A new technique to determine geoid and orthometric heights from satellite positioning and geopotential numbers

This paper takes advantage of space-technique-derived positions on the Earth’s surface and the known normal gravity field to determine the height anomaly from geopotential numbers. A new method is also presented to downward-continue the height anomaly to the geoid height. The orthometric height is determined as the difference between the geodetic (ellipsoidal) height derived by space-geodetic techniques and the geoid height. It is shown that, due to the very high correlation between the geodetic height and the computed geoid height, the error of the orthometric height determined by this method is usually much smaller than that provided by standard GPS/levelling. Also included is a practical formula to correct the Helmert orthometric height by adding two correction terms: a topographic roughness term and a correction term for lateral topographic mass–density variations.     

The effect of EGM2008-based normal, normal-orthometric and Helmert orthometric height systems on the Australian levelling network

This paper investigates the normal-orthometric correction used in the definition of the Australian Height Datum, and also computes and evaluates normal and Helmert orthometric corrections for the Australian National Levelling Network (ANLN). Testing these corrections in Australia is important to establish which height system is most appropriate for any new Australian vertical datum. An approximate approach to assigning gravity values to ANLN benchmarks (BMs) is used, where the EGM2008-modelled gravity field is used to ‘re-construct’ observed gravity at the BMs. Network loop closures (for first- and second-order levelling) indicate reduced misclosures for all height corrections considered, particularly in the mountainous regions of south eastern Australia. Differences between Helmert orthometric and normal-orthometric heights reach 44 cm in the Australian Alps, and differences between Helmert orthometric and normal heights are about 26 cm in the same region. Normal-orthometric heights differ from normal heights by up to 18 cm in mountainous regions >2,000 m. This indicates that the quasigeoid is not compatible with normal-orthometric heights in Australia.     

On determination of heights by using terrestrial clocks and GPS signals

 Considering a GPS satellite and two terrestrial stations, two types of equations are derived relating the heights of the two stations to the measured data (frequency ratio or clock rate differences) and the coordinates and velocity components of all three participating objects. The potential possibilities of using such relations for the determination of heights (in terms of geopotential numbers or orthometric heights) are discussed. Received: 6 December 2000 / Accepted: 9 July 2001     

Comparison of different height systems

Geopotential, dynamic, orthometric and normal height systems and the corrections related to these systems are evaluated in this paper. Along two different routes, with a length of about 5 kilometers, precise leveling and gravity measurements are done. One of the routes is in an even field while the other is in a rough field. The magnitudes of orthometric, normal and dynamic corrections are calculated for each route. Orthometric, dynamic, and normal height differences are acquired by adding the corrections to the height differences obtained from geometric leveling. The magnitudes of the corrections between the two routes are compared. In addition, by subtracting orthometric, dynamic, and normal heights from geometric leveling, deviations of these heights from geometric leveling are counted.     

The relation between rigorous and Helmert’s definitions of orthometric heights

Following our earlier definition of the rigorous orthometric height [J Geod 79(1-3):82–92 (2005)] we present the derivation and calculation of the differences between this and the Helmert orthometric height, which is embedded in the vertical datums used in numerous countries. By way of comparison, we also consider Mader and Niethammer’s refinements to the Helmert orthometric height. For a profile across the Canadian Rocky Mountains (maximum height of ~2,800 m), the rigorous correction to Helmert’s height reaches ~13 cm, whereas the Mader and Niethammer corrections only reach ~3 cm. The discrepancy is due mostly to the rigorous correction’s consideration of the geoid-generated gravity disturbance. We also point out that several of the terms derived here are the same as those used in regional gravimetric geoid models, thus simplifying their implementation. This will enable those who currently use Helmert orthometric heights to upgrade them to a more rigorous height system based on the Earth’s gravity field and one that is more compatible with a regional geoid model.     

利用大地边值问题方法统一全球高程基准

为解决世界各国高程基准差异的问题,提出联合卫星重力场模型、地面重力数据、GNSS大地高、局部高程基准的正高或正常高,按大地边值问题法确定局部高程基准重力位差的方法。首先推导了利用传统地面"有偏"重力异常确定高程基准重力位差的方法;接着利用改化Stokes核函数削弱"有偏"重力异常的影响,并联合卫星重力场模型和地面"有偏"重力数据,得到独立于任何局部高程基准的重力水准面,以此来确定局部高程基准重力位差;最后利用GNSS+水准数据和重力大地水准面确定了美国高程基准与全球高程基准W₀的重力位差为-4.82±0.05 m²s^-2。     

On the geoid–quasigeoid separation in mountain areas

The separation between the reference surfaces for orthometric heights and normal heights—the geoid and the quasigeoid—is typically in the order of a few decimeters but can reach nearly 3 m in extreme cases. The knowledge of the geoid–quasigeoid separation with centimeter accuracy or better, is essential for the realization of national and international height reference frames, and for precision height determination in geodetic engineering. The largest contribution to the geoid–quasigeoid separation is due to the distribution of topographic masses. We develop a compact formulation for the rigorous treatment of topographic masses and apply it to determine the geoid–quasigeoid separation for two test areas in the Alps with very rough topography, using a very fine grid resolution of 100 m. The magnitude of the geoid–quasigeoid separation and its accuracy, its slopes, roughness, and correlation with height are analyzed. Results show that rigorous treatment of topographic masses leads to a rather small geoid–quasigeoid separation—only 30 cm at the highest summit—while results based on approximations are often larger by several decimeters. The accuracy of the topographic contribution to the geoid–quasigeoid separation is estimated to be 2–3 cm for areas with extreme topography. Analysis of roughness of the geoid–quasigeoid separation shows that a resolution of the modeling grid of 200 m or less is required to achieve these accuracies. Gravity and the vertical gravity gradient inside of topographic masses and the mean gravity along the plumbline are modeled which are important intermediate quantities for the determination of the geoid–quasigeoid separation. We conclude that a consistent determination of the geoid and quasigeoid height reference surfaces within an accuracy of few centimeters is feasible even for areas with extreme topography, and that the concepts of orthometric height and normal height can be consistently realized and used within this level of accuracy.     

The US Gravimetric Geoid of 2009 (USGG2009): model development and evaluation

A new gravimetric geoid model, USGG2009 (see Abbreviations), has been developed for the United States and its territories including the Conterminous US (CONUS), Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. USGG2009 is based on a 1′ × 1′ gravity grid derived from the NGS surface gravity data and the DNSC08 altimetry-derived anomalies, the SRTM-DTED1 3′′ DEM for its topographic reductions, and the global geopotential model EGM08 as a reference model. USGG2009 geoid heights are compared with control values determined at 18,398 Bench Marks over CONUS, where both the ellipsoidal height above NAD 83 and the Helmert orthometric height above NAVD 88 are known. Correcting for the ellipsoidal datum difference, this permits a comparison of the geoid heights to independent data. The standard deviation of the differences is 6.3 cm in contrast to 8.4 cm for its immediate predecessor— USGG2003. To minimize the effect of long-wavelength errors that are known to exist in NAVD88, these comparisons were made on a state-by-state basis. The standard deviations of the differences range from 3–5 cm in eastern states to about 6–9 cm in the more mountainous western states. If the GPS/Bench Marks-derived geoid heights are corrected by removing a GRACE-derived estimate of the long-wavelength NAVD88 errors before the comparison, the standard deviation of their differences from USGG2009 drops to 4.3 cm nationally and 2–4 cm in eastern states and 4–8 in states with a maximum error of 26.4 cm in California and minimum of −32.1 cm in Washington. USGG2009 is also compared with geoid heights derived from 40 tide-gauges and a physical dynamic ocean topography model in the Gulf of Mexico; the mean of the differences is 3.3 cm and their standard deviation is 5.0 cm. When USGG2009-derived deflections of the vertical are compared with 3,415 observed surface astro-geodetic deflections, the standard deviation of the differences in the N–S and E–W components are 0.87′′ and 0.94′′, respectively.     

