By Topic

Comparison of Ray-Tracing Packages for Troposphere Delays

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

13 Author(s)
Nafisi, V. ; Inst. of Geodesy & Geophys., Vienna Univ. of Technol., Vienna, Austria ; Urquhart, L. ; Santos, M.C. ; Nievinski, F.G.
more authors

A comparison campaign to evaluate and compare troposphere delays from different ray-tracing software was carried out under the umbrella of the International Association of Geodesy Working Group 4.3.3 in the first half of 2010 with five institutions participating: the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ), the Groupe de Recherche de Geodesie Spatiale, the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT), the University of New Brunswick, and the Institute of Geodesy and Geophysics of the Vienna University of Technology. High-resolution data from the operational analysis of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) for stations Tsukuba (Japan) and Wettzell (Germany) were provided to the participants of the comparison campaign. The data consisted of geopotential differences with respect to mean sea level, temperature, and specific humidity, all at isobaric levels. Additionally, information about the geoid undulations was provided, and the participants computed the ray-traced total delays for 5° elevation angle and every degree in azimuth. In general, we find good agreement between the ray-traced slant factors from the different solutions at 5° elevation if determined from the same pressure level data of the ECMWF. Standard deviations and biases are at the 1-cm level (or significantly better for some combinations). Some of these discrepancies are due to differences in the algorithms and the interpolation approaches. If compared with slant factors determined from ECMWF native model level data, the biases can be significantly larger.

Published in:

Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:50 ,  Issue: 2 )