Additional file 1 of Comparison of tropospheric delay correction methods for InSAR analysis using a mesoscale meteorological model: a case study from Japan
Creators: name: Sailellah, Sardila Nurulhikmah
name: Fukushima, Yo
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2024
Subjects: subject: Atmospheric Sciences
subject: FOS: Earth and related environmental sciences

description: Additional file 1. Figure S1. Schematic for the slant delay integration method. The black arrow represents the microwave propagation direction, shades of grey represent the hydrostatic equilibrium of the tropospheric layer, the dashed line represents the center lines for each layer, and the green line illustrates the topography. Figure S2. (a) Ascending and (b) descending interferograms in the Tohoku region before ionospheric and tropospheric corrections. The acquisition dates are indicated above the figures. Figure S3. Ascending interferograms in the Kansai region before ionospheric and tropospheric corrections. The acquisition dates are indicated above the figures. Figure S4. The ionospheric-corrected ascending interferograms obtained using the split-spectrum method for the Tohoku region. Ionospheric-corrected descending interferograms using the same method are shown in Figure 3. Figure S5. Examples of ionospheric-corrected interferograms in the Kansai region. Figure S6. The semi-variance of the original and ionospheric-corrected interferogram in the Kansai Region. Figure S7. Examples of tropospheric delay predicted in the Kansai region were obtained using the slant-delay integration method proposed by Bevis (1994) (top row), Smith and Weintraub (1953) (middle), and the differences between the two models (bottom). (a) Delay predicted for the primary image obtained on 19 April 2018. (b) Delay predicted for the secondary image obtained on 18 June 2018. (c) Correction term calculated by the difference in the two acquisition dates. Figure S8. Examples of tropospheric delay predicted in the Kansai region were obtained using the slant-delay integration method, proposed by Bevis (1994) (top row), Berrada-Baby et al. (1988) (middle), and the differences between the two models (bottom). (a) Delay predicted for the primary image obtained on 19 April 2018. (b) Delay predicted for the secondary image 18 June 2018. (c) Correction term calculated by the difference in the two acquisition dates. Figure S9. Mean standard deviation of three refractivity models in the two study areas. The X and Y axes show the standard deviation for the ionospheric-corrected interferogram (reference) and the three refractivity models, respectively. The broken line represents the value of X equal to Y. Figure S10. Mean standard deviation of RINC and GACOS in the two study areas. Figure S11. Areas in which the standard deviations were calculated (shown as rectangles) for the (a) Kansai region and (b) Tohoku region. Red represents mountainous areas, and orange indicates flat areas. Table S1. The standard deviation of the methods, before and after correction in the Tohoku region (descending). Table S2. The standard deviation of the methods, before and after correction in the Tohoku region (ascending). Table S3. The standard deviation of the methods, before and after correction in the Kansai region.