Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3758
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3758
20 Aug 2026
 | 20 Aug 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth Observation (EO).

Evaluating European Ground Motion Service against Local InSAR Analysis along Key Swedish Corridors

Saeid Aminjafari, Faramarz Nilfouroushan, Frida Carlvik, Mehdi Darvishi, and Leif E. B. Eriksson

Abstract. Ground motion poses a significant threat to the safety and functionality of transport infrastructure, particularly in regions affected by landslides, subsidence, freeze–thaw processes, and large-scale tunnelling. Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) enables millimeter-level displacement monitoring over large areas and is used to support infrastructure risk assessment. Here, we evaluate the usability of two InSAR approaches, (i) Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI) using displacement products from the European Ground Motion Service (EGMS), and (ii) a combined Persistent- and Distributed-Scatterer (PS+DS) phase-linking workflow across key Swedish transport corridors. Rather than a strictly controlled methodological comparison, we evaluate how differences between operational InSAR solutions translate into practical performance for infrastructure monitoring. Results show that PS+DS consistently yields five times as many measurement points while maintaining RMSE values within a similar range to EGMS (mostly below 6 mm in the Line Of Sight direction). The EGMS exhibits narrower RMSE distributions, but PS+DS achieves comparable median RMSE of the measurement points across most land-cover types and corridor environments. Both datasets capture similar displacement patterns along all corridors, with measurement points from both approaches concentrating within the linear corridor geometry. Overall, the five-fold increase in PS+DS point density offers infrastructure operators a practical pathway to finer-scale ground motion monitoring for railway maintenance and risk assessment, while demonstrating how the choice of operational InSAR processing strategy shapes the information available for Earth-observation-based infrastructure applications.

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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Saeid Aminjafari, Faramarz Nilfouroushan, Frida Carlvik, Mehdi Darvishi, and Leif E. B. Eriksson

Status: open (until 01 Oct 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Saeid Aminjafari, Faramarz Nilfouroushan, Frida Carlvik, Mehdi Darvishi, and Leif E. B. Eriksson

Model code and software

EGMS-vs-PS-DS-Phase-linking Saeid Aminjafari https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19958548

Saeid Aminjafari, Faramarz Nilfouroushan, Frida Carlvik, Mehdi Darvishi, and Leif E. B. Eriksson
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 20 Aug 2026
Download
Short summary
Ground motion slowly damages roads, railways, and tunnels, threatening public safety and raising maintenance costs. Using satellite radar, we compared two ways of measuring it along key Swedish transport corridors: the European Ground Motion Service, using very stable targets, and a method adding moderately stable ones. Both captured the same motion, but the second gave far more detail at similar reliability, helping operators target maintenance and reduce risk more effectively.
Share