Skip to main content

Table 2 The expected ZWD differences (\(\delta \text {ZWD}\)) due to the height difference between the VLBI and GPS reference points (Rothacher et al. 2011), shown together with the WRMS differences and mean biases between the VLBI-derived and GPS-derived ZWD

From: VLBI and GPS inter- and intra-technique combinations on the observation level for evaluation of TRF and EOP

Site

\(\delta\)ZWD [mm]

ZWD [mm]

  

WRMS

Bias

BA

0.25

8.1

\(-4.4 \pm 3.1\)

FO

0.25

10.8

\(0.5 \pm 4.5\)

HA

\(-0.61\)

9.9

\(1.1 \pm 3.5\)

HO

2.08

8.6

\(-3.9 \pm 3.4\)

KS

0.38

13.7

\(-1.3 \pm 2.0\)

KA

0.97

8.3

\(-3.1 \pm 2.3\)

KO

0.78

8.3

\(-3.4 \pm 2.0\)

MA

0.54

7.1

\(1.7 \pm 1.8\)

NY

0.07

5.7

\(-3.4 \pm 6.8\)

ON

0.67

6.0

\(1.4 \pm 1.7\)

WA

1.59

8.8

\(-2.5 \pm 2.6\)

WE

0.15

6.1

\(-1.8 \pm 1.8\)

YE

0.99

6.7

\(-0.1 \pm 1.6\)

ZE

0.40

11.0

\(-3.4 \pm 4.7\)

  1. The statistics are calculated based upon 15 daily single-technique solutions. Both \(\delta \text {ZWD}\) and biases are expressed w.r.t. the VLBI-derived parameters