Geoid undulation modelling and interpretation at Ladak, NW Himalaya using GPS and levelling data

Fast and accurate relative positioning for baselines less than 20 km in length is possible using dual-frequency Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers. By measuring orthometric heights of a few GPS stations by differential levelling techniques, the geoid undulation can be modelled, which enables GPS to be used for orthometric height determination in a much faster and more economical way than terrestrial methods. The geoid undulation anomaly can be very useful for studying tectonic structure. GPS, levelling and gravity measurements were carried out along a 200-km-long highly undulating profile, at an average elevation of 4000 m, in the Ladak region of NW Himalaya, India. The geoid undulation and gravity anomaly were measured at 28 common GPS-levelling and 67 GPS-gravity stations. A regional geoid low of nearly −4 m coincident with a steep negative gravity gradient is compatible with very recent findings from other geophysical studies of a low-velocity layer 20–30 km thick to the north of the India–Tibet plate boundary, within the Tibetan plate. Topographic, gravity and geoid data possibly indicate that the actual plate boundary is situated further north of what is geologically known as the Indus Tsangpo Suture Zone, the traditionally supposed location of the plate boundary. Comparison of the measured geoid with that computed from OSU91 and EGM96 gravity models indicates that GPS alone can be used for orthometric height determination over the Higher Himalaya with 1–2 m accuracy. Received: 10 April 1997 / Accepted: 9 October 1998     

高程系统定义分析与高精度GNSS代替水准算法

从高程系统定义出发,探讨高程基准面的重力等位性质,测试分析不同类型高程系统地面点高程之间的差异,考察GNSS代替水准与实际水准测量成果的一致性,进而提出新的GNSS代替水准算法。主要结论包括:(1)当精度要求达到厘米级水平时,正常高的基准面也应是大地水准面。中国国家1985高程基准采用正常高系统,其高程基准面是过青岛零点的大地水准面。(2)近地空间中等解析正高面与大地水准面平行,GNSS代替水准能直接测定地面点的解析正高,但正常高系统更有利于描述地势和地形起伏。(3)本文给出的GNSS代替水准测定近地点正常高算法,大地高误差对正常高结果的影响比大地水准面误差大,前者影响约为后者的1.5倍。     

联合GRACE/GOCE重力场模型和GPS/水准数据确定我国85高程基准重力位

GRACE、GOCE卫星重力计划的实施,对确定高精度重力场模型具有重要贡献。联合GRACE、GOCE卫星数据建立的重力场模型和我国均匀分布的649个GPS/水准数据可以确定我国高程基准重力位,但我国高程基准对应的参考面为似大地水准面,是非等位面,将似大地水准面转化为大地水准面后确定的大地水准面重力位为62 636 854.395 3m~2s~(-2),为提高高阶项对确定大地水准面的贡献,利用高分辨率重力场模型EGM2008扩展GRACE/GOCE模型至2190阶,同时将重力场模型和GPS/水准数据统一到同一参考框架和潮汐系统,最后利用扩展后的模型确定的我国大地水准面重力位为62 636 852.751 8m~2s~(-2)。其中组合模型TIM_R4+EGM2008确定的我国85高程基准重力位值62 636 852.704 5m~2s~(-2)精度最高。重力场模型截断误差对确定我国大地水准面的影响约16cm,潮汐系统影响约4~6cm。     

Local geoid determination combining gravity disturbances and GPS/levelling: a case study in the Lake Nasser area, Aswan, Egypt

 The use of GPS for height control in an area with existing levelling data requires the determination of a local geoid and the bias between the local levelling datum and the one implicitly defined when computing the local geoid. If only scarse gravity data are available, the heights of new data may be collected rapidly by determining the ellipsoidal height by GPS and not using orthometric heights. Hence the geoid determination has to be based on gravity disturbances contingently combined with gravity anomalies. Furthermore, existing GPS/levelling data may also be used in the geoid determination if a suitable general gravity field modelling method (such as least-squares collocation, LSC) is applied. A comparison has been made in the Aswan Dam area between geoids determined using fast Fourier transform (FFT) with gravity disturbances exclusively and LSC using only the gravity disturbances and the disturbances combined with GPS/levelling data. The EGM96 spherical harmonic model was in all cases used in a remove–restore mode. A total of 198 gravity disturbances spaced approximately 3 km apart were used, as well as 35 GPS/levelling points in the vicinity and on the Aswan Dam. No data on the Nasser Lake were available. This gave difficulties when using FFT, which requires the use of gridded data. When using exclusively the gravity disturbances, the agreement between the GPS/levelling data were 0.71 ± 0.17 m for FFT and 0.63 ± 0.15 for LSC. When combining gravity disturbances and GPS/levelling, the LSC error estimate was ±0.10 m. In the latter case two bias parameters had to be introduced to account for a possible levelling datum difference between the levelling on the dam and that on the adjacent roads. Received: 14 August 2000 / Accepted: 28 February 2001     

