21 Nov 2023
 | 21 Nov 2023

A new tool for the estimation of Ground-Based InSAR acquisition characteristics before starting installation and monitoring survey

Charlotte Wolff, Marc-Henri Derron, Carlo Rivolta, and Michel Jaboyedoff

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.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Charlotte Wolff, Marc-Henri Derron, Carlo Rivolta, and Michel Jaboyedoff

Status: final response (author comments only)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2489', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Nov 2023
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', charlotte wolff, 08 Jan 2024
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2489', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Apr 2024
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', charlotte wolff, 01 May 2024
Charlotte Wolff, Marc-Henri Derron, Carlo Rivolta, and Michel Jaboyedoff
Charlotte Wolff, Marc-Henri Derron, Carlo Rivolta, and Michel Jaboyedoff


Total article views: 363 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
220 121 22 363 18 17
  • HTML: 220
  • PDF: 121
  • XML: 22
  • Total: 363
  • BibTeX: 18
  • EndNote: 17
Views and downloads (calculated since 21 Nov 2023)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 21 Nov 2023)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 364 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 364 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
Latest update: 23 May 2024
Short summary
InSAR is vital for monitoring slope instabilities but requires understanding. This paper delves into differences between satellite and GB-InSAR, addressing geometry and acquisition. It offers a user-friendly tool to determine the best GB-InSAR installation location, considering various technical, meteorological, and topographical factors, streamlining the campaign setup.