1 / 11

Progress towards a common North American Geoid in 2012

This article discusses advancements made in achieving a unified North American geoid model, focusing on considerations for unification such as datum surface selection, GNSS reference frame, EGM reference model, and kernel modification. It compares USGG2012 with CGG2010, analyzes gravity datasets, and outlines techniques for agreement on W0 value. The text addresses regional and global geoid-based vertical datums, with insights on Tide Gauge and SST comparisons, Geometric Reference Frame NAD83, and transformation methods for GNSS-derived orthometric heights.

rbrand
Télécharger la présentation

Progress towards a common North American Geoid in 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Progress towards a common North American Geoid in 2012 Daniel Roman, Yan Wang & Xiaopeng Li National Geodetic Survey Geosciences Research Division

  2. Considerations for Unification • Datum surface (W0 selection) • GNSS Reference Frame • EGM Reference Model • Kernel Modification • USGG2012 – CGG2010 Comparisons • Gravity data sets • Techniques • GRAV-D

  3. Agreement on W0 Value Regional and global geoid based vertical datumsII: Progress towards a common North American Geoid in 2012

  4. Tide Gauge comparisons limited to where SST models exist 62,636,856.00 m2/s2 F.I.G. Working Week 2012 6-10 May 2012 Rome, Italy

  5. Goemetric Reference Frame NAD83(CSRS) vs NAD83(2011) NAD83(CSRS) vs NAD 83(2022) U.S. may have to keep “NAD 83” name for legal reasons It will effectively be IGS2020 or ITRF2020 Likely fixed at a specific epoch (not dynamic) HTDP to transform Use these to access GNSS-derived orthometric heights • PERSOMM Rich Snay • Should agree • Differing SOP’s may cause inconsistencies in velocities and positional coordinates • Must also track ref. epoch • U.S. set epoch at 2010.0 • Canada also tracks GIA closely

  6. Spectrally Combined Reference Model

  7. Degree Kernel Modification

  8. USGG2012 – CGG2010 Differences

  9. USGG2012 – CGG2010 Differences

  10. GRAV-D Status Map Key Green: Available data and metadataBlue: Data being processed, metadata may be availableOrange: Data collection underwayWhite: Planned for data collection

  11. Questions? Daniel R. Roman, Ph.D., GRAV-D P.I., Geoid Team Lead Geosciences Research Division, National Geodetic Survey, NOS, NOAA +1-301-713-3202 x161 dan.roman@noaa.gov

More Related