Collocation and FFT-based geoid estimation within the Colorado 1 cm geoid experiment
Journal of Geodesy, ISSN: 1432-1394, Vol: 95, Issue: 5
2021
- 18Citations
- 16Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
In the frame of the International Association of Geodesy Joint Working Group 2.2.2 “The 1 cm geoid experiment”, terrestrial and airborne gravity datasets along with GPS/leveling data were made available for the comparison of different geoid modeling methods and techniques in the wider area of Colorado, USA. We discuss the methods and procedures we followed for computing gravimetric quasi-geoid and geoid models and geopotential values from the available datasets. The procedures followed were based on the remove-compute-restore approach using XGM2016 as a reference geopotential model. The higher frequencies of the gravity field were computed via the residual terrain correction, using (a) the CGIAR-CSI SRTM digital elevation model with the classical technique and (b) a spectral one. Least-Squares Collocation was used for the downward continuation of the airborne data and for gridding. Finally, the geoid models were obtained by applying Least-Squares Collocation and spherical FFT-based methods, while the influence of the orthometric height correction on geoid heights was taken into account by employing simple and complete Bouguer reductions. All results were evaluated with available GPS/leveling benchmarks. Moreover, potential values were determined in support of the International Height Reference System/Frame. From the results acquired, a final accuracy of 5–7 cm for the determined geoid models was achieved depending on the adopted method and data combination, without considering the accuracy of the GPS/leveling data used for their evaluation. The contribution of the airborne gravity data was deemed as limited in combination solutions although the airborne only solution provided equal level of accuracy to the terrestrial and the combined ones. Better consistency was obtained on the points of the GSVS17 line, when compared to the GPS/leveling data, where an accuracy of 2.4 cm and 2.8 cm was reached for the FFT and LSC based methods, respectively.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85101544314&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00190-021-01507-7; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00190-021-01507-7; https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00190-021-01507-7.pdf; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00190-021-01507-7/fulltext.html; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00190-021-01507-7; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00190-021-01507-7
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know