Abstract
The United States adopted the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) for its official vertical datum in the 1990s. Canada has been using the Canadian Geodetic Vertical Datum (CGVD28) for its height applications since the 1930s. The use of the different datums causes inconsistent heights across the border between the two countries, and the topographic height data from the two countries are not compatible. Both datums rely on passive control and significant pre-modern survey data, yielding not only misalignment of the datums to the best known global geoid at approximately 1–2 m, but also local uplift and subsidence issues which may significantly exceed 1–2 m in extreme cases.
Today, the GNSS provides the geometric (ellipsoidal) height to an accuracy of 1–2 cm globally. The use of current inaccurate vertical datums no longer serves the purpose it once did. Because of this, users have begun to demand a physical height system that is closely related to the Earth’s gravity field to a comparable accuracy. To address this need, government agencies of both countries are preparing the next generation of vertical datums. Even if the new datums are based on the same concepts and parameters, it is possible to have inconsistent heights along the borders due to the differences in the realization of the datums. To avoid inconsistency, it is in the interest of both countries to have a united, seamless, highly accurate vertical datum. The proposed replacements for CGVD28 and NAVD88 shall be based on GNSS positioning and a high accuracy gravimetric geoid that covers the territories of the United States, Canada, Mexico and the surrounding waters (to include all of Alaska, Hawaii, the Caribbean and Central America). To account for the effect of the sea level change, postglacial rebound, earthquakes and subsidence, this datum will also provide information on these changes. Detailed description of the definition, realization and maintenance of the datum is proposed. The challenges in realization and maintaining the datum are also discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Huang J, Vaníček P, Pagiatakis SD, Brink W (2001) Effect of topographical density on geoid in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. J Geodesy 74:805–815
Huang J, Fotopoulos G, Cheng MK, Véronneau M, Sideris MG (2007) On the estimation of the regional geoid error in Canada. IAG Sym 130(III):272–279
Ihde JM, Sideris G, Sánchez L (2010) Concepts for the realization of a World height system – theme 1 of the global geodetic observing system (GGOS). In: Proceedings of reference frames for applications in geosciences 2010, France
Li X, Wang YM (2011) Comparisons of geoid models over Alaska computed by different Stokes’s kernel modifications. J Geod Sci 1(2):136–142
Sansò F, Venuti G (2008) On the explicit determination of stability constants for linearized geodetic boundary value problems. J Geodesy 82:909–916
Smith D (2007) The GRAV-D project: gravity for the redefinition of the American Vertical Datum. Available online at: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRAV-D/pubs/GRAV-D_v2007_12_19.pdf
Smith D (2008) The NGS 10 year plan (2008–2018). Available online at: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/INFO/NGS10yearplan.pdf
Smith D (2010) Improving the national spatial reference system. White paper prepared for the 2010 Federal Geospatial Summit on replacing NAD 83 and NAVD 88. Silver Spring, MD, May 2010. Available online at: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/2010Summit/Improving_the_NSRS.pdf
Smith D, Eckl M, Fancher DRK, Kuper S, Smith C, Wang YM, Schmerge D, Winester D, Hirt C, Burki B, Guillame S (2010) A proposed geoid slope validation survey in the United States. In: Second international gravity field symposium, Fairbanks, Alaska
Tapley B, Ries J, Bettadpur S, Chambers D, Cheng M, Condi F, Poole S (2007) The GGM03 mean Earth gravity model from GRACE. Eos Trans AGU 88(52), Fall Meeting Suppl, Abstract G42A-03, 2007
Véronneau M, Duval R, Huang J (2006) A gravimetric geoid model as a vertical datum in Canada. Geomatica 60(2):165–172
Wang YM (2012) On the Omission Errors Due to Limited Grid Size in Geoid Computations, VII Hotine-Marussi Symposium on Mathematical Geodesy, IAG Symposia Vol. 137, pp 221–226
Wang YM, Saleh J, Li XP, Roman D (2012) The US Gravimetric Geoid of 2009 (USGG2009): model development and evaluation, J Geod, 86:165–180
Zilkoski DB (1986) The new adjustment of the North American datum. ACSM Bulletin, April, pp 35–36
Zilkoski DB, Richards JH, Young GM (1992) Results of the general adjustment of the North American vertical datum of 1988. Am Congr Surv Mapp Surv Land Inf Syst 52(3):133–149
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Smith, D.A., Véronneau, M., Roman, D.R., Huang, J., Wang, Y.M., Sideris, M.G. (2013). Towards the Unification of the Vertical Datum Over the North American Continent. In: Altamimi, Z., Collilieux, X. (eds) Reference Frames for Applications in Geosciences. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, vol 138. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32998-2_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32998-2_36
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32997-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32998-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)