Upload
oswin-fitzgerald
View
222
Download
6
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
The cost of assuming a lateral density distribution in
corrections to Helmert orthometric heights
1Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick
E3B 5A3
Robert Kingdon1, Artu Ellmann1, Petr Vanicek1, Marcelo Santos1
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
Orthometric Height
€
HO (Ω) =C(rt[Ω],Ω)
g (Ω)
Bouguer Shell
Terrain
Geoid
)(ΩOH
ΩΩ],[tr
ΩΩ],[gr
Plumbline
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
Evaluating Mean Gravitye.g. Helmert’s method:
€
g H (Ω) = g(rt[Ω],Ω) + 0.0424HO (Ω)
Surface Gravity Corrective Terms
Converting Helmert mean gravity to rigorous mean gravity:
(for Bouguer plate and normal gravity)
€
g R (Ω) = g H (Ω) + cg (Ω)
Additional Corrective Terms
Each correction takes the form:
€
cg effect (Ω) = g effect (Ω) − geffect (rt[Ω],Ω)
Corrections may be made for topographical or non-topographical masses.We will only discuss corrections for topographical effects.
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
Models of Topography
€
ρ =ρ0
€
ρ =ρ (Ω)
€
ρ =ρ(r,Ω)
€
ρ =ρ0
Bouguer Plate/Shell
(used by Helmert)
Terrain + Bouguer Plate/Shell
2D Density Distribution
(used for rigorous corrections)
3D Density Distribution
(more rigorous corrections?)
Real Topodensity Distribution
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
€
ρ =ρ (Ω)
€
ρ =ρ(r,Ω)
Rigorous with 2D Density Distribution
Rigorous with 3D Density Distribution
Shortcomings of the 2D Density Model
€
δρ(r,Ω) = ρ(r,Ω) − ρ (Ω)
Residual Anomalous Density
€
δρ =δρ(r,Ω)
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
€
cH Oδρ (Ω) ≈
˜ H O (Ω)˜ g (Ω)
cg δρ (Ω)
€
cg δρ (Ω) = g δρ (Ω) − gδρ (rt[Ω],Ω)
Additional Correction Accounting for 3D Density Distribution
€
gδρ (r,Ω) = δρ R ( ′ r , ′ Ω )∂N(r,Ω; ′ r , ′ Ω )
∂r′ r 2 sin ′ ϕ d ′ r
′ r = R
rt ( ′ Ω )
∫ d ′ Ω ′ Ω ∈Ω 0
∫∫
€
g δρ (Ω) =1
HO (Ω)gδρ (r,Ω)dr
r= R
rt (Ω)
∫
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
Test Area
Test area: 50° to 51° N latitude, and 236° to 237° E longitude.
Heights from 0 (green) to 2862 (white) m.
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
Simulation B1
Values from 0 (red) to 5.7 (blue) cm, 1 cm contours.
Cone
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
Simulation B2
Values from 0 (red) to 6.9 (blue) cm, 1 cm contours.
Slab
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
Simulation B3
Values from 0 (red) to 7.9 (blue) cm, 1 cm contours.
Wedge
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
Simulation A1
Values from -1.2 (green) to 1.2 (red) cm, 1 cm contours.
θ=45°
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
Simulation A2
Values from -1.7 (green) to 1.6 (red) cm, 1 cm contours.
θ=30°
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
Simulation A3
Values from -2.3 (green) to 2.6 (red) cm, 1 cm contours.
θ=15°
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
Summary of Results
SimulationMax(cm)
Min(cm)
Height where cm level is reached
(m)
% of points with cm level corrections
(%)
B1: Cone 5.7 0 2403 11.2
B2: Slab 6.9 0 1051 13.0
B3: Wedge 7.9 0 1073 12.1
A1: θ=45° 1.2 -1.2 2250 12.6
A2: θ=30° 1.6 -1.7 1803 12.6
A3: θ=15° 2.6 -2.3 1543 13.5
AGU Joint Assembly / May 23-26, 2006
Conclusions
– Shortcomings are largest for regional phenomena.
– Shortcomings are only significant close to their source.
– More realistic estimates of shortcomings reach up to ~3 cm, but are only > 1 cm (in the test area) at elevations above ~1500 m.
– There do exist limited areas where these shortcomings may be significant, in terms of rigorous orthometric heights. Effects on e.g. geoid heights have yet to be evaluated.