A Performance Assessment of Polarimetric GNSS-R Sea Level Monitoring in the Presence of Sea Surface Roughness

Monitoring coastal sea level has gained a large socioeconomic and environmental significance. Ground-based Global Navigation Satellite System Reflectometry (GNSS-R) offers various geophysical parameters including sea surface height. We investigate a one-year dataset from January to December 2016 to...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS pp. 8328 - 8331
Main Authors Raiabi, M., Hoseini, M., Nahavandchi, H., Semmling, M., Ramatschi, M., Goli, M., Haas, R., Wickert, J.
Format Conference Proceeding
LanguageEnglish
Published IEEE 11.07.2021
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Monitoring coastal sea level has gained a large socioeconomic and environmental significance. Ground-based Global Navigation Satellite System Reflectometry (GNSS-R) offers various geophysical parameters including sea surface height. We investigate a one-year dataset from January to December 2016 to evaluate the performance of GNSS-R coastal sea levels during different sea states. Our experiment setup uses three types of antenna in terms of polarization and orientation. A zenith-looking antenna tracks Right-Handed Circular Polarization (RHCP) direct signals and two sea-looking antennas capture both Left-Handed Circular Polarization (LHCP) and RHCP reflections. The Singular Spectrum Analysis (SSA) is used for extracting interferometric frequency from the data and calculating the heights. The results indicate that the height estimates from the sea-looking antennas have better accuracy compared to the zenith-looking orientation. The LHCP antenna delivers the best performance. The yearly Root Mean Square Errors (RMSE) of 5-min GNSS-R L1 water levels compared to the nearest tide gauge are 2.8 and 3.9 cm for the sea-looking antennas and 4.7 cm for the zenith-looking antenna with correlations of 97.63, 95.02, 95.35 percent, respectively. Our analysis shows that the roughness can introduce a bias to the measurements.
ISSN:2153-7003
DOI:10.1109/IGARSS47720.2021.9554562