2010
DOI: 10.1007/s00190-010-0397-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of recent Earth gravitational models with emphasis on their contribution in refining the gravity and geoid at continental or regional scale

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…EGM 2008 is one of the best datasets that cover the entire globe at a high-spatial resolution (Arabelos & Tscherning 2010;Pavlis et al 2012) and is complete up to degree and order 2190 of spherical harmonics of the gravity field. A recent comparison of geoid and gravity suggests that GOCE data have improved our knowledge of the gravity field particularly in two high mountain terrains: the Himalaya and the Andes.…”
Section: Bouguer Anomaly Mapmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…EGM 2008 is one of the best datasets that cover the entire globe at a high-spatial resolution (Arabelos & Tscherning 2010;Pavlis et al 2012) and is complete up to degree and order 2190 of spherical harmonics of the gravity field. A recent comparison of geoid and gravity suggests that GOCE data have improved our knowledge of the gravity field particularly in two high mountain terrains: the Himalaya and the Andes.…”
Section: Bouguer Anomaly Mapmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The quality and accuracy of EGM2008 was investigated in some regions, but mainly in comparison to GPS and leveling data only. Arabelos and Tscherning [2010] showed a comparison between different regional gravity data sets and global gravity models such as EGM2008. They found that EGM2008 is the best of the tested global gravity models, e. g. the maximum standard deviation between the regional gravity data set and EGM2008 has a value of 18.84 mGal (1 mGal = 1 · 10 −5 m/s 2 ) for Taiwan [ Arabelos and Tscherning , 2010], which is also a Fill‐in region like the Tien Shan.…”
Section: Calculation Of the Crust‐mantle Boundarymentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Arabelos and Tscherning [2010] showed a comparison between different regional gravity data sets and global gravity models such as EGM2008. They found that EGM2008 is the best of the tested global gravity models, e. g. the maximum standard deviation between the regional gravity data set and EGM2008 has a value of 18.84 mGal (1 mGal = 1 · 10 −5 m/s 2 ) for Taiwan [ Arabelos and Tscherning , 2010], which is also a Fill‐in region like the Tien Shan. In general, the standard deviation for most regions is half that of the older EGM96 [ Arabelos and Tscherning , 2010].…”
Section: Calculation Of the Crust‐mantle Boundarymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The NGA merged the 15′-resolution data set with the data set obtained from topographic estimations to derive a high-resolution gravity map for the fill-in regions [Pavlis et al, 2012]. The quality and accuracy of EGM2008 have been verified in some regions: the maximum standard deviations between EGM2008 and the terrestrial gravity field for Taiwan and China have values of about 19 × 10 À5 and 18 × 10 À5 m/s 2 , respectively, and Taiwan and China are both fill-in regions, as is our study area [Li et al, 2009;Arabelos and Tscherning, 2010]. The accuracy of EGM2008 and the maximum standard deviation between EGM2008 and the terrestrial gravity field for the Korean Peninsula and northeast Asia have not been determined until now.…”
Section: Egm2008 Gravity Fieldmentioning
confidence: 99%