Performance evaluation of high/ultra-high-degree global geopotential models over Vietnam using GNSS/leveling data

IF 2.8 4区 地球科学 Q2 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS Geodesy and Geodynamics Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.geog.2023.03.002
Hoa Thi Pham , Sten Claessens , Michael Kuhn , Joseph Awange
{"title":"Performance evaluation of high/ultra-high-degree global geopotential models over Vietnam using GNSS/leveling data","authors":"Hoa Thi Pham ,&nbsp;Sten Claessens ,&nbsp;Michael Kuhn ,&nbsp;Joseph Awange","doi":"10.1016/j.geog.2023.03.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The availability of many high-degree Global Geopotential Models (GGMs), namely EGM2008, EIGEN-6C4, GECO, SGG-UGM-1, SGG-UGM-2, XGM2019e_2159, and GGMPlus, challenges users regarding which model is best for Vietnam. This study, therefore, evaluates their performance by comparing them with GNSS/leveling data over Vietnam. Results show that their absolute and relative performances are largely independent of topographic conditions and geographical location and can be ranked into three classes: (1) XGM2019e_2159 has the highest accuracy, (2) the models EIGEN-6C4, GECO, SGG-UGM-1, SGG-UGM-2, and GGMPlus, have a very similar level of medium accuracy, while (3) EGM2008 is found to be the least accurate. In an absolute sense, the differences between GNSS/leveling and EGM2008-based height anomalies have a standard deviation (STD) of 0.290 ± 0.010 m, whereas, for XGM2019e_2159, this is 0.156 ± 0.006 m. All other models have STDs of (0.18–0.19) ± 0.007 m. Regarding relative performance without fitting, all GGMs have comparable accuracies for baseline length of 5–20 km, while for baselines longer than 20 km, the STD of XGM2019e_2159 is 1.5 ppm–0.5 ppm (approximately 19%–40%) lower compared with EGM2008, and 0.5 ppm–0.25 ppm (approximately 7%–36%) lower compared with EIGEN6C4, GECO, SGG-UGM-1, SGG-UGM-2, and GGMPlus. In addition, the STDs decrease significantly from 20 to 12 ppm in the range of 5–10 km, slightly from 12 to 6 ppm for 10–35 km, very slightly from 6 to 2.5 ppm for 35–200 km, and then remain almost unchanged for longer baselines. After fitting, the relative accuracies of all GGMs are at the same level with negligible STD/RMSE values. Furthermore, only EGM2008 experiences significant regional differences, while other GGMs show more homogeneous spatial variation of absolute accuracy over Vietnam. These findings can contribute to the development of local quasigeoid models in Vietnam and may be helpful with the improvement of GGMs in the future.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46398,"journal":{"name":"Geodesy and Geodynamics","volume":"14 5","pages":"Pages 500-512"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geodesy and Geodynamics","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984723000319","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The availability of many high-degree Global Geopotential Models (GGMs), namely EGM2008, EIGEN-6C4, GECO, SGG-UGM-1, SGG-UGM-2, XGM2019e_2159, and GGMPlus, challenges users regarding which model is best for Vietnam. This study, therefore, evaluates their performance by comparing them with GNSS/leveling data over Vietnam. Results show that their absolute and relative performances are largely independent of topographic conditions and geographical location and can be ranked into three classes: (1) XGM2019e_2159 has the highest accuracy, (2) the models EIGEN-6C4, GECO, SGG-UGM-1, SGG-UGM-2, and GGMPlus, have a very similar level of medium accuracy, while (3) EGM2008 is found to be the least accurate. In an absolute sense, the differences between GNSS/leveling and EGM2008-based height anomalies have a standard deviation (STD) of 0.290 ± 0.010 m, whereas, for XGM2019e_2159, this is 0.156 ± 0.006 m. All other models have STDs of (0.18–0.19) ± 0.007 m. Regarding relative