On the geoid and orthometric height vs. quasigeoid and normal height

IF 0.9 Q4 REMOTE SENSING
L. Sjöberg
{"title":"On the geoid and orthometric height vs. quasigeoid and normal height","authors":"L. Sjöberg","doi":"10.1515/jogs-2018-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The geoid, but not the quasigeoid, is an equipotential surface in the Earth’s gravity field that can serve both as a geodetic datum and a reference surface in geophysics. It is also a natural zero-level surface, as it agrees with the undisturbed mean sea level. Orthometric heights are physical heights above the geoid,while normal heights are geometric heights (of the telluroid) above the reference ellipsoid. Normal heights and the quasigeoid can be determined without any information on the Earth’s topographic density distribution, which is not the case for orthometric heights and geoid. We show from various derivations that the difference between the geoid and the quasigeoid heights, being of the order of 5 m, can be expressed by the simple Bouguer gravity anomaly as the only term that includes the topographic density distribution. This implies that recent formulas, including the refined Bouguer anomaly and a difference between topographic gravity potentials, do not necessarily improve the result. Intuitively one may assume that the quasigeoid, closely related with the Earth’s surface, is rougher than the geoid. For numerical studies the topography is usually divided into blocks of mean elevations, excluding the problem with a non-star shaped Earth. In this case the smoothness of both types of geoid models are affected by the slope of the terrain,which shows that even at high resolutions with ultra-small blocks the geoid model is likely as rough as the quasigeoid model. In case of the real Earth there are areas where the quasigeoid, but not the geoid, is ambiguous, and this problem increases with the numerical resolution of the requested solution. These ambiguities affect also normal and orthometric heights. However, this problem can be solved by using the mean quasigeoid model defined by using average topographic heights at any requested resolution. An exact solution of the ambiguity for the normal height/quasigeoid can be provided by GNSS-levelling.","PeriodicalId":44569,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Geodetic Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Geodetic Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jogs-2018-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REMOTE SENSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract The geoid, but not the quasigeoid, is an equipotential surface in the Earth’s gravity field that can serve both as a geodetic datum and a reference surface in geophysics. It is also a natural zero-level surface, as it agrees with the undisturbed mean sea level. Orthometric heights are physical heights above the geoid,while normal heights are geometric heights (of the telluroid) above the reference ellipsoid. Normal heights and the quasigeoid can be determined without any information on the Earth’s topographic density distribution, which is not the case for orthometric heights and geoid. We show from various derivations that the difference between the geoid and the quasigeoid heights, being of the order of 5 m, can be expressed by the simple Bouguer gravity anomaly as the only term that includes the topographic density distribution. This implies that recent formulas, including the refined Bouguer anomaly and a difference between topographic gravity potentials, do not necessarily improve the result. Intuitively one may assume that the quasigeoid, closely related with the Earth’s surface, is rougher than the geoid. For numerical studies the topography is usually divided into blocks of mean elevations, excluding the problem with a non-star shaped Earth. In this case the smoothness of both types of geoid models are affected by the slope of the terrain,which shows that even at high resolutions with ultra-small blocks the geoid model is likely as rough as the quasigeoid model. In case of the real Earth there are areas where the quasigeoid, but not the geoid, is ambiguous, and this problem increases with the numerical resolution of the requested solution. These ambiguities affect also normal and orthometric heights. However, this problem can be solved by using the mean quasigeoid model defined by using average topographic heights at any requested resolution. An exact solution of the ambiguity for the normal height/quasigeoid can be provided by GNSS-levelling.
关于大地水准面和正交高度vs.拟大地水准面和法线高度
大地水准面是地球重力场中的一种等势面,在地球物理学中既可以作为大地测量基准面,又可以作为参考面。它也是一个自然的零水平面,因为它与未受干扰的平均海平面一致。正交高度是大地水准面之上的物理高度,而法向高度是基准面之上的几何高度(大地水准面)。法向高度和拟大地水准面可以在没有任何地球地形密度分布信息的情况下确定,这与正测高度和大地水准面不同。各种推导表明,大地水准面和拟水准面高度之差约为5 m,可以用简单的布格重力异常作为唯一包含地形密度分布的项来表示。这意味着最近的公式,包括改进的布格异常和地形重力势之间的差异,不一定能改善结果。人们可以直观地认为,与地球表面密切相关的准抛物面比大地水准面粗糙。在数值研究中,地形通常被划分为平均高程块,排除了非星形地球的问题。在这种情况下,两种类型的大地水准面模型的平滑度都受到地形坡度的影响,这表明即使在高分辨率和超小块的情况下,大地水准面模型也可能与拟大地水准面模型一样粗糙。在真实地球的情况下,有些区域的拟水准面是模糊的,而不是大地水准面,这个问题随着所要求的解的数值分辨率而增加。这些模糊性也影响法向高度和正交高度。然而,这个问题可以通过使用在任何要求的分辨率下使用平均地形高度定义的平均拟水准面模型来解决。通过gnss调平可以精确地解决法向高度/准抛物面的模糊问题。
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
Journal of Geodetic Science
Journal of Geodetic Science REMOTE SENSING-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
3
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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