Initial Results of the Geoid Slope Validation Survey of 2011 Dru Smith 1, Simon Holmes 1, Xiaopeng Li 1, Yan Wang 1, Malcolm Archer-Shee 1, Ajit Singh.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

A Comparison of topographic effect by Newton’s integral and high degree spherical harmonic expansion – Preliminary Results YM Wang, S. Holmes, J Saleh,

Advertisements

Lecture 5 – Earth’s Gravity Field GISC Schedule for next two weeks You are responsible for material in Chapters 1-4 in text as well as all lectures.

GNSS DERIVED HEIGHTS- PART 2 NOS/NGS - 59

GRAV-D Gravity for the Re-definition of the American Vertical Datum

Modernizing the Geopotential Datum: Replacing NAVD 88 Daniel R. Roman, Ph.D.

Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee Update to Coordination Group Ronnie Taylor alternate Subcommittee Chair Deputy Director, National Geodetic Survey.

Dynamic Planet 2005 Cairns, Australia August 2005

Vertical Datums and Heights

NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey USGG2009 & GEOID09: New geoid height models for surveying/GIS ACSM-MARLS-UCLS-WFPS Conference FEB 2009 Salt Lake.

Using Aerogravity to Produce a Refined Vertical Datum D.R. Roman and X. Li XXV FIG Congress June 2014 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Session TS01A, Paper.

Geodetic Control Network Lecture 1. The purpose of Geodetic Control Networks, their application and the history of their establishment.

Modeling Airborne Gravimetry with High-Degree Harmonic Expansions Holmes SA, YM Wang, XP Li and DR Roman National Geodetic Survey/NOAA Vienna, Austria,

Geoid Surfaces and Theory Session B of Datums, Heights and Geodesy Presented by Daniel R. Roman, Ph.D. Of the National Geodetic Survey.

G13A Towards a New Vertical Datum Daniel R. Roman 1, Xiaopeng Li 2, Simon A. Holmes 3, Vicki A. Childers 4, and Yan M. Wang 1 1. Geosciences Research.

Use of G99SSS to evaluate the static gravity geopotential derived from the GRACE, CHAMP, and GOCE missions Daniel R. Roman and Dru A. Smith Session: GP52A-02Decade.

Geoid improvement over Alaska/Yukon area by GRACE and GOCE models X Li 1, JL Huang 2, YM Wang 3, M Véronneau 2, D Roman 3 1 ERT Inc USA 2 Geodetic Survey.

NGS HSRP Update Ronnie Taylor, Acting Director National Geodetic Survey, NOAA October 13, 2010.

Error Analysis of the NGS Gravity Database Jarir Saleh, Xiaopeng Li, Yan Ming Wang, Dan Roman and Dru Smith, NOAA/NGS/ERT Paper: G , 04 July 2011,

Vicki Childers, Daniel Winester, Mark Eckl, Dru Smith, Daniel Roman

Mission Planning and SP1. Outline of Session n Standards n Errors n Planning n Network Design n Adjustment.

The Future of the National Geodetic Survey Dr. Dru A. Smith Chief Geodesist, NGS/NOAA CSRC, Coordinating Council Spring Meeting La Jolla, CA April 28,

Advances and Best Practices in Airborne Gravimetry from the U.S. GRAV-D Project Theresa M. Damiani 1, Vicki Childers 1, Sandra Preaux 2, Simon Holmes 3,

LINK TO SLIDES: ftp://ftp.ngs.noaa.gov/dist/whenning/FWS2011/

SU 4100 GEODETIC POSITIONING Instructor: Indra Wijayratne.

GRAV-D Project Update Vicki Childers, Ph.D. GRAV-D Project Manager.

Geoid Modeling at NOAA Dru A. Smith, Ph.D. National Geodetic Survey National Ocean Service, NOAA November 13, 2000.

GPH 692 South Lake Tahoe Field Exercise 2012 GPS Work.

Geoid Height Models at NGS Dan Roman Research Geodesist.

Integrated and Collaborative Organizations Create Geospatial Solutions Geospatial Solutions by DBZ Achieving Great Heights: Toward a Better Vertical Reference.

Towards the unification of the vertical datums over the North American continent D Smith 1, M Véronneau 2, D Roman 1, J L Huang 2, YM Wang 1, M Sideris.

