Advertisement

Global Topographically Corrected and Topo-Density Contrast Stripped Gravity Field from EGM08 and CRUST 2.0

  • R. TenzerEmail author
  • Hamayun
  • P. Vajda
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 136)

Abstract

We compute globally the topographically corrected and topo-density contrast stripped gravity disturbances and gravity anomalies taking into account the major known density variations within the topography. The topographical and topo-density contrast stripping corrections are applied to the EGM08 gravity field quantities in two successive steps. First, the gravitational contribution of the topography of constant average density 2,670 kg/m3 is subtracted. Then the ice, sediment, and upper crust topo-density contrast stripping corrections are applied to the topographically corrected gravity field quantities in order to model the gravitational contribution due to anomalous density variations within the topography. The coefficients of the global geopotential model EGM08 complete to degree 180 of spherical harmonics are used to compute the gravity disturbances and gravity anomalies. The 5 × 5 arc-min global elevation data from the ETOPO5 are used to generate the global elevation coefficients. These coefficients are utilized to compute the topographical correction with a spectral resolution complete to degree and order 180. The 2 × 2 arc-deg global data of the ice, sediment, and upper crust from the CRUST 2.0 global crustal model are used to compute the ice, sediment, and upper crust topo-density contrast stripping corrections with a 2 × 2 arc-deg spatial resolution. All data are evaluated globally on a 1 × 1 arc-deg grid at the Earth’s surface.

Keywords

Gravity Field Gravity Anomaly Gravity Disturbance Topographical Correction Geocentric Radius 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bassin C, Laske G, Masters G (2000) The current limits of resolution for surface wave tomography in North America. EOS. Trans AGU 81:F897Google Scholar
  2. Heck B (2003) On Helmert’s methods of condensation. J Geod 77(3–4):155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Heiskanen WH, Moritz H (1967) Physical geodesy. W.H., Freeman and Co, San FranciscoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hinze WJ (2003) Bouguer reduction density, why 2.67? Geophysics 68(5):1559–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Huang J, Vaníček P, Pagiatakis SD, Brink W (2001) Effect of topographical density on the geoid in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. J Geod 74:805–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hunegnaw A (2001) The effect of lateral density variation on local geoid determination. Bollettino di geodesia e scienze affini 60(2):125–144Google Scholar
  7. Kühtreiber N (1998) Precise geoid determination using a density variation model. Phys Chem Earth 23(1):59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Martinec Z (1998) Boundary-value problems for gravimetric determination of a precise geoid. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. Martinec Z, Vaníček P, Mainville A, Veronneau M (1995) The effect of lake water on geoidal height. Manusc Geod 20:193–203Google Scholar
  10. Novák P (2010) High resolution constituents of the Earth gravitational field. Surv Geoph, 31(1), pp. 1–21, doi: 10.1007/s10712-009-9077-z
  11. Novák P, Grafarend EW (2005) The ellipsoidal representation of the topographical potential and its vertical gradient. J Geod 78(11–12):691–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Novák P, Grafarend EW (2006) The effect of topographical and atmospheric masses on spaceborne gravimetric and gradiometric data. Stud Geoph Geod 50(4):549–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Novák P, Vaníček P, Martinec Z, Veronneau M (2001) Effects of the spherical terrain on gravity and the geoid. J Geod 75(9–10):491–504Google Scholar
  14. Sjöberg LE (2004) The effect on the geoid of lateral topographic density variations. J Geod 78(1–2):34–39Google Scholar
  15. Tenzer R, Vaníček P, Novák P (2003) Far-zone contributions to topographical effects in the Stokes-Helmert method of the geoid determination. Stud Geoph Geod 47(3):467–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Vaníček P, Najafi M, Martinec Z, Harrie L, Sjöberg LE (1995) Higher-degree reference field in the generalised Stokes-Helmert scheme for geoid computation. J Geod 70:176–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Surveying, Faculty of SciencesUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Delft Institute of Earth Observation and Space Systems (DEOS)Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Geophysical Institute, Slovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovak Republic

Personalised recommendations