A tool for estimating ground-based InSAR acquisition characteristics prior to monitoring installation and survey and its differences from satellite InSAR
-
Published:2024-07-29
Issue:2
Volume:13
Page:225-248
-
ISSN:2193-0864
-
Container-title:Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst.
Author:
Wolff CharlotteORCID, Derron Marc-HenriORCID, Rivolta Carlo, Jaboyedoff MichelORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) acquisition can be performed from satellites or from the ground by means of a so-called GB-InSAR (Ground-Based Interferometry SAR), but the signal emission and the output image geometry slightly differ between the two acquisition modes. Those differences are rarely mentioned in the literature. This paper proposes to compare satellite and GB-InSAR in terms of (1) acquisition characteristics and parameters to consider; (2) SAR image resolution; and (3) geometric distortions that are foreshortening, layover, and shadowing. If in the case of satellite SAR, the range and azimuth resolutions are known and constant along the orbit path, in the case of GB-InSAR their values are terrain-dependent. It is worth estimating the results of a GB-InSAR acquisition that one can expect in terms of range and azimuth resolution, line of sight (LoS) distance, and geometric distortions to select the best installation location when several are possible. We developed a novel tool which estimates those parameters from a digital elevation model (DEM), knowing the GB-InSAR and the slope of interest (SoI) coordinates. This tool, written in MATLAB, was tested on a simple synthetic point cloud representing a cliff with a progressive slope angle to highlight the influence of the SoI geometry on the acquisition characteristics and on two real cases of cliffs located in Switzerland, namely one in the Ticino canton and one in the Vaud canton.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference69 articles.
1. Abellán, A., Oppikofer, T., Jaboyedoff, M., Rosser, N. J., Lim, M., and Lato, M. J.: Terrestrial laser scanning of rock slope instabilities: State-Of-Science (Terrestrial Lidar Vs. Rock Slope Instabilities), Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 39, 80–97, https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3493, 2014. 2. Addie, G.: A new true thickness formula based on the apparent dip, Econ. Geol., 63, 188–189, https://doi.org/10.2113/gsecongeo.63.2.188, 1968. 3. Anon: ETSI EN 300 440 v2.1.1, https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/300400_300499/300440/02.01.01_60/en_300440v020101p.pdf (last access: 25 April 2024), 2017. 4. Antonello, G., Casagli, N., Farina, P., Fortuny, J., Leva, D., Nico, G., Sieber, A. J., and Tarchi, D.: A ground-based interferometer for the safety monitoring of landslides and structural deformations, in: IGARSS 2003, 2003 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 21–25 July 2003, Toulouse, France, 218–220, https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2003.1293729, 2003. 5. Berardino, P., Fornaro, G., Lanari, R., and Sansosti, E.: A new algorithm for surface deformation monitoring based on small baseline differential SAR interferograms, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 40, 2375–2383, https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2002.803792, 2002.
|
|