陆态网络GNSS连续站分区解算方案的对比分析  

Comparative Analysis of Sub-network Division Schemes for the GNSS Continuous Stations

作　　者：占伟[1] 武艳强[1] 章力博[2] 朱爽[1] 孟宪纲[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国地震局第一监测中心,天津300180 [2]国家测绘产品质量检验测试中心,北京100830

出　　处：《地震》2014年第4期136-142,共7页Earthquake

基　　金：地震科技星火计划青年项目(XH14068Y);震情跟踪青年课题(2014020202);中国地震局第一监测中心基金项目(201304001)

摘　　要：针对陆态网络GNSS连续站分区设计了三种方案,其中方案1(区域方案)将测站按区域划分为6个子网,每个子网包含55个测站;方案2(大网方案)分为3个测站全国分布的子网,每个子网包含100个测站;方案3(小网方案)分为8个测站全国分布的子网,每个子网包含55个测站。按照上述三种方案分别处理了陆态网络2010年第110天至2013年第103天的观测数据,从测站时间序列、点位水平速度场、两点间基线长度三个方面对比分析了三种方案解算结果之间的差异。结果表明,不同的方案解算结果存在差异但差异量值较小。综合上述分析结果和计算耗时等因素,讨论了陆态网络GNSS连续站分区方案的选取。Aiming at sub-network division of GNSS continuous stations in TEONET （Tectonic and Environmental Observation Network in China）, we design three schemes to process the data from doy 110 in 2010 to doy 103 in 2013. The first scheme （referred as re- gional scheme） has six regional sub-networks and each sub-network includes 55 GNSS permanent stations. The second scheme （named large-net scheme） has three sub-networks and each has 100 stations selected evenly in China's Mainland. The third scheme （named small-net scheme） has eight sub-networks and each has 55 stations selected evenly. Meanwhile, we analyze the differences between the results including station coordinates, hori- zontal velocity field and baseline length. The results show that the differences are within the current observation and calculation precision. From the above-motioned results and considering other factors such as computing time, we discuss the selection of sub-network division schemes in TEONET.

关 键 词：中国大陆构造环境监测网络 GNSS连续站 分区方案 差异分析 

分 类 号：P315.7[天文地球—地震学]