performance without fitting, all GGMs have comparable accuracies for baseline length of 5–20 km, while for baselines longer than 20 km, the STD of XGM2019e_2159 is 1.5 ppm–0.5 ppm (approximately 19%–40%) lower compared with EGM2008, and 0.5 ppm–0.25 ppm (approximately 7%–36%) lower compared with EIGEN6C4, GECO, SGG-UGM-1, SGG-UGM-2, and GGMPlus. In addition, the STDs decrease significantly from 20 to 12 ppm in the range of 5–10 km, slightly from 12 to 6 ppm for 10–35 km, very slightly from 6 to 2.5 ppm for 35–200 km, and then remain almost unchanged for longer baselines. After fitting, the relative accuracies of all GGMs are at the same level with negligible STD/RMSE values. Furthermore, only EGM2008 experiences significant regional differences, while other GGMs show more homogeneous spatial variation of absolute accuracy over Vietnam. These findings can contribute to the development of local quasigeoid models in Vietnam and may be helpful with the improvement of GGMs in the future.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于GNSS/水准数据的越南高/超高全球位势模型性能评价
许多高度全球地质势模型(GGM)的可用性,即EGM2008、EIGEN-6C4、GECO、SGG-UGM-1、SGG-UGM-2、XGM2019e_2159和GGMPlus,向用户提出了哪种模型最适合越南的挑战。因此,本研究通过将其与越南上空的GNSS/水准测量数据进行比较来评估其性能。结果表明,它们的绝对和相对性能在很大程度上与地形条件和地理位置无关,可分为三类:(1)XGM2019e_2159具有最高的精度,(2)EIGEN-6C4、GECO、SGG-UGM-1、SGG-UGM-2和GGMPlus模型具有非常相似的中等精度水平,而(3)EGM2008被发现是最不准确的。从绝对意义上讲,GNSS/水准测量和基于EGM2008的高度异常之间的差异具有0.290±0.010 m的标准偏差(STD),而对于XGM2019e_2159,这是0.156±0.006 m。所有其他模型的标准偏差为(0.18–0.19)±0.007 m。关于未拟合的相对性能,所有GGM在基线长度为5–20 km时具有可比的精度,而对于超过20km的基线,XGM2019e_2159的STD比EGM2008低1.5 ppm–0.5 ppm(约19%–40%),比EIGEN6C4、GECO、SGG-UGM-1、SGG-UGM-2和GGMPlus低0.5 ppm–0.25 ppm(约7%–36%)。此外,在5-10公里的范围内,STDs从20到12 ppm显著下降,在10-35公里内从12到6 ppm略有下降,在35-200公里内从6到2.5 ppm非常轻微下降,然后在更长的基线内几乎保持不变。拟合后,所有GGM的相对精度处于相同水平,STD/RMSE值可忽略不计。此外,只有EGM2008经历了显著的区域差异,而其他GGM在越南上空显示出更均匀的绝对精度空间变化。这些发现有助于越南地方似大地水准面模型的发展,并可能有助于未来GGM的改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Geodesy and Geodynamics
Geodesy and Geodynamics GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
566
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: Geodesy and Geodynamics launched in October, 2010, and is a bimonthly publication. It is sponsored jointly by Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake Administration, Science Press, and another six agencies. It is an international journal with a Chinese heart. Geodesy and Geodynamics is committed to the publication of quality scientific papers in English in the fields of geodesy and geodynamics from authors around the world. Its aim is to promote a combination between Geodesy and Geodynamics, deepen the application of Geodesy in the field of Geoscience and quicken worldwide fellows'' understanding on scientific research activity in China. It mainly publishes newest research achievements in the field of Geodesy, Geodynamics, Science of Disaster and so on. Aims and Scope: new theories and methods of geodesy; new results of monitoring and studying crustal movement and deformation by using geodetic theories and methods; new ways and achievements in earthquake-prediction investigation by using geodetic theories and methods; new results of crustal movement and deformation studies by using other geologic, hydrological, and geophysical theories and methods; new results of satellite gravity measurements; new development and results of space-to-ground observation technology.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Present-day movement characteristics of the Qinghai Nanshan fault and its surrounding area from GPS observation Probing signals of atmospheric gravity waves excited by the July 29, 2021 MW8.2 Alaska earthquake Inversion method of deflection of the vertical based on SWOT wide-swath altimeter data Assessment of the performance of the TOPGNSS and ANN-MB antennas for ionospheric measurements using low-cost u-blox GNSS receivers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1