The impact of second generation SAR sensors
Transcription
The impact of second generation SAR sensors
The impact of second generation SAR sensors on the deformation time series analysis via DInSAR techniques: The COSMO-SkyMed study case Manuela Bonano, Francesco Casu, Riccardo Lanari, Michele Manunta, Luca Paglia, Giuseppe Solaro, Eugenio Sansosti Istituto per il Rilevamento Elettromagnetico dell’Ambiente, IREA National Research Council of Italy (CNR) Via Diocleziano 328, 80124 Napoli, Italia e-mail: eugenio.sansosti@cnr.it First Generation 1992 1995 1997 1998 Satellite SAR System Scenario 2001 2002 2006 2007 2010 2013 ERS1 J-ERS1 ERS2 RADARSATRADARSAT-2 RADARSATRADARSAT-1 ENVISAT ALOS COSMO/SKYMED Most of our DInSAR knowledge -X TERRASAR comes from theTERRASARexploitation of the large data archive acquired by ESA SENTINEL-1 SENTINEL (first generation) satellites ERS-1, ALOSALOS-2 ERS-2 and ENVISAT Second generation SAR systems: from first to second generation ERS-ENVISAT: 130 images in about 20 years COSMO-SkyMed: 81 images in 1.5 years !!! ERS-ENVISAT: C-Band RADARSAT-1: C-Band Cosmo-SkyMED: X-Band Spatial Resolution: 5x20 m Spatial Resolution: 5x7 m Spatial Resolution: 3x3 m Revisit Time: 35 days Revisit Time: 24 days Revisit Time: 8 days Archive: 06/1992-10/2010 Archive: 03/2003-12/2007 Archive: 07/2009-10/2010 130 acquisitions 47 acquisitions 81 acquisitions Napoli Bay area: ERS-ENVISAT results Vomero Vesuvio Campi Flegrei A total of 130 ERS-1/2 and ENVISAT images ascending orbits (1993 – Oct 2010) COSMO-SkyMed vs. ERS/ENVISAT: Campi Flegrei Mean velocity [cm/yr] > 1,5 <-1.5 COSMO-SkyMed vs. ERS/ENVISAT: Campi Flegrei Mean velocity [cm/yr] >2 <-2 COSMO-SkyMed vs. ERS/ENVISAT: Campi Flegrei Mean velocity [cm/yr] > 1.5 <-1.5 COSMO-SkyMed vs. ERS/ENVISAT: Campi Flegrei Mean velocity [cm/yr] >2 <-2 COSMO-SkyMed vs. ERS/ENVISAT: Vesuvius Mean velocity [cm/yr] > 1.5 <-1.5 COSMO-SkyMed vs. ERS/ENVISAT: Vesuvius Mean velocity [cm/yr] >2 <-2 COSMOSkyMed vs. ERS/ENVISAT COSMO-SkyMed ERS/ENVISAT Revisit time: 8 days Revisit time: 35 days Time span: Jul 2009 – Nov 2010 Time span: 1992 – Oct 2010 X Band ( = 3.1 cm) C Band ( = 5.6 cm) Resolution: 30 x 30 m Resolution: 90 x 90 m COSMO-SkyMed vs. ERS/ENVISAT Campi Flegrei Near GPS station: ACAE ERS/ENVISAT ERS/ENV: ~23 deg ERS/ENVISAT COSMO-SkyMed days 835days CSK: ~ 44 deg COSMO-SkyMed vs. ERS/ENVISAT Campi Flegrei Near GPS station: ACAE ERS/ENV: ~23 deg ERS/ENVISAT COSMO-SkyMed days 835days CSK: ~ 44 deg Full resolution ENVISAT results cm cm Full resolution COSMO-SkyMed results Mean velocity [cm/yr] > 1.5 < - 1.5 81 ascending CSK (Strip mode) images (July 2009 - November 2010) ENVISAT vs RADARSAT-1 vs COSMO-SkyMed cm/year Mean velocity > 0.5 ENVISAT time: 03/2003 -12/2007 39 images resolution: 5x20 m < - 0.5 cm/year Mean velocity > 0.5 RADARSAT-1 time: 03/2003 - 12/2007 47 images resolution: 5x7 m < - 0.5 cm/year Mean velocity > 0.75 < - 0.75 COSMO-SkyMed time: 07/2009 -10/2010 81 images resolution: 3x3 m Napoli Bay area: COSMO-SkyMed results 0.7 cm/year Mean velocity [cm/yr] > 1.5 < - 1.5 1.5 cm/year Napoli Bay area: COSMO-SkyMed results 1.3 cm/year Mean velocity [cm/yr] > 1.5 < - 1.5 1.6 cm/year Mt. Etna: ERS-ENVISAT 125 Descending and 147 Ascending orbit SAR data (1992 – 2010) Ascending Descending Mean deformation velocity < -2 cm/year >2 Mt. Etna: ERS-ENVISAT Eruption Eruption A very complex displacement pattern over about 20 years of acquisitions! Ascending Mean deformation velocity < -2 cm/year >2 Δ ERS Δ ENV COSMO-SkyMed Results: Etna ENVISAT: 35 days Descending Orbits >5 Mean velocity [cm/yr] Time Interval: Jul 2009 – Dec 2010 86 acquisitions 276 Interferograms COSMO-SkyMed: 8 days <-5 Ground Resolution: ~ 30 meters Look Angle: 49 deg COSMO-SkyMed Results: Etna Pernicana Fault Descending Orbits >5 Mean velocity [cm/yr] Time Interval: Jul 2009 – Dec 2010 86 acquisitions 276 Interferograms <-5 Ground Resolution: ~ 30 meters Look Angle: 49 deg Range Azimuth 30/03/2010 - 07/04/2010 spatial baseline: 133 m Possible Atmospheric fringes COSMO-SkyMed vs. ENVISAT: Etna Mean velocity [cm/yr] > 1.5 <-1.5 COSMO-SkyMed vs. ENVISAT: Etna Mean velocity [cm/yr] >5 <-5 COSMO-SkyMed vs. ENVISAT: Etna COSMO-SkyMed ENVISAT Revisit Time: 8 days Revisit Time: 35 days Time span: Jul 2009 – Dec 2010 Time span: 1992 – 2010 X-Band ( = 3.1 cm) C-Band ( = 5.6 cm) Resolution: 25 x 25 m Resolution: 90 x 90 m COSMO-SkyMed vs. ENVISAT: Etna COSMO-SkyMed ENVISAT Revisit Time: 8 days Revisit Time: 35 days Time span: Jul 2009 – Dec 2010 Time span: 1992 – 2010 X-Band ( = 3.1 cm) C-Band ( = 5.6 cm) Resolution: 25 x 25 m Resolution: 90 x 90 m COSMO-SkyMed vs. ENVISAT: Etna COSMO-SkyMed ENVISAT Revisit Time: 8 days Revisit Time: 35 days Time span: Jul 2009 – Dec 2010 Time span: 1992 – 2010 X-Band ( = 3.1 cm) C-Band ( = 5.6 cm) Resolution: 25 x 25 m Resolution: 90 x 90 m COSMO-SkyMed vs. ENVISAT: Etna COSMO-SkyMed Look Angle ~ 49 deg ENVISAT Look Angle ~ 23 deg TerraSAR-X: Mt. Etna Descending Orbits Time Interval: Sep 2008 – Dec 2009 27 acquisitions (cfr. 86 COSMO) 76 Interferograms Ground Resolution: ~ 30 meters Look Angle: 42.9 deg Mean deformation velocity < -6 >6 cm/year ENVISAT vs. TerraSAR-X: Spatial Coverage ENVISAT 90x90 m ENVISAT vs. TerraSAR-X: Spatial Coverage TerraSAR-X 30x30 m ENVISAT vs. TerraSAR-X : Time Sampling ENVISAT: 35 days TerraSAR-X: 11 days COSMO-SkyMed – TerraSAR-X vs. ENVISAT: Mt. Etna CSK: 8 days COSMO-SkyMed - TerraSARX CSK: ~ 49 deg TSX: ~ 43 deg TSX: 11 days ENVISAT ENV: 35 days ENV: ~23 deg Conclusions Second Generation Satellite data • are suitable for Advanced DInSAR techniques (time series), with great potential in terms of improved temporal sampling and spatial resolution • dramatically extend performances: “moving” from deformation analysis to deformation monitoring • allow detection of fast movement (such as earthquakes) • allow measurements of intra-building displacements Issues • Accuracy should be assessed • Atmospheric artifacts correction • Processing of a huge amount of data needs high computing and storage capabilities!!! Acknowledgements Thanks to: • Italian Space Agency (ASI) for COSMO-SkyMed data; they were acquired and processed within the Volcanic System Risk (SRV) Pilot Project. • ESA for ERS-1/2 and ENVISAT collected over many years via several CAT-1 projects and contributed to the Geo Supersites initiative. • DLR for TerraSAR-X data on Etna obtained through the Geo Supersites initiative.
Similar documents
Data Warehouse Phase 2 set-up and data offer
DOWNLOAD : access to full products as supplied by CCMs, to process to higher levels.
More information