Gravity-Lidar Study for 2006: Refined Gravity Field For the North-Central Gulf of Mexico Dan Roman National Geodetic Survey Jarir Saleh National Geodetic.

Lecture 7 – More Gravity and GPS Processing GISC February 2009.

Operations and Analysis Division Field Operations Branch Norfolk, VA.

Improved Hybrid Geoid Modeling and the FY 2000 Geoid Models Dr. Daniel R. Roman January 16, : :30 Conference Room 9836.

B ≥ 4 H & V, KNOWN & TRUSTED POINTS? B LOCALIZATION RESIDUALS-OUTLIERS? B DO ANY PASSIVE MARKS NEED TO BE HELD? RT BASE WITHIN CALIBRATION (QUALITY TIE.

Terrestrial Gravity Plans at NGS Dru Smith Mark Eckl Vicki Childers Workshop on North American Gravimetry10/18/20101.

Integration of Future Geoid Models Dan Roman and Yan M. Wang NOAA/NGS Silver Spring, MD USA December 3-4, 2008.

The GRAV-D Project and The Future of NAD 83 and NAVD 88 A briefing for FEMA leadership Dru Smith, Chief Geodesist NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey.

The National Geodetic Survey Gravity Program Benefits and Opportunities Juliana Blackwell, Director National Geodetic Survey (NGS)

National Height Modernization Program Renee Shields Christine Gallagher Great Lakes Region Height Modernization Consortium Fall Meeting 2012 Lansing, Michigan.

Evaluating Aircraft Positioning Methods for Airborne Gravimetry: Results from GRAV-D’s “Kinematic GPS Processing Challenge” Theresa M. Damiani, Andria.

Evaluating Aircraft Positioning Methods for Airborne Gravimetry: Results from GRAV-D’s “Kinematic GPS Processing Challenge” Theresa M. Damiani, Andria.

New Vertical Datum: plans, status, GRAV-D update FGCS San Diego, CA. July 11, 2011 Mark C. Eckl NGS Chief of Observation and Analysis Division, New Vertical.

GRAV-D Part II : Examining airborne gravity processing assumptions with an aim towards producing a better gravimetric geoid Theresa Diehl*, Sandra Preaux,

Improved Covariance Modeling of Gravimetric, GPS, and Leveling Data in High-Resolution Hybrid Geoids Daniel R. Roman, Ph.D. Research Geodesist.

Establishing A Gravity Plan Ohio Department of Transportation October 14, 2011.

Dozen New Things in 2-0-Dozen! Marti Ikehara: California Geodetic Advisor

OUTLINE:  definition and history  three major models  how are reference shapes used  geodetic systems G EODESY.

MISSISSIPPI HEIGHT MODERNIZATION PROJECT JUNE 11, 2009 By Ronnie L. Taylor Chief, Geodetic Advisor Branch NOAA, National Geodetic Survey.

Effect of High Resolution Altimetric Gravity Anomalies on the North America Geoid Computations Yan M. Wang and D. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Montreal,

Lecture 21 – The Geoid 2 April 2009 GISC-3325.

Confirming 1 cm differential geoid accuracy: The Geoid Slope Validation Survey of 2011 Dru Smith 1, Simon Holmes 1, Xiaopeng Li 1, Sbastien Guillaume 2,

The Height Modernization Program in the United States and the Future of the National Vertical Reference Frame 1 Renee Shields National Geodetic Survey,

Gravity Lidar Study for 2006: A First Look D.R. Roman, V.A. Childers, D.L. Rabine, S.A. Martinka, Y.M. Wang, J.M. Brozena, S.B. Luthcke, and J.B. Blair.

Recent Investigations Towards Achieving a One Centimeter Geoid Daniel R. Roman & Dru A. Smith U.S. National Geodetic Survey GGG 2000, Session 9 The Challenge.

Lecture 7 – Gravity and Related Issues GISC February 2008.

GEOID03 in Louisiana and Alaska Dr. Yan M Wang and Dr. Daniel R Roman Geodesist, NGS/NOAA ACSM Annual Conference and Technology Exhibition Orlando, FL.

