Evaluation of recent Earth’s global gravity field models with terrestrial gravity data

Open access

Abstract

In the context of the rapid development of environmental research technologies and techniques to solve scientific and practical problems in different fields of knowledge including geosciences, the study of Earth’s gravity field models is still important today. The results of gravity anomaly modelling calculated by the current geopotential models data were compared with the independent terrestrial gravity data for the two territories located in West Siberia and Kazakhstan. Statistical characteristics of comparison results for the models under study were obtained. The results of investigations show that about 70% of the differences between the gravity anomaly values calculated by recent global geopotential models and those observed at the points in flat areas are within ±10 mGal, in mountainous areas are within ±20 mGal.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Brockmann J. M. Zehentner N. Höck E. Pail R. Loth I. Mayer-Gürr T. Schuh W.-D. 2014: EGM_TIM_RL05: An independent geoid with centimeter accuracy purely based on the GOCE mission. Geophysical Research Letters 41 8089–8099.

  • Bruinsma S. L. Marty J. C. Balmino G. Biancale R. Foerste C. Abrikosov O. Neumayer H. 2010: GOCE Gravity Field Recovery by Means of the Direct Numerical Method Proceeding at the ESA Living Planet Symposium 27th June – 2nd July 2010 Bergen Norway.

  • Drinkwater M. Floberghagen R. Haagmans R. Muzi D. Popescu A. 2003: GOCE: ESA’s first Earth Explorer Core Mission in G. B. Beutler M. R. Drinkwater R. Rummel and R. von Steiger (eds.) Earth Gravity Field from Space – from Sensors to Earth Sciences Space Sciences Series of ISSI 18 419–433.

  • Förste C. Bruinsma S. Abrykosov O. Flechtner F. Dahle C. Neumayer K.-H. Barthelmes F. König R. Marty J.-C. Lemoine J.-M. Biancale R. 2013: EIGEN-6C3stat – The newest high resolution global combined gravity field model based on the 4th release of the GOCE Direct Approach presented at IAG Scientific Assembly 1-6 September Postdam Germany.

  • Goldobin D. N. Kanushin V. F. Ganagina I. G. 2015: Certificate of the State registration of GeoAnom software version 1.0 No. 2015661196 of 20 October 2015.

  • Heiskanen W. Moritz H. 1967: Physical Geodesy. W. H Freeman and company San Francisco and London 364 p.

  • Hofmann Wellenhof B. Moritz H. 2007: Physical Geodesy edited by Neiman Y. M. Moscow: MIIGAiK 426 p.

  • ICGEM – International Center for Global Gravity Field Models: http://icgem.gfz-potsdam.de/ICGEM/ICGEM.html.

  • Karpik A. P. Kanushin V. F. Ganagina I. G. Goldobin D. N. Mazurova E. M. 2015: Analyzing Spectral Characteristics of the Global Earth Gravity Field Models Obtained from the CHAMP GRACE and GOCE Space Missions. Journal of Gyroscopy and Navigation 6 101–108.

  • Kanushin V. F. Ganagina I. G. Goldobin D. N. Mazurova E. M. Kosareva A. M. Kosarev N. S. 2014: Comparison of GOCE-derived satellite global gravity models with varied set of independent terrestrial gravity data. Vestnik of SSGA 27 21–35.

  • Šprlák M. Gerlach C. Pettersen B. R. 2015: Validation of GOCE global gravitational field models in Norway. Newton’s Bulletin 5 13–25.

  • Torge W. Müller J. 2012: Geodesy 4th edition Walter de Gruyter Berlin-Boston.

  • Vanicek P. Krakiwsky E. J. 1982: Geodesy: The Concepts. North-Holland Amsterdam 691 p.

  • Voigt C. Denke H. 2015: Validation of GOCE Gravity Field Models in Germany. Newton’s Bulletin 5 37–49.

  • Yi W. Rummel R. Gruber T. 2013: Gravity field contribution analysis of GOCE gravitational gradient components. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica 57 174–202.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.52

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.312
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.615

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 198 138 2
PDF Downloads 100 86 1