首页|期刊导航|地震学报|基于Sentinel-1和Sentinel-2的像素偏移跟踪技术在强震形变监测中的比较分析

基于Sentinel-1和Sentinel-2的像素偏移跟踪技术在强震形变监测中的比较分析OA

Comparative analysis of pixel offset tracking technology based on Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 for strong earthquake deformation monitoring

中文摘要英文摘要

基于像素偏移跟踪技术的影像大地测量是获取同震地表形变的有效技术之一,该方法通过影像匹配获取亚像素级的大地震二维形变场,实际应用中主要包括基于SAR的像素偏移量跟踪技术(POT)和基于光学影像的互相关技术(OIC).当前两种方法已广泛应用于强震形变监测领域,但针对两者技术特征、精度差异及适用场景的系统比较研究仍较匮乏.为系统分析对比两种方法的应用效能,以 2022 年 1 月 8 日门源MW6.7 地震和 2019 年 7 月美国Ridgecrest MW6.4 和MW7.0 地震为例,基于Sentinel-1 和Sentinel-2 影像,分别采用两种方法获取其同震形变场,并与相应的InSAR结果进行对比,计算相对差异.结果表明:① POT可以获取距离向和方位向的二维形变场,根据其形变结果可以计算得到东西、南北和垂直向的形变分量,受影像分辨率的影响,其东西向的形变精度高于OIC,需获取垂直向形变或对东西向形变精度要求较高时,优先选用POT方法;② 基于Sentinel-2 的OIC南北向形变精度高于基于Sentinel-1 的POT,若需获取较高精度的南北向形变,建议选择OIC方法;③ 受云、雾、光照等气候条件的影响,OIC的形变结果可能产生较多的高异常值,在成像气候条件较差时选择POT的适用性更强.

Earthquakes are one of the major natural disasters threatening human society,often resulting in significant casualties and substantial economic losses.Understanding the seismo-genic processes and genesis mechanisms of strong earthquakes is of great significance for earth-quake prevention and disaster mitigation.Accurate characterization of coseismic displacement fields plays a crucial role for revealing earthquake rupture processes and deformation patterns.Image geodesy has become an effective approach for retrieving coseismic displacement fields,with commonly used techniques including interferometric synthetic aperture radar(InSAR)and pixel offset tracking based on image matching.Among these,the InSAR technique features large spatial coverage,high precision,and all-weather,day-and-night observation capability,and is commonly used to measure slow surface deformation along the range direction.In con-trast,pixel offset tracking is more suitable for estimating large-scale and high-gradient surface deformation and can obtain two-dimensional deformation fields at the sub-pixel level.Accord-ing to the image source,pixel offset tracking techniques mainly include SAR-based pixel offset tracking(POT)and optical image-based optical image correlation(OIC). In recent years,Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 imagery have become commonly used remote sensing data sources for monitoring co-seismic surface deformation due to their relatively high spatio-temporal resolution.The POT method based on Sentinel-1 imagery and the OIC method based on Sentinel-2 imagery are widely used to retrieve co-seismic deformation fields and have been successfully applied in numerous earthquake studies worldwide.Although the two meth-ods are based on similar principles and both derive deformation through image matching,differ-ences in the imaging mechanisms of optical and SAR imagery lead to variations in the pro-cessing procedures and the resulting deformation fields.For example,POT provides range and azimuth displacements,whereas OIC yields east-west and north-south offsets.At present,de-tailed comparative analyses of POT and OIC for mapping co-seismic deformation fields associ-ated with strong earthquakes remain limited.A comprehensive comparison of these two meth-ods can provide valuable insights for accurately mapping co-seismic deformation fields,enhan-cing our understanding of seismogenic processes and earthquake genesis mechanisms,and sup-porting earthquake prevention and disaster mitigation. To analyze and compare the characteristics of OIC and POT,several strong earthquakes with strike-slip characteristics were selected as case studies,including the January 8,2022 Menyuan MW6.7 earthquake and the July 2019 Ridgecrest MW6.4 and MW7.0 earthquakes.Based on Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 imagery,their coseismic deformation fields were derived using POT and OIC respectively.To evaluate the accuracy of the two methods,InSAR-derived coseismic deformation fields were calculated for the earthquake events,and corresponding GNSS deformation values were also obtained.For the subsequent accuracy assessment,the InSAR line-of-sight deformation was further converted into east-west and vertical deformation components,and three-dimensional deformation was calculated by combining the range and azimuth displacements derived from POT.Using the InSAR and GNSS measurements as refer-ences,the relative accuracies of POT and OIC were quantitatively evaluated,thereby assessing the feasibility of these two methods for strong earthquake monitoring.Furthermore,the differ-ences between POT and OIC and the underlying causes of these discrepancies were analyzed,and recommendations for their application in strong earthquake studies were provided. The results indicate that both POT and OIC can reliably retrieve coseismic deformation fields,and the derived deformation results are generally consistent with those obtained from InSAR and GNSS,demonstrating their feasibility for studying coseismic deformation associ-ated with strong earthquakes.However,certain differences exist between the two approaches due to the distinct characteristics of the imagery used.Sentinel-1 SAR imagery is less affected by weather conditions;however,its side-looking radar imaging geometry may introduce geo-metric distortions.In contrast,Sentinel-2 optical imagery has a relatively short revisit cycle but can be significantly affected by cloud and fog,which may limit data availability.Moreover,even after error correction,deformation results derived from optical imagery may still contain attitude angle-related errors that are difficult to completely eliminate.Under unfavorable weath-er conditions,optical imagery is more susceptible to atmospheric effects,which may lead to increased decorrelation outliers in OIC-derived results.Consequently,under poor climatic con-ditions,POT generally produces fewer outliers than OIC and is therefore recommended.Fur-thermore,POT can retrieve both range and azimuth deformation fields,which can be further combined to derive three-dimensional deformation fields,whereas OIC mainly provides hori-zontal deformation.Therefore,when vertical deformation information is of particular interest,the POT method is more suitable.

王璐雯;倪四道;凌峰;谷旺旺

中国武汉 430077 中国科学院精密测量科学与技术创新研究院||中国武汉 430077 大地测量与地球动力学国家重点实验室||中国北京 100049 中国科学院大学地球与行星科学学院中国武汉 430077 中国科学院精密测量科学与技术创新研究院||中国武汉 430077 大地测量与地球动力学国家重点实验室||中国北京 100049 中国科学院大学地球与行星科学学院中国武汉 430077 中国科学院精密测量科学与技术创新研究院||中国北京 100049 中国科学院大学地球与行星科学学院||中国武汉 430077 环境与灾害监测评估湖北省重点实验室中国武汉 430077 中国科学院精密测量科学与技术创新研究院||中国武汉 430077 大地测量与地球动力学国家重点实验室||中国北京 100049 中国科学院大学地球与行星科学学院

天文与地球科学

像素偏移跟踪Sentinel-1Sentinel-22022年门源MW6.7地震2019年Ridgecrest MW6.4和MW7.0地震

pixel offset trackingSentinel-1Sentinel-2Menyuan MW6.7 earthquake in 2022Ridgecrest MW6.4-MW7.0 earthquakes in 2019

《地震学报》 2026 (2)

305-323,19

国家自然科学基金(42488301)资助.

10.11939/jass.20240058

评论