Use of potential coefficient models for geoid undulation determinations using a spherical harmonic representation of the height anomaly/geoid undulation difference

 This paper suggests that potential coefficient models of the Earth's gravitational potential be used to calculate height anomalies which are then reduced to geoid undulations where such quantities are needed for orthometric height determination and vertical datum definition through a potential coefficient realization of the geoid. The process of the conversion of the height anomaly into a geoid undulation is represented by a height anomaly gradient term and the usual N–ζ term that is dependent on elevation and the Bouguer anomaly. Using a degree 360 expansion of 30′ elevations and the OSU91A potential coefficient model, a degree 360 representation of the correction terms was computed. The magnitude of N–ζ reached –3.4 m in the Himalaya Mountains with smaller, but still significant, magnitudes in other mountainous regions. Received: 6 May 1996; Accepted: 30 October 1996     

Calibration of geoid error models via a combined adjustment of ellipsoidal, orthometric and gravimetric geoid height data

The well-known statistical tool of variance component estimation (VCE) is implemented in the combined least-squares (LS) adjustment of heterogeneous height data (ellipsoidal, orthometric and geoid), for the purpose of calibrating geoid error models. This general treatment of the stochastic model offers the flexibility of estimating more than one variance and/or covariance component to improve the covariance information. Specifically, the iterative minimum norm quadratic unbiased estimation (I-MINQUE) and the iterative almost unbiased estimation (I-AUE) schemes are implemented in case studies with observed height data from Switzerland and parts of Canada. The effect of correlation among measurements of the same height type and the role of the systematic effects and datum inconsistencies in the combined adjustment of ellipsoidal, geoid and orthometric heights on the estimated variance components are investigated in detail. Results give valuable insight into the usefulness of the VCE approach for calibrating geoid error models and the challenges encountered when implementing such a scheme in practice. In all cases, the estimated variance component corresponding to the geoid height data was less than or equal to 1, indicating an overall downscaling of the initial covariance (CV) matrix was necessary. It was also shown that overly optimistic CV matrices are obtained when diagonal-only cofactor matrices are implemented in the stochastic model for the observations. Finally, the divergence of the VCE solution and/or the computation of negative variance components provide insight into the selected parametric model effectiveness.     

The rigorous determination of orthometric heights

The main problem of the rigorous definition of the orthometric height is the evaluation of the mean value of the Earth’s gravity acceleration along the plumbline within the topography. To find the exact relation between rigorous orthometric and Molodensky’s normal heights, the mean gravity is decomposed into: the mean normal gravity, the mean values of gravity generated by topographical and atmospheric masses, and the mean gravity disturbance generated by the masses contained within geoid. The mean normal gravity is evaluated according to Somigliana–Pizzetti’s theory of the normal gravity field generated by the ellipsoid of revolution. Using the Bruns formula, the mean values of gravity along the plumbline generated by topographical and atmospheric masses can be computed as the integral mean between the Earth’s surface and geoid. Since the disturbing gravity potential generated by masses inside the geoid is harmonic above the geoid, the mean value of the gravity disturbance generated by the geoid is defined by applying the Poisson integral equation to the integral mean. Numerical results for a test area in the Canadian Rocky Mountains show that the difference between the rigorously defined orthometric height and the Molodensky normal height reaches ∼0.5 m.     