Investigation of the use of deflections of vertical measured by DIADEM camera in the GSVS11 Survey YM Wang 1, X Li 2, S Holmes 3, DR Roman 1, DA Smith.

Upcoming replacements for NAD83, NAVD88 and IGLD85 Dru Smith, NGS Richard Snay, NGS Thomas Landon, NGS.

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

New Datum: Vertical (Geopotential) FGCS Silver Spring, MD. July 24, 2011 Mark C. Eckl NGS Chief of Observation and Analysis Division, New Vertical Datum.

Proposal for a comprehensive vertical datum for North America, Central America and the Caribbean Dru Smith, Dan Roman, Vicki Childers, Mark Eckl, Monica.

GRAV-D: NGS Gravity for the Re- definition of the American Vertical Datum Project V. A. Childers, D. R. Roman, D. A. Smith, and T. M. Diehl* U.S. National.

Nic Donnelly – Geodetic Data Analyst 5 March 2008 Vertical Datum Issues in New Zealand.

Integration of Gravity Data Into a Seamless Transnational Height Model for North America Daniel Roman, Marc Véronneau, David Avalos, Xiaopeng Li, Simon.

Initial Results of the Geoid Slope Validation Survey of 2011 Dru Smith 1, Simon Holmes 1, Xiaopeng Li 1, Yan Wang 1, Malcolm Archer-Shee 1, Ajit Singh.

Subsidence Monitoring and the GRAV-D project Dru Smith, Dan Roman, Daniel Winester, Mark Eckl NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey Subsidence Workshop -

Daniel Rieser, Christian Pock, Torsten Mayer-Guerr

Geoid Enhancement in the Gulf Coast Region

Advances and Best Practices in Airborne Gravimetry from the U. S

Presentation transcript:

Initial Results of the Geoid Slope Validation Survey of 2011 Dru Smith 1, Simon Holmes 1, Xiaopeng Li 1, Yan Wang 1, Malcolm Archer-Shee 1, Ajit Singh 1, Cliff Middleton 1, Daniel Winester 1, Dan Roman 1 Beat Bürki 2, Sbastien Guillame 2 Beat Bürki 2, Sébastien Guillame 2 American Geophysical Union San Francisco, CA 1 = NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey 2 = Institute for Geodesy and Photogrammetry, ETH Zurich American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting12/9/20111

Genesis of the survey “...the gravimetric geoid used in defining the future vertical datum of the United States should have an absolute accuracy of 1 centimeter at any place and at any time.” -- The NGS 10 year plan ( ) Admirable!...Achievable? American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting12/9/20112

Goal of the survey Observe geoid shape (slope) using multiple independent terrestrial survey methods – GPS + Leveling – Deflections of the Vertical Compare observed slopes (from terrestrial surveys) to modeled slopes (from gravimetry or satellites) – With / Without new GRAV-D airborne gravity American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting12/9/20113

Why not rely on existing surveys? Most existing marks are not GPS or gravity friendly Existing leveling is decades old Existing leveling and GPS are tied to unchecked passive control coordinates Overlap of existing gravity, GPS or leveling is minimal in space and widely separated in time 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting4

Choosing the Place and Time for a New Survey Criteria: – Significantly exceed 100 km – Under existing GRAV-D data – Avoid trees and woods – Along major roads – Cloud-free nights – No major bridges along the route – Low Elevations – Significant geoid slope – Inexpensive travel costs 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting5

The Chosen Line 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting6 325 km 218 points 1.5 km spacing South Texas July-October, 2011 hot…Hot…HOT!

Surveys Performed GPS: 20 identical. units, 10/day leapfrog, 40 hrs ea. Leveling: 1 st order, class II, digital barcode leveling Gravity: FG-5 and A-10 anchors, 4 L/R in 2 teams DoV: ETH Zurich DIADEM GPS & camera system LIDAR : Riegl Q680i-D, 2 pt/m 2 spacing, 0.5 km width IMAGERY: Applanix 439 RGB DualCam, 5000’ AGL Other: – RTN, short-session GPS, extra gravity marks around Austin, gravity gradients 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting7

12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting8 GPS DoV Leveling Gravity LIDAR/ Imagery

