In comparison with the ITRF2000 model, the ITRF2005 model represents a significant improvement in solution generation, datum definition and realization. However, these improvements cause a frame difference between the...In comparison with the ITRF2000 model, the ITRF2005 model represents a significant improvement in solution generation, datum definition and realization. However, these improvements cause a frame difference between the ITRF2000 and ITRF2005 models, which may impact GNSS data processing. To quantify this im- pact, the differences of the GNSS results obtained using the two models, including station coordinates, base- line length and horizontal velocity field, were analyzed. After transformation, the differences in position were at the millimeter level, and the differences in baseline length were less than 1 ram. The differences in the hori- zontal velocity fields decreased with as the study area was reduced. For a large region, the differences in these value were less than 1 mm/a, with a systematic difference of approximately 2 degrees in direction, while for a medium-sized region, the differences in value and direction were not significant.展开更多
基金supported by the Special Earthquake Research Project Granted by the China Earthquake Administration(201308009)
文摘In comparison with the ITRF2000 model, the ITRF2005 model represents a significant improvement in solution generation, datum definition and realization. However, these improvements cause a frame difference between the ITRF2000 and ITRF2005 models, which may impact GNSS data processing. To quantify this im- pact, the differences of the GNSS results obtained using the two models, including station coordinates, base- line length and horizontal velocity field, were analyzed. After transformation, the differences in position were at the millimeter level, and the differences in baseline length were less than 1 ram. The differences in the hori- zontal velocity fields decreased with as the study area was reduced. For a large region, the differences in these value were less than 1 mm/a, with a systematic difference of approximately 2 degrees in direction, while for a medium-sized region, the differences in value and direction were not significant.