最小二乘配置法中局部协方差函数的计算

随着 GPS日益广泛的应用及精度的不断提高 ,在有些实际应用中利用 GPS来代替传统的水准测量进行高程控制已成为可能 ,这也进一步提出了对高精度大地水准面的需求。快速傅立叶变换 (FFT)是目前计算大地水准面比较常用的方法之一 ,但需要将重力观测量进行内插得到规则格网上的平均重力异常。利用最小二乘配置法计算大地水准面可直接利用已有的观测值进行计算 ,同时可综合利用不同类型的数据 ,如重力异常和垂线偏差等计算大地水准面 ,因此最小二乘配置法仍有广泛的应用 ,但制约最小二乘配置应用的关键问题是局部协方差函数的计算。将主要讨论最小二乘配置法中局部协方差函数的计算 ,使所用的协方差函数能更好地反映已知的数据 ,从而获得更精确的结果。     

An evaluation of orthometric height accuracy using bore hole gravimetry

Errors are introduced in orthometric height computations by the use of standard formulas to estimate mean gravity along the plumb line. Direct measurements of gravity between the Earth’s surface and sea level from bore hole gravimetry were used to determine the magnitude of these errors. For the seven cases studied, errors in orthometric height, due to the use of the Helmert method for computing mean gravity along the plumb line, were generally small (<2 cm). However, in one instance the error was substantial, being9.6 cm. The results verified the general validity of the Poincaré-Prey approach to estimation of gravity along the plumb line and demonstrated that the suggestion byVanicek (1980) that the air gradient is more appropriate is incorrect. With sufficient topographic information to compute terrain corrections, and density estimates from surface gravity, errors in mean gravity along the plumb line should contribute no more than 3cm to orthometric height computation.     

The CARIB97 high-resolution geoid height model for the Caribbean Sea

A 2×2 arc-minute resolution geoid model, CARIB97, has been computed covering the Caribbean Sea. The geoid undulations refer to the GRS-80 ellipsoid, centered at the ITRF94 (1996.0) origin. The geoid level is defined by adopting the gravity potential on the geoid as W ₀=62 636 856.88 m²/s² and a gravity-mass constant of GM=3.986 004 418×10¹⁴ m³/s². The geoid model was computed by applying high-frequency corrections to the Earth Gravity Model 1996 global geopotential model in a remove-compute-restore procedure. The permanent tide system of CARIB97 is non-tidal. Comparison of CARIB97 geoid heights to 31 GPS/tidal (ITRF94/local) benchmarks shows an average offset (h–H–N) of 51 cm, with an Root Mean Square (RMS) of 62 cm about the average. This represents an improvement over the use of a global geoid model for the region. However, because the measured orthometric heights (H) refer to many differing tidal datums, these comparisons are biased by localized permanent ocean dynamic topography (PODT). Therefore, we interpret the 51 cm as partially an estimate of the average PODT in the vicinity of the 31 island benchmarks. On an island-by-island basis, CARIB97 now offers the ability to analyze local datum problems which were previously unrecognized due to a lack of high-resolution geoid information in the area. Received: 2 January 1998 / Accepted: 18 August 1998     

Making the connection between Geosat and TOPEX/Poseidon

We can presently construct two independent time series of sea level, each at a precision of a few centimeters, from Geosat (1985–1988) and TOPEX/Poseidon (1992–1995) collinear altimetry. Both are based on precise satellite orbits computed using a common geopotential model, JGM-2 (Nerem et al. 1994). We have attempted to connect these series using Geosat-T/P crossover differences in order to assess long-term ocean changes between these missions. Unfortunately, the observed result are large-scale sea level differences which appear to be due to a combination of geodetic and geopotential error sources. The most significant geodetic component seems to be a coordinate system bias for Geosat sea level (relative to T/P) of −7 to −9 cm in the y-axis (towards the Eastern Pacific). The Geosat-T/P sea height differences at crossovers (with JGM-2 orbits) probably also contain stationary geopotential-orbit error of about the same magnitude which also distort any oceanographic interpretation of the observed changes. We also found JGM-3 Geosat orbits have not resolved the datum errors evident from the JGM-2 Geosat -T/P results. We conclude that the direct altimetric approach to accurate determination of sea level change using Geosat and T/P data still depends on further improvement in the Geosat orbits, including definition of the geocenter. Received: 11 March 1996; Accepted: 19 September 1996