the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 21 Nov 2023
A new tool for the estimation of Ground-Based InSAR acquisition characteristics before starting installation and monitoring survey
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; (3) geometric distortions that are foreshortening, layover and shadowing.
If in the case of satellites 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 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 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; cliffs located in Switzerland, one in the Ticino canton and on in the Vaud canton.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(5002 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5002 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2489', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Nov 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', charlotte wolff, 08 Jan 2024
Dear reviewer,
Thank you sincerely for dedicating your time to thoroughly review our article and for providing such an insightful and constructive analysis. Your detailed feedback, highlighting both major issues and missing details, was much valuable. We carefully considered each of your comments and implemented the suggested corrections. Please find attached our responses to your comments. Once again, we truly appreciate your valuable input.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', charlotte wolff, 08 Jan 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2489', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Apr 2024
The manuscript presents a tool aimed at better characterizing a study site, mainly on geometric criteria, in order to optimize the installation of a GBINSAR instruments, in particular for monitoring unstable slopes. The sofware tool that is the subject of the article is therefore of interest for GBINSAR users. The article first presents in great detail the geometric and methodological aspects, then an application to a simulation and to two real test cases. While this is generally convincing, the article has some weaknesses.
As a first reviewer has already made a very thorough comments and I only has access to the initial version of the manuscript, I will not repeat the important points of the previous review (addressed in the responses produced by the authors) to not be redundant.
Section 2. Table 1 presents some problems. Line of sight, in the unit column it would be better to replace "vector" with "unit vector" probably in "m" (a vector has a unit). Radar wavelength, the radar is not limited to 0.8 cm - 10 cm (e.g. the L-band is more like 23 cm). Synthetic antenna length, "L can be infinite", L is constrained by the fact that a target must be during the acquisition within the footprint of the beam and therefore cannot be infinite (even if several km). Range Resolution, "vertical" should be "line of sight". Azimuthal resolution, you should add "parallel to the sensor's motion", "horizontal" does not fully define the direction.
Section 2.1.4, Table 2 specifies 17.1 to 17.3 GHz, it seems to me that this restriction is only for the Ku band (GBSARs operating on other bands exist), it needs to be clarified.
L260 EQ 11. The equation seems incomplete (at least one vector is missing to the right of the matrix). In addition, an element of the matrix must be missing a "-" sign  (the determinant of the matrix is different from 1 as a rotation matrix should have).
L306 a typo after "Figure 10"
Table 5: "Location" columns must mention the unit ([m]?)
Figure 11 the scale (65) seems too large (compared to the 200m) and does not mention the unit. Maybe just remove (the 200m line could be enough)?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2489-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', charlotte wolff, 01 May 2024
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your thorough review of the article and for providing additional comments, which complement the feedback from the first reviewer. Please find attached our response, which outlines the corrections made to address your insightful comments.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', charlotte wolff, 01 May 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2489', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Nov 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', charlotte wolff, 08 Jan 2024
Dear reviewer,
Thank you sincerely for dedicating your time to thoroughly review our article and for providing such an insightful and constructive analysis. Your detailed feedback, highlighting both major issues and missing details, was much valuable. We carefully considered each of your comments and implemented the suggested corrections. Please find attached our responses to your comments. Once again, we truly appreciate your valuable input.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', charlotte wolff, 08 Jan 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2489', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Apr 2024
The manuscript presents a tool aimed at better characterizing a study site, mainly on geometric criteria, in order to optimize the installation of a GBINSAR instruments, in particular for monitoring unstable slopes. The sofware tool that is the subject of the article is therefore of interest for GBINSAR users. The article first presents in great detail the geometric and methodological aspects, then an application to a simulation and to two real test cases. While this is generally convincing, the article has some weaknesses.
As a first reviewer has already made a very thorough comments and I only has access to the initial version of the manuscript, I will not repeat the important points of the previous review (addressed in the responses produced by the authors) to not be redundant.
Section 2. Table 1 presents some problems. Line of sight, in the unit column it would be better to replace "vector" with "unit vector" probably in "m" (a vector has a unit). Radar wavelength, the radar is not limited to 0.8 cm - 10 cm (e.g. the L-band is more like 23 cm). Synthetic antenna length, "L can be infinite", L is constrained by the fact that a target must be during the acquisition within the footprint of the beam and therefore cannot be infinite (even if several km). Range Resolution, "vertical" should be "line of sight". Azimuthal resolution, you should add "parallel to the sensor's motion", "horizontal" does not fully define the direction.
Section 2.1.4, Table 2 specifies 17.1 to 17.3 GHz, it seems to me that this restriction is only for the Ku band (GBSARs operating on other bands exist), it needs to be clarified.
L260 EQ 11. The equation seems incomplete (at least one vector is missing to the right of the matrix). In addition, an element of the matrix must be missing a "-" sign  (the determinant of the matrix is different from 1 as a rotation matrix should have).
L306 a typo after "Figure 10"
Table 5: "Location" columns must mention the unit ([m]?)
Figure 11 the scale (65) seems too large (compared to the 200m) and does not mention the unit. Maybe just remove (the 200m line could be enough)?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2489-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', charlotte wolff, 01 May 2024
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your thorough review of the article and for providing additional comments, which complement the feedback from the first reviewer. Please find attached our response, which outlines the corrections made to address your insightful comments.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', charlotte wolff, 01 May 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 268 | 141 | 30 | 439 | 27 | 25 |
- HTML: 268
- PDF: 141
- XML: 30
- Total: 439
- BibTeX: 27
- EndNote: 25
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Marc-Henri Derron
Carlo Rivolta
Michel Jaboyedoff
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(5002 KB) - Metadata XML