A Comparison of Geoid and Quasigeoid Modeling Methods in Rough Topography

  • A. Mainville
  • M. Véronneau
  • R. Forsberg
  • M. G. Sideris
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 113)

Abstract

Geoid models covering regions as large as Canada, the United States, Europe and Scandinavia have been successfully computed with relative precision of a few centimetres over distances up to 1000 km. While this precision is proven using GPS measurements taken along levelling lines, it is a challenge to obtain the same precision in areas of rugged topography, especially since there are very few levelling lines which run up to the top of mountains. Here, geoid and quasigeoid models are computed along levelling lines with stations as high as 1500 metres, crossing the southern part of the Canadian Province of British Columbia where heights range from sea level to about 3500 metres. Various mathematical modeling techniques have been tested. They all involve the use of a global geopotential model and local gravity anomalies, and differ with regard to the way they treat the topography. The first one is the straightforward application of Stokes’ integral using the condensation technique. It consists of removing the effect of the topography according to Helmert’s condensation reduction from gravity anomalies and restoring the corresponding effect, i.e., the indirect effect, to the geoid heights. The second technique applied is called the residual terrain model (RTM) technique. In this case, the effect of the topography with respect to an average height surface is removed and restored. Height anomalies are here computed. They are transformed to geoid height for comparison with the other technique. Both techniques agree and provide a precision of 7 cm along a profile of 900 km. In most of the region, the average gravity data spacing is 10 – 15 km. Since parts of the region had a dense data coverage, a 5 km-grid was used as the most dense grid in the test computation. The denser grids did not statistically agree better with GPS than the wider grids but, in general, produce a better resolution geoid in regions of rugged topography. Graphical display will be required in following studies to show the difference between the two techniques. A close look to the correlation with topography may identify the route to improvement.

Keywords

Europe Covariance Geophysics Padding Gridding 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ferland R., and J.A.R. Blais (1984): Terrain Correction for Gravity Measurements, Dept. of Geomatics Eng. Rep. 20009, University of Calgary, Calgary.Google Scholar
  2. Forsberg, R. (1984): A Study of Terrain Reductions, Density Anomalies and Geophysical Inversion Methods in Gravity Field Modelling, Dept. of Geod. Sci. Rep. 355, Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  3. Forsberg, R., and M.G. Sideris (1993): Geoid Computations by the Multi-Band FFT Approach, Manuscripta Geodaetica 18, pp. 82 – 90, Springer-Verlag New York Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Geophysics Division (1988): Description of the National Gravity Database Content, Geological Survey of Canada, Dept. of Natural Resources, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  5. Heck, B. (1992): A Revision of Helmert’s Second Method of Condensation in Geoid and Quasigeoid Determination. Proceedings of the Potsdam IAG symposium no. 112 on geoid in Europe, pp.246–251, Springer-Verlag New York Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Heiskanen, W.A., and H. Moritz (1967): Physical Geodesy, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.Google Scholar
  7. Mainville, A., R. Forsberg and M.G. Sideris (1992): Global Positioning System Testing of Geoids Computed From Geopotential Models and Local Gravity Data: A Case Study, Journal of Geophysical Research, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Moritz, H. (1992): Geodetic Reference System of 1980. Geodesist’s Handbook, Bulletin geodesique, Springer-Verlag New York Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Martinec, Z., C. Matyska, E.W. Grafarend, and P. Vanicek (1993): On Helmert’s 2nd Condensation Method, Manuscripta Geodaetica 18, pp.417–421, Springer-Verlag New York Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Rapp, R. H., Y. M. Wang and N. K. Pavlis (1991): The Ohio State 1991 Geopotential and Sea Surface Topography Harmonic Coefficient Models, Dept. of Geod. Sci. Rep. 410, 91 pp., Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  11. Schwarz, K. P., M.G. Sideris, and R. Forsberg (1990): The Use of FFT Techniques in Physical Geodesy, Geophys. J. Int., 100, pp. 485 – 514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sideris, M.G., and R. Forsberg (1991): Review of Geoid Prediction Methods in Mountainous Regions, Proceedings of the IAG Symposia on the Determination of the Geoid - Present and Future, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Strang van Hees, G. (1990): Stokes Formula Using Fast Fourier Transform, Manuscripta Geodaetica 15, pp.235–239, Springer-Verlag New York Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Véronneau, M. and A. Mainville. (1994) Precision of the National Geoid Model in Canada. Dept. of Natural Resources, Ottawa, in preparation.Google Scholar
  15. Wang, Y. M. (1993): Comments on Proper Use of the Terrain Correction for the Computation of Height Anomalies, Manuscripta Geodaetica 18, pp. 53 – 57, Springer-Verlag New York Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Wichiencharoen, C. (1982): The Indirect Effect on the Computation of Geoid Undulations, Dept. of Geod. Sci. Rep. 336, Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Mainville
    • 1
  • M. Véronneau
    • 1
  • R. Forsberg
    • 2
  • M. G. Sideris
    • 3
  1. 1.Geodetic Survey DivisionGeomatics Canada, Dept. of Natural ResourcesOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Geodetic DivisionKort- og MatrikelstyrelsenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Geomatics EngineeringThe University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations