Evaluation of recent global geopotential models by GNSS/levelling data: Internal Aegean region

Abstract

Global geopotential models of spherical harmonic coefficients are used to determine the external gravitational field of the Earth. These coefficients are derived from satellite orbit perturbations, terrestrial gravity anomalies and altimeter data. Hundreds of thousands of coefficients and standard deviation values for these coefficients are estimated from millions of observation. Measurement amount, homogenous distribution of the measurements of global scale, different measurement types reflecting the different frequencies of the gravity signal and measuring-assessment techniques affect the model accuracy directly. Starting from 1960’s and lasts to the present day and also gaining new acceleration with the satellite gravity field missions, every outcome of the studies related to the determination of the global Geopotential model is experienced by a series of validation tests. Accuracy of the model can either be determined from the estimated error degree variances concerning the coefficients (interior validation) or comparison of geoid heights, gravity anomalies, gravity disturbances and components of vertical deflection calculated from the model with terrestrial measurements directly (outer validation). In this paper, recent global geopotential models are primarily explained. Global geopotential models are compared with GNSS/levelling data of the study area. The objective of this comparison is to determine the best fit global geopotential model which will contribute to the study of Turkish geoid determination.

Keywords

• Geoid
• Geopotential model
• GNSS/levelling

References

1. Banarjee, P., Foulger, G.R., Satyaprakash, Dabral, C.P. (1999). Geoid undulation modelling and interpretation at Ladak, NW Himalaya using GPS and levelling data. Journal of Geodesy, 73, 79-86.
2. Erol, B., Sideris, M.G., Celik, R.N. (2009). Comparison of global geopotential models from the champ and grace missions for regional geoid modelling in Turkey. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, 53, 419-441.
3. Fecher, T., Pail, R., Gruber, T. and the GOCO Project Team. (2016). The combined satellite gravity field model GOCO05C. EGU General Assembly, 17-22 April, Vienna, Austria, Geophysical Research Abstracts, 18 (EGU2016-7696).
4. Förste, C., Flechtner, F., Schmidt, R., Stubenvoll, R., Rothacher, M., Kusche, J., Neumayer, K.H., Biancale, R., Lemoine, J.-M., Barthelmes, F., Bruinsma, S., König, R., Meyer, U. (2008). EIGEN-GL05C - A new global combined high-resolution GRACE-based gravity field model of the GFZ-GRGS cooperation. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 10, EGU2008-A-03426, SRef-ID: 1607-7962/gra/EGU2008-A-03426, 2008.
5. Förste, C., Bruinsma, S.L., Abrikosov, O., Lemoine, J.-M., Marty, J.C., Flechtner, F., Balmino, G., Barthelmes, F., Biancale, R. (2015). EIGEN-6C4 The latest combined global gravity field model including GOCE data up to degree and order 2190 of GFZ Potsdam and GRGS Toulouse. http://dx.doi.org/10.5880/icgem.2015.1.
6. Gilardoni, M., Reguzzoni, M., Sampietro, D. (2016). GECO: a global gravity model by locally combining GOCE data and EGM2008. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, 60, 228-247.
7. Heiskanen, W.A., Moritz, H. (1967). Physical Geodesy.W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.
8. Kiamehr, R., Sjöberg, L.E. (2005). Comparison of the qualities of recent global and local gravimetric geoid models in Iran. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, 49, 289-304.

9. Kilicoglu, A., Direnc, A., Yildiz, H., Bolme, M., Aktug, B., Simav, M., Lenk, O. (2011). Regional gravimetric quasi-geoid model and transformation surface to national height system for Turkey (THG-09). Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, 55, 557-578.
10. Kotsakis, C. (2008). Transforming ellipsoidal heights and geoid undulations between different geodetic reference frames. Journal of Geodesy, 82, 249-260.
11. Mainville, A., Forsberg, R., Sideris, M.G. (1992). Global positioning system testing of geoids computed from geopotential model and local gravity data: a case study. Journal of Geophysical Research, 97 (B7), 11137-11147.
12. Pavlis, N.K., Holmes, S.A., Kenyon S.C., Factor J.K. (2008). An earth gravitational model to degree 2160: EGM2008. General Assembly of the European Geosciences Union, 13-18 April, Vienna, Austria.
13. Pavlis, N.K., Holmes, S.A., Kenyon, S.C., Factor, J.K. (2012). The development and evaluation of the Earth Gravitational Model 2008 (EGM2008). Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, B04406, doi: 10.1029/2011JB008916.
14. Rapp, R.H. (1997). Past and future developments in geopotential modelling, in: Forsberg, R, Feissl, M., Dietrich, R. (Eds.) Geodesy on the Move, Springer, Berlin, pp. 58-78.
15. Ries, J., Bettadpur, S., Eanes, R., Kang, Z., Ko, U., McCullough, C., Nagel, P., Pie, N., Poole, S., Richter, T., Save, H., Tapley, B. (2016). The combined gravity model GGM05C. http://dx.doi.org/10.5880/icgem.2016.002.
16. Rummel, R., Balmino, G., Johannessen, ., Visser, P., Woodworth, P. (2002). Dedicated gravity field missions-principles and aims. Journal of Geodynamics, 33, 3-20.
17. Tenzer, R., Vanicek, P., Santos, M., Featherstone, W.E., Kuhn, M. (2005). The rigorous determination of orthometric heights. Journal of Geodesy, 79, 82-92.