Empirical Error Estimates   h (OPUS-S) : cm – GPSCOM adjustment : ~ 6 mm – (no significant baseline dependency)  ,   : 0.03 arcseconds – ~ 0.05 mm / km 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting9

Existing Geoids vs GSVS11 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting10

12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting11

Existing Geoids vs GSVS11 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting12

High Resolution Geoids (vs GPS / Leveling; cm) kmh/H error budget USGG2009 (1’x1’) EGM2008 (5’x5’) USGG2012x01 (1’x1’) New software USGG2012x02 (1’x1’) New software + Airborne data ± ± / / ± ± / / / ± ± / / / ± ± / / / ± ± / / / ± ± / / / ± ± / / / ± ± / / / ± ± / / / ± ± / / / ± ± / / / ± ± / / / /9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting13 All separation distances show improvement with GSVS11 survey when airborne gravity are introduced.

SHM representation of geoid agreement with GSVS11 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting14

Agreement with DIADEM DoVs (arcseconds) ModelMeanSTDExtreme Values USGG /0.551 EGM /0.462 USGG2012x02 (new software, with airborne data) / /9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting15  ModelMeanSTDExtreme Values USGG /0.531 EGM /0.535 USGG2012x02 (new software, with airborne data) /0.507 

Conclusions Adding airborne gravity data improves geoid slope accuracy at all wavelengths Gravimetric geoid modeling with GPS is a viable alternative to long-line leveling Improvements still can be made to high resolution geoid modeling 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting16

Future Work Dozens of studies, comparing all of the terrestrial positioning techniques of GSVS11 Dig deeper on GRACE / GOCO2s disagreements with GSVS11 GSVS13: Higher elevation, more rugged topography, additional measurements (borehole gravimetry?) 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting17

Questions/Comments? 12/9/201118American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting

Extra Slides 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting19

Note EGM vs /9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting20

Tallies SurveyPerson- Weeks Primary Equipment Recon32Mark Setting Truck, Standard survey disks Static GPS35Trimble Net R5, R7 ; Zephyr Geodetic Antenna TRM Leveling120Leica DNA03, Trimble DiNi11 DoV32DIADEM Gravity30FG-5, A-10, L/R D and G meters R-S GPS3Trimble R8_GNSS RTK RTN3Trimble R8_GNSS RTK LIDAR4Riegl Q680i-D, NOAA King Air Imagery4Applanix 439 RGB DualCam, NOAA King Air 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting21

Tallies 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting22 Total persons involved: 46 – NOAA Employees: 43 First time in the field: 6 Issues: – Medical Emergencies: 4 – Flat tires: 3 – Inoperative equipment: 2

12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting23

EGMs vs GPS / Leveling; cm kmGO CO2 s* GRACE 2010* TGM d TGM d + GRAV-D EGM ± ± / ± ± / ± ± / ± ± / ± ± / ± ± / ± ± / ± ± / ± ± / ± ± / ± ± ± ± / ± ± ± ± / /9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting24 * GPS/leveling low-pass filtered at 200 km ; GOCO2s nmax=220, GRACE nmax=180

12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting25

12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting26

High Resolution Geoids (vs GPS / Leveling; cm) kmh/H error budget USGG2009USGG2012D (HRG bo TGM, k???, wRTM ) HRG bo TGM+A, k???, wRTM HRG bo TGM+A, k480, wRTM HRG bo TGM+A, k4720, wRTM KernelN/A Airborne ? No Yes RTM?N/AYes ± ± / ± ± ± ± / / ± ± ± / ± ± ± / / ± ± ± ± / / ± ± ± ± / / ± ± ± ± / / ± ± ± ± /-1.3=0.3+/ ± ± ± ± / / ± ± ± ± / / ± ± ± ± / ± ± ± ± / / /9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting27

Experimental geoids and USGG2009 vs GSVS11 h-H 12/9/2011American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting28 Kern USGG2 009 Air?NNYYNNYYN RTM?NYNYNYNYN/A / / / / / / / / ± / / / / / / / ± / / / / / / / / ± / / / / / / / / ± / / / / / / / / ± / / / / / / / / ± / / / / / / / / ± / / / / / / / / ± / / / / / / / / ± / / / / / / / / ± / / / / / / / / ± / / / / / / / / ± 1.6