Comparison of the KTH and remove-compute-restore techniques to geoid modelling in a mountainous area

In mountainous regions, a gravimetric geoid determination is a difficult task which needs special attention to obtain reliable results satisfying the demands, e.g. of the engineering infrastructure. The present study compares the KTH (Royal Institute of Technology) method with the remove-compute-restore (RCR) technique to attain a precise geoid model for the Konya Closed Basin (KCB) and thus aims to clarify the theoretical and numerical differences between these techniques. The KCB located in the central part of Turkey is a mountainous area with a very limited amount of the ground gravity data. Various data sources, such as the Turkish Digital Elevation Model with 3''x3'' resolution (TRDEM3), a recently published satellite-only global geopotential model and terrestrial gravity observations are combined in the gravimetric geoid models of the KCB by applying the KTH and RCR techniques, separately. The both gravimetric geoid models (KG-KTH11 and KG-RCR11) are compared with GNSS/levelling data at the control points in the target area, resulting the RMS (Root Mean Square Error) differences of +/-6.7cm and +/-9.8cm in the absolute sense, respectively. These results show that the KTH method gives more reasonable accuracy than the RCR technique in a mountainous area with scarce terrestrial gravity data.

[1]  Lars E. Sjöberg,et al.  A general model for modifying Stokes’ formula and its least-squares solution , 2003 .

[2]  Michael G. Sideris,et al.  Comparison of global geopotential models from the champ and grace missions for regional geoid modelling in Turkey , 2009 .

[3]  Ramin Kiamehr,et al.  Qualification and refinement of the gravity database based on cross-validation approach — A case study of Iran , 2007 .

[4]  A. Eicker,et al.  ITG-Grace2010: the new GRACE gravity field release computed in Bonn , 2010 .

[5]  Michael G. Sideris,et al.  The use of FFT techniques in physical geodesy , 1990 .

[6]  Ramin Kiamehr,et al.  A strategy for determining the regional geoid by combining limited ground data with satellite-based global geopotential and topographical models: a case study of Iran , 2006 .

[7]  Prosper Ulotu,et al.  Geoid Model of Tanzania from Sparse and Varying Gravity Data Density by the KTH method , 2009 .

[8]  Ramazan Alpay Abbak,et al.  On global and regional spectral evaluation of global geopotential models , 2010 .

[9]  Lars E. Sjöberg,et al.  Ellipsoidal correction for the modified Stokes formula , 2004 .

[10]  C. C. Tscherning,et al.  Comparison of remove-compute-restore and least squares modification of Stokes' formula techniques to quasi-geoid determination over the Auvergne test area , 2012 .

[11]  M. Emin Ayhan.  Geoid determination in Turkey (TG-91) , 1993 .

[12]  Lars E. Sjöberg,et al.  The atmospheric geoid effects in Stokes' formula , 2000 .

[13]  Morten Jakobsen,et al.  T-matrix approach to seismic forward modelling in the acoustic approximation , 2012, Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica.

[14]  Artu Ellmann,et al.  Computation of three stochastic modifications of Stokes's formula for regional geoid determination , 2005, Comput. Geosci..

[15]  Lars E. Sjöberg,et al.  A solution to the downward continuation effect on the geoid determined by Stokes' formula , 2003 .

[16]  D. A. Smith,et al.  The GEOID96 high-resolution geoid height model for the United States , 1999 .

[17]  Lars E. Sjöberg,et al.  The topographic bias by analytical continuation in physical geodesy , 2007 .

[18]  Lars E. Sjöberg,et al.  A precise gravimetric geoid model in a mountainous area with scarce gravity data: a case study in central Turkey , 2012, Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica.

[19]  Michael G. Sideris,et al.  A new canadian geoid model in support of levelling by GPS , 2000 .

[20]  Rahmi N. Çelik,et al.  Height transformation using regional geoids and GPS/levelling in Turkey , 2008 .

[21]  Aydin Ustun,et al.  Long-Range Geoid Testing by GPS-Leveling Data in Turkey , 2006 .

[22]  M. I. Yurkina,et al.  Methods for study of the external gravitational field and figure of the earth , 1962 .

[23]  Jonas Ågren,et al.  Regional Geoid Determination Methods for the Era of Satellite Gravimetry : Numerical Investigations Using Synthetic Earth Gravity Models , 2004 .

[24]  arne Bjerhammar,et al.  Theory of errors and generalized matrix inverses , 1973 .

[25]  Ramin Kiamehr,et al.  Precise Gravimetric Geoid Model for Iran Based on GRACE and SRTM Data and the Least-Squares Modification of Stokes’ Formula : with Some Geodynamic Interpretations , 2006 .

[26]  Lars E. Sjöberg,et al.  The new gravimetric quasigeoid model KTH08 over Sweden , 2009 .

[27]  Pavel Novák,et al.  Geoid, topography, and the Bouguer plate or shell , 2001 .

[28]  P. Vaníček,et al.  Mean Free-Air Gravity Anomalies in the Mountains , 2005 .

[29]  Christopher Kotsakis,et al.  On the adjustment of combined GPS/levelling/geoid networks , 1999 .

[30]  Artu Ellmann,et al.  The geoid for the Baltic countries determined by the least squares modification of Stokes´formula , 2004 .

[31]  Lars E. Sjöberg,et al.  New views of the spherical Bouguer gravity anomaly , 2004 .

[32]  Lars E. Sjöberg,et al.  A discussion on the approximations made in the practical implementation of the remove–compute–restore technique in regional geoid modelling , 2005 .

[33]  I. Oztug Bildirici,et al.  Compilation of Digital Elevation Model for Turkey in 3-Arc-Second Resolution by Using SRTM Data Supported with Local Elevation Data , 2009 .