ZDA001N., http://garner.ucsd.edu/pub/measuresESESES_products/ATBD/ESESES-ATBD.pdf.
Gazeaux J, Williams S, King M, Bos M, Dach R, Deo M, Moore AW, Ostini L, Petrie E, Roggero M, Teferle FN, Olivares G, Webb FH (2013) Detecting offsets in GPS time series: first results from the detection of Offsets in GPS Experiment. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 118:2397–2407. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrb.50152
Gobron K, Rebischung P, Van Camp M, Demoulin A, de Viron O (2021) Influence of aperiodic non-tidal atmospheric and oceanic loading deformations on the stochastic properties of global GNSS vertical land motion time series. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 126:e2021JB022370. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JB022370
Gravelle M, Wöppelmann G, Gobron K, Altamimi Z, Guichard M, Herring T, Rebischung P (2023) The ULR-repro3 GPS data reanalysis and its estimates of vertical land motion at tide gauges for sea level science. Earth Syst Sci Data 15:497–509. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-497-2023
Griffiths J, Ray J (2016) Impacts of GNSS position offsets on global frame stability. Geophys J Int 204:1. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv455
Heflin M, Donnellan A, Parker J, Lyzenga G, Moore A, Ludwig LG, Rundle J, Wang J, Pierce M (2020) Automated estimation and tools to extract positions, velocities, breaks, and seasonal terms from daily GNSS measurements: illuminating nonlinear Salton Trough deformation. Earth Space Sci 7. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EA000644
Herring TA, Melbourne TI, Murray MH, Floyd MA, Szeliga WM, King RW, Phillips DA, Puskas CM, Santillan M, Wang L (2016) Plate boundary observatory and related networks: GPS data analysis methods and geodetic products. Rev Geophys 54. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016RG000529
INGV Ring Working Group (2016) RETE Integrata Nazionale GNSS, https://doi.org/10.13127/RING
Kenyeres A, Bellet JG, Bruyninx C, Caporali A, De Doncker F, Droscak B, Duret A, Franke P, Georgiev I, Bingley R, Huisman L, Jivall L, Khoda O, Kollo K, Kurt AI, Lahtinen S, Legrand J, Magyar B, Mesmaker D, Morozova K, Nagl J, Ozdemir S, Papanikolaouo X, Parseulinas E, Stangl G, Tangen OB, Valdes M, Ryczywolski M, Zurutuza J, Weber M (2019) Regional integration of long-term national dense GNSS network solutions. GPS Solut 23:122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-019-0902-7
King MA, Watson CS, White D (2022) GPS rates of vertical bedrock motion suggest late Holocene ice-sheet readvance in a critical sector of East Antarctica. Geophys Res Lett 49. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL097232
Legrand J (2022) EPN multi-year position and velocity solution C2235. Available from Royal Observatory of Belgium, https://doi.org/10.24414/ROB-EUREF-C2235
Michel A, Santamaría-Gómez A, Boy J-P, Perosanz F, Loyer S (2021) Analysis of GNSS displacements in Europe and their comparison with hydrological loading models. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13224523
Riva REM, Frederikse T, King MA, Marzeion B, van den Broeke MR (2017) Brief communication: the global signature of post-1900 land ice wastage on vertical land motion. The Cryosphere 11(1327–1332):2017. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1327-2017
Sánchez L, Drewes H (2020) SIRGAS reference frame realization SIR17P01. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.912349
Santamaría-Gómez A, Mémin A (2015) Geodetic secular velocity errors due to interannual surface loading deformation. Geophys J Int 202:2. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv190
Socquet A, Janex G (2019) GNSS position and velocity solutions calculated in the framework of the EPOS initiative with IGS final products. CNRS, OSUG, ISTERRE. https://doi.org/10.17178/GNSS.products.EPOS.2019
Vardić K, Clarke PJ, Whitehouse PL (2022) A GNSS velocity field for crustal deformation studies: The influence of glacial isostatic adjustment on plate motion models. Geophys J Int 231(1):426–458. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggac047
Wanninger L (2009) Correction of apparent position shifts caused by GNSS antenna changes. GPS Solut 13:133–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-008-0106-z
Williams SDP (2003) Offsets in global positioning system time series. J Geophys Res 108(B6):2310. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JB002156
Wöppelmann G, Marcos M, Santamaría-Gómez A, Martín-Míguez B, Bouin M-N, Gravelle M (2014) Evidence for a differential sea level rise between hemispheres over the twentieth century. Geophys Res Lett 41:1639–1643. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL059039
Young ZM, Kreemer C, Hammond WC, Blewitt G (2023) Interseismic strain accumulation between the Colorado Plateau and the Eastern California Shear Zone: implications for the Seismic Hazard near Las Vegas, Nevada. Bull Seismol Soc Am 113(2). https://doi.org/10.1785/0120220136
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the individuals and groups that contributed with the velocity fields used in the combination. This material is based on services provided by the GAGE Facility, operated by EarthScope Consortium, with support from the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey under NSF Cooperative Agreement EAR-1724794.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
1 Electronic Supplementary Material
Data 1
(DOCX 1309 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Santamaría-Gómez, A., Rietbroek, R., Rebischung, P., Frederikse, T., Legrand, J. (2024). Combined Global GNSS Velocity Field. In: International Association of Geodesy Symposia. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/1345_2024_263
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1345_2024_263
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg