Vše

Co hledáte?

Vše
Projekty
Výsledky výzkumu
Subjekty

Rychlé hledání

  • Projekty podpořené TA ČR
  • Významné projekty
  • Projekty s nejvyšší státní podporou
  • Aktuálně běžící projekty

Chytré vyhledávání

  • Takto najdu konkrétní +slovo
  • Takto z výsledků -slovo zcela vynechám
  • “Takto můžu najít celou frázi”

Geocenter motion based on GNSS: a comparison between low-degree surface load coefficients and network shift parameters

Identifikátory výsledku

  • Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00025615%3A_____%2F25%3AN0000017" target="_blank" >RIV/00025615:_____/25:N0000017 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Výsledek na webu

    <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10291-025-01990-x" target="_blank" >https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10291-025-01990-x</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10291-025-01990-x" target="_blank" >10.1007/s10291-025-01990-x</a>

Alternativní jazyky

  • Jazyk výsledku

    angličtina

  • Název v původním jazyce

    Geocenter motion based on GNSS: a comparison between low-degree surface load coefficients and network shift parameters

  • Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

    We apply two methods of geocenter recovery to GNSS data: (1) the center of mass (CM) approach, which employs mass load theory and the temporal displacements of GNSS stations, and (2) the network shift (NSH) approach, which estimates the geometrical shift of the GNSS orbit origin with respect to the reference frame origin realized by well-established station coordinates. We compare both methods based on the network of 372 stations and 19 years (2002–2020) of GNSS solutions from the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe, as part of the International GNSS Service repro3 campaign, incorporating GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo observations. The geocenter time series are estimated with spherical harmonics expanded to degrees ranging from 1 to 8 and decomposed into interannual, seasonal, and intraseasonal components. We found a pronounced reduction in signals associated with draconitic errors in GNSS data employing the CM approach. The Z-component amplitudes of these signals are, on average, approximately three to even six times smaller than those of the NSH approach. Furthermore, the CM solution exhibits signal stability in all geocenter motion components, while the NSH solution shows increased variability, particularly when more GLONASS satellites are included in the solutions. A comparison of the seasonal geocenter motion with external geodetic and geophysical estimates indicates that, in most cases, the solution based on the CM approach provides greater consistency than the direct estimates obtained from the NSH approach. However, the Y component in the CM approach exhibits more than 1 mm less seasonal oscillations compared to most estimates. © The Author(s) 2025.

  • Název v anglickém jazyce

    Geocenter motion based on GNSS: a comparison between low-degree surface load coefficients and network shift parameters

  • Popis výsledku anglicky

    We apply two methods of geocenter recovery to GNSS data: (1) the center of mass (CM) approach, which employs mass load theory and the temporal displacements of GNSS stations, and (2) the network shift (NSH) approach, which estimates the geometrical shift of the GNSS orbit origin with respect to the reference frame origin realized by well-established station coordinates. We compare both methods based on the network of 372 stations and 19 years (2002–2020) of GNSS solutions from the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe, as part of the International GNSS Service repro3 campaign, incorporating GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo observations. The geocenter time series are estimated with spherical harmonics expanded to degrees ranging from 1 to 8 and decomposed into interannual, seasonal, and intraseasonal components. We found a pronounced reduction in signals associated with draconitic errors in GNSS data employing the CM approach. The Z-component amplitudes of these signals are, on average, approximately three to even six times smaller than those of the NSH approach. Furthermore, the CM solution exhibits signal stability in all geocenter motion components, while the NSH solution shows increased variability, particularly when more GLONASS satellites are included in the solutions. A comparison of the seasonal geocenter motion with external geodetic and geophysical estimates indicates that, in most cases, the solution based on the CM approach provides greater consistency than the direct estimates obtained from the NSH approach. However, the Y component in the CM approach exhibits more than 1 mm less seasonal oscillations compared to most estimates. © The Author(s) 2025.

Klasifikace

  • Druh

    J<sub>imp</sub> - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

  • CEP obor

  • OECD FORD obor

    10511 - Environmental sciences (social aspects to be 5.7)

Návaznosti výsledku

  • Projekt

  • Návaznosti

    I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Ostatní

  • Rok uplatnění

    2025

  • Kód důvěrnosti údajů

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku

  • Název periodika

    GPS Solutions

  • ISSN

    1080-5370

  • e-ISSN

    1521-1886

  • Svazek periodika

    30

  • Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

    1

  • Stát vydavatele periodika

    DE - Spolková republika Německo

  • Počet stran výsledku

    16

  • Strana od-do

  • Kód UT WoS článku

    001616796600001

  • EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

    2-s2.0-105022203006