Evaluation of GGMs Based on the Terrestrial Gravity Disturbance and Moho Depth in Afar, Ethiopia

IF 0.7 Q4 ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
Eyasu Alemu
{"title":"Evaluation of GGMs Based on the Terrestrial Gravity Disturbance and Moho Depth in Afar, Ethiopia","authors":"Eyasu Alemu","doi":"10.2478/arsa-2021-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract To estimate Moho depth, geoid, gravity anomaly, and other geopotential functionals, gravity data is needed. But, gravity survey was not collected in equal distribution in Ethiopia, as the data forming part of the survey were mainly collected on accessible roads. To determine accurate Moho depth using Global Gravity Models (GGMs) for the study area, evaluation of GGMs is needed based on the available terrestrial gravity data. Moho depth lies between 28 km and 32 km in Afar. Gravity disturbances (GDs) were calculated for the terrestrial gravity data and the recent GGMs for the study area. The model-based GDs were compared with the corresponding GD obtained from the terrestrial gravity data and their differences in terms of statistical comparison parameters for determining the best fit GGM at a local scale in Afar. The largest standard deviation (SD) (36.10 mGal) and root mean square error (RMSE) (39.00 mGal) for residual GD and the lowest correlation with the terrestrial gravity (0.61 mGal) were obtained by the satellite-only model (GO_CONS_GCF_2_DIR_R6). The next largest SD (21.27 mGal) and RMSE (25.65 mGal) for residual GD were obtained by the combined gravity model (XGM2019e_2159), which indicates that it is not the best fit model for the study area as compared with the other two GGMs. In general, the result showed that the combined models are more useful tools for modeling the gravity field in Afar than the satellite-only GGMs. But, the study clearly revealed that for the study area, the best model in comparison with the others is the EGM2008, while the second best model is the EIGEN6C4.","PeriodicalId":43216,"journal":{"name":"Artificial Satellites-Journal of Planetary Geodesy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Artificial Satellites-Journal of Planetary Geodesy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/arsa-2021-0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract To estimate Moho depth, geoid, gravity anomaly, and other geopotential functionals, gravity data is needed. But, gravity survey was not collected in equal distribution in Ethiopia, as the data forming part of the survey were mainly collected on accessible roads. To determine accurate Moho depth using Global Gravity Models (GGMs) for the study area, evaluation of GGMs is needed based on the available terrestrial gravity data. Moho depth lies between 28 km and 32 km in Afar. Gravity disturbances (GDs) were calculated for the terrestrial gravity data and the recent GGMs for the study area. The model-based GDs were compared with the corresponding GD obtained from the terrestrial gravity data and their differences in terms of statistical comparison parameters for determining the best fit GGM at a local scale in Afar. The largest standard deviation (SD) (36.10 mGal) and root mean square error (RMSE) (39.00 mGal) for residual GD and the lowest correlation with the terrestrial gravity (0.61 mGal) were obtained by the satellite-only model (GO_CONS_GCF_2_DIR_R6). The next largest SD (21.27 mGal) and RMSE (25.65 mGal) for residual GD were obtained by the combined gravity model (XGM2019e_2159), which indicates that it is not the best fit model for the study area as compared with the other two GGMs. In general, the result showed that the combined models are more useful tools for modeling the gravity field in Afar than the satellite-only GGMs. But, the study clearly revealed that for the study area, the best model in comparison with the others is the EGM2008, while the second best model is the EIGEN6C4.
基于陆地重力扰动和莫霍深度的埃塞俄比亚阿法尔GGMs评价
摘要为了估计莫霍深度、大地水准面、重力异常和其他位势函数,需要重力数据。但是,在埃塞俄比亚,重力调查的收集并不均匀,因为构成调查一部分的数据主要是在无障碍道路上收集的。为了使用全球重力模型(GGM)为研究区域确定准确的莫霍深度,需要根据可用的地面重力数据对GGM进行评估。阿法尔的莫霍深度在28公里到32公里之间。根据研究区域的地面重力数据和最近的GGM计算了重力扰动(GDs)。将基于模型的GDs与从地面重力数据中获得的相应GDs进行比较,并将其在统计比较参数方面的差异进行比较,以确定Afar局部尺度上的最佳拟合GGM。残差GD的最大标准偏差(SD)(36.10mGal)和均方根误差(RMSE)(39.00mGal)以及与地面重力的最低相关性(0.61mGal)由纯卫星模型(GO_CONS_GCF_2_DIR_R6)获得。组合重力模型(XGM2019e_2159)获得了剩余GD的次大SD(21.27mGal)和RMSE(25.65mGal),这表明与其他两个GGM相比,它不是研究区域的最佳拟合模型。总的来说,结果表明,与仅使用卫星的GGM相比,组合模型是对Afar重力场建模更有用的工具。但是,该研究清楚地表明,与其他模型相比,该研究领域的最佳模型是EGM2008,而第二好的模型是EIGEN6C4。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信