B3. Istanbul 2004 
ain roughness, on 
racking . 
xt filter applied to 
eflections due to 
zone of the radar 
ce are selected. A 
hin a one-second 
ng of the satellite 
of 2 meters for 10 
is rejected by this 
pplied; it consists 
maximum height 
nts derived from 
dius. This checks 
nents along time. 
uld be 5 m for a 
the data point to 
steps (retracking, 
1 several cycles) 
y exploitation in 
rammetric block- 
| reference height 
al maps showed 
than 95%) —+ 
IMETER DATA 
ERISTICS 
n of radar pulse 
eous terrain . The 
RS altimeter data 
racy for mapping 
zorithm based on 
003). 
on algorithm 
orithm builds a 
satellite position 
and reflection of 
und surface itself 
DEM to control. 
1e hit by the radar 
g vector database 
considered in the 
igger reflectivity 
| height is then 
iated waveform. 
1e height derived 
convenient than 
| DEM height, as 
height carry the 
moothing effect” 
   
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol XXXV, Part B3. Istanbul 2004 
A local discrepancy between simulated and observed ERS 
heights is the sign of a potential anomaly in the DEM. 
A systematic shift between both height is the sign of a 
systematic shift error on DEM. 
6. ERS ERROR ANALYSIS ON NON-FLAT TERRAIN. 
We investigated the ERS elevation data error on rougher 
terrain, using a 30-meter digital elevation model considered as a 
reference. Two different study areas with different relief 
characteristics were selected. We derived parameters from this 
DEM. Errors between ERS data and DEM and also between 
the simulated responses obtained with the DEM were 
calculated. Finally, their correlation with the terrain parameters 
were analysed. 
6.1 Study areas description 
The first geographical area, located at the south-west of France, 
includes landforms ranging from extensive floodplains to low 
relief foothills, and high relief, long mountains slopes to the 
east. The other area, located in the North, is less rough but 
contained larger urban area, which can distort the altimeter 
response. The field areas are approximately 150 km?. 
6.2 Elevation data 
ERS elevation data : we collected all data obtained after the 
retracking step in both areas. There were 5679 and 8634 
elevation points over each area. 
30-m DEM : the DEM is a level 1 data (DTEDI) acquired by 
photogrammetric method from remote sensing images such as 
Spot, or by contour digitising from existing 25,000 scale maps. 
A root mean square errors (RMSE) is provided to express its 
quality . The RMSE is reported as 30 m for horizontal 
coordinates, and 5 m for height, relative to the WGS 84 datum. 
We extracted elevation at each ERS elevation positions using a 
bilinear interpolation method. 
ERS simulated elevation data : at each ERS elevation position, 
we use the DEM to obtain a simulated ERS height based on the 
method described in previous section . 
160 ——— 
  
  
i n (À {7 DEM | 
Wi + ERS | 
155} : " A 
n 
Vis 
| ; Ff + 
7 + 
150 due * 
Ta * i 
y u * # 
; "nf. 
i, ul Lan 
~ 145} P mu EE 
E ra ^ 
8 7 
© ue 
= 140}- i a 
i » 
| p 
| A 
| : | x 
135} M^ Hur 
SU 
Qn Mau 
1304. ^ 
UM Mf 
Bu 
125 i 1 
0 10 20 40 50 60 
distance (km) 
Figure 6. Height profiles from DEM and ERS altimeter 
63 Exploratory data analysis 
63.1 Errors statistical distribution 
Fig 7 shows the different data sets with their histograms. They 
seem similar for the three data sets. On the north area, they 
show a roughly normal distribution of the elevations. On the 
second sites they are broader, showing the various relief. The 
errors were calculated by subtracting the interpolated DEM 
elevation and the simulated elevation from the ERS measured 
elevation. The spatial distribution of these absolute error values 
and their histograms are plotted in fig.8. 
study area 
   
      
   
   
    
2500 —m 2800p—————————À 2500 ——— —— — — 
mean: 114 mean: 129 mean: 137 
2000: std: 45 : 2000: sid: 31 2000 sid: 26 
max :254 max :354 max :252 
min 10 min :17 min :32 
1500 - 1500 1500 : 
1000 1000 1000 
500 500 500 
0 0t Ima 0 : 
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300 0 100 200 2300 
elevation (m) elevation (m) elevation (m) 
second study area 
800 . , . 800 + 800 . 
mean: 102 mean: 112 mean: 131 
std: 57 std: e e std: 60 
600: max 301 i i max : : max :322 i 
min :0 600 min :-15 600 min :1 | 
400+ 400: 400: i 
200 200: 200: 
0 0 = z 
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300 
       
elevation (m) elevation (m) elevation (m) 
Figure.7. Elevation histograms in both study areas. 
  
first study area 
7000; ——áÓ—— YOOÜ ree 
| | 
mean : 15 l mean : 11 
6000 mem | 6000 mem 
5000 maciTs | 5000 ue 
min: 0 | min: 0 | 
4000 | 4000 | 
3000 | 3000 | 
2000 | 2000 | 
1000 | 1000 | 
i { 
0 ya 0 ec | 
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 
abs(DEM-ERS) (m) abs(SIM-ERS) (m) 
seconc stucy erea 
3000| i 3000 | 
mean : 29 | mean : 22 | 
2500 std: 29 { 2500 std: 28 | 
i max:163 max:257 | 
2000| min: 0 2000 min: 0 | 
1500 : 1500 | 
1000 1 1000 | 
500 | 500 
6 iad à ud c 
0 50 . 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 
abs(DEM-ERS) (m) 
abs(SIM-ERS) (m) 
Figure.8. Absolute errors, DEM and simulated ERS elevations 
versus ERS measured elevation. 
The histograms indicate that on average the altimeter gives a 
coherent elevation value over the study areas. However, the 
maximum absolute errors values show there are significant 
differences in some areas. The distribution error is narrower, 
particularly in the place with low roughness. 
6.3.2 Terrain parameters influence. 
To understand the altimeter behaviour, we derived some 
parameters from the DEM reflecting the local topographic 
roughness around each elevation position within a moving 
window (a 20-cell or 10 km circle). The parameters are the 
following : 
- Pl and P2: the slope mean and standard deviation. 
- P3 and P4: the mean and standard deviation of elevations. 
The next table shows the coefficient for correlation between the 
errors and the different parameters over both study area.