欢迎访问中国科学院大学学报,今天是
地球科学

基于大地水准面经典定义的地球重力场模型评价

  • 丁剑 ,
  • 许厚泽 ,
  • 章传银
展开
  • 1. 中国测绘科学研究院, 北京 100830;
    2. 中国科学院测量与地球物理研究所, 武汉 430077;
    3. 中国科学院大学, 北京 100049

收稿日期: 2016-01-25

  修回日期: 2016-03-20

  网络出版日期: 2016-07-15

基金资助

国家自然科学基金(41304009,41374081)和地理空间信息工程国家测绘地理信息局重点实验室2014年度开放研究基金(777142109)资助

Evaluation of earth gravitational models based on classic geoid definition

  • DING Jian ,
  • XU Houze ,
  • ZHANG Chuanyin
Expand
  • 1. Chinese Academy of Surveying and Mapping, Beijing 100830, China;
    2. Institute of Geodesy and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430077, China;
    3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Received date: 2016-01-25

  Revised date: 2016-03-20

  Online published: 2016-07-15

摘要

提出一种基于Gauss-Listing经典大地水准面定义的地球重力场模型评价方法。该方法依据经典大地水准面为重力等位面的特性,以任一重力大地水准面为参考面,计算不同地球重力场模型在该参考面上的重力位离散度,以此作为不同模型相对优劣的评价指标。利用该方法对不同地球重力场模型以及同一重力场模型在不同区域的理论表达能力进行评价。结果表明:EGM96和OSU91A模型的大地水准面精度分别为±11.1 cm和±14.3 cm,说明EGM96要优于OSU91A;EGM2008和EIGEN-6C4模型的大地水准面精度分别为±8.8 cm和±8.9 cm,说明这两个模型的精度相当。这些结果均与已有研究结果一致。该模型评价方法的研究结果显示:对于利用EGM2008确定的全球大地水准面,EGM2008和EIGEN-6C4模型的全球大地水准面表达精度分别为±11.3 cm和±14.1 cm,即在厘米级精度上EGM2008要优于EIGEN-6C4。

本文引用格式

丁剑 , 许厚泽 , 章传银 . 基于大地水准面经典定义的地球重力场模型评价[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2016 , 33(4) : 528 -536 . DOI: 10.7523/j.issn.2095-6134.2016.04.014

Abstract

We propose an evaluation approach of earth gravitational models (EGMs) based on Gauss-Listing classic geoid definition.The classic geoid is defined as an equigeopotential surface.Using this character, we select a gravity geoid as reference surface, calculate the gravity potentials of different EGMs on the reference surface, and establish an index of gravity potential dispersion to evaluate EGMs.Using this approach we evaluate theoretical compliance abilities of different EGMs and of an EGM applied in different areas in the earth.The results show that the precision of EGM96 is higher than that of OSU91, and EGM2008 and EIGEN-6C4 have similar precisions.The results are consistent with the existing research conclusions.The results further declare that the precision of EGM2008 is slightly higher than that of EIGEN-6C4 in the cm level.

参考文献

[1] Hofmann W, Moritz B H.Physical geodesy[M].New York: Springer Winen Press, 1967.
[2] 荣敏, 周巍, 陈春旺.重力场模型EGM2008和EGM96在中国地区的比较与评价[J].大地测量与地球动力学,2009,29(6):123-125.
[3] 邱斌, 朱建军, 乐科军.高阶地球重力场模型的评价及其优选[J].测绘科学,2008,33(5):25-27.
[4] 张精明, 闫建强, 王福民.地球重力场模型精度分析与评价[J].石油地球物理物探,2010,45(增刊):230-233.
[5] Rapp R H.The geoid definition and determation .OSU: Ohio State,1975.
[6] Shen W B, Chao D B, Jin B R.On the relativistic geoid[J].BoUettino di Gt:0desia eScienze Ani,1993,52:207-216.
[7] Bjerhammar A.On a relativistic geoidesy[J].Bulletin Geod,1985,59:207-220.
[8] 申文斌, 宁津生, 李建成, 等.论大地水准面[J].武汉大学学报.信息科学版,2003,26(6):683-687.
[9] 晁定波, 申文斌, 王正涛.确定全球厘米级精度大地水准面的可能性和方法探讨[J].测绘学报,2007,36(4):370-376.
[10] 魏子卿.大地水准面短议[J].地理空间信息,2009, 7(1):1-3.
[11] Pavlis N K, Holmes S A, Kenyon S C, et al.The development and evaluation of the Earth gravitational model 2008(EGM2008)[J].Journal of Geophysical Research, 2012,117(B4):1-38.
[12] Weiyong Y, Rummel R.A comparison of GOCE gravitational models with EGM2008[J].Journal of Geodynamics,2014,73(1):14-22.
[13] Bomfim E P, Braitenberg C, Molina E C.Mutual evaluation of global gravity models(EGM2008 and GOCE) and terrestrial data in Amazon Basin, Brazil[J].Geophysical Journal International,2013, 195(2):870-882.
[14] Tsoulis D, Patlakis K.A Spectral assessment review of current satellite-only and combined earth gravity models[J].Reviews of Geophysics,2013,51(2):186-243.
[15] 章传银, 郭春喜, 陈俊勇,等.EGM2008地球重力场模型在中国大陆适用性分析[J].测绘学报,2009,38(4):283-289.

文章导航

/