Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Local error calibration of EGM08 geoid using GNSS/levelling data
University West, Department of Engineering Science, Division of Computer, Electrical and Surveying Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0067-8631
Division of Geodesy and Satellite Positioning, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.
2016 (English)In: Journal of Applied Geophysics, ISSN 0926-9851, E-ISSN 1879-1859, Vol. 130, no July, 209-217 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The geoid error, computed from EGM08, is unrealistically large due to the continuation of the spherical harmonic coefficient errors down to the surface of the reference ellipsoid. In this study, we try to calibrate such an error by the differences between the EGM08 and GNSS/levelling geoids over Fennoscandia. We use the variance component estimation procedure through combined adjustments of the geoid and GNSS/levelling heights using corrector surfaces of 4-, 5- and 7-parameter. We also develop a simple iterative method to calibrate the geoid error from the a posteriori variance factor and the errors of GNSS/levelling geoid. Our numerical investigations show that performing the separate adjustment and variance component estimation for each country with a two-component stochastic model is more successful than performing it in the whole area with a five-component model. The number of GNSS/levelling data over Sweden and Norway are much larger than those in Denmark and Finland. This causes that the corrector surfaces are fitted better in these countries and consequently the estimated errors for the geoid become larger than what they should be in the others. Based on a 7-parameter corrector surface model, the average error of the EGM08 geoid becomes 12, 17, 51 and 34 mm, in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland, respectively. If the two-component stochastic model is used in a combined adjustment over Fennoscandia this average error will be 48 mm.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2016. Vol. 130, no July, 209-217 p.
Keyword [en]
Variance component estimation; A posteriori variance factor; Combined adjustment; Geoid
National Category
Geophysics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hv:diva-9347DOI: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2016.05.002ISI: 00379372700020ScopusID: 2-s2.0-84969142687OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hv-9347DiVA: diva2:928056
Available from: 2016-05-14 Created: 2016-05-14 Last updated: 2017-01-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Eshagh, Mehdi
By organisation
Division of Computer, Electrical and Surveying Engineering
In the same journal
Journal of Applied Geophysics
Geophysics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 44 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf