关于大地测量中正高的正确定义和使用

IF 0.5 4区 地球科学 Q4 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica Pub Date : 2024-01-13 DOI:10.1007/s11200-023-1138-0
Pavel Novák, Fernando Sansò
{"title":"关于大地测量中正高的正确定义和使用","authors":"Pavel Novák,&nbsp;Fernando Sansò","doi":"10.1007/s11200-023-1138-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Physical heights is one of the most important topics in physical geodesy. Their original concept, introduced in the 19-th century, defined physical heights as lengths of plumblines of the Earth’s gravity field between the geoid and points of interest. There are orthometric heights of surface points, that have been traditionally estimated by spirit levelling and measured gravity; however, the knowledge of the density distribution of topographic masses (masses between the geoid and Earth’s surface) is required that significantly affects their determinability. This was also the main reason why a new type of physical heights was proposed in the mid of the 20-th century. Normal heights approximate orthometric heights in a sense that the Earth’s gravity field is replaced by the normal gravity field, an analytic model based on the theory of an equipotential ellipsoid. This height system has been introduced since that time in different countries in Europe and beyond. Contrary to the classical height system based on orthometric heights, its counterpart based on normal heights may have slightly different definitions. Moreover, normal heights are often defined as heights of points above the quasigeoid. This contribution reviews alternative definitions of normal heights and respective height systems. It is argued that both orthometric and normal heights refer to the geoid. In the case physical heights are estimated by satellite positioning, normal heights must be computed through the height anomaly estimated at each point of interest, whether it is below, at or above the Earth’s surface. On the contrary, orthometric heights of all points along the same plumbline, be it below, at or above the Earth’s surface, are estimated by introducing one value of the geoid height. Normal heights of surface points can be estimated by spirit levelling easier than orthometric heights as no topographic mass density hypothesis is required; however, one has to keep in mind the gravity field approximation used both for their definition and realization.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":22001,"journal":{"name":"Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica","volume":"68 1-2","pages":"1 - 24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On correct definition and use of normal heights in geodesy\",\"authors\":\"Pavel Novák,&nbsp;Fernando Sansò\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11200-023-1138-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Physical heights is one of the most important topics in physical geodesy. Their original concept, introduced in the 19-th century, defined physical heights as lengths of plumblines of the Earth’s gravity field between the geoid and points of interest. There are orthometric heights of surface points, that have been traditionally estimated by spirit levelling and measured gravity; however, the knowledge of the density distribution of topographic masses (masses between the geoid and Earth’s surface) is required that significantly affects their determinability. This was also the main reason why a new type of physical heights was proposed in the mid of the 20-th century. Normal heights approximate orthometric heights in a sense that the Earth’s gravity field is replaced by the normal gravity field, an analytic model based on the theory of an equipotential ellipsoid. This height system has been introduced since that time in different countries in Europe and beyond. Contrary to the classical height system based on orthometric heights, its counterpart based on normal heights may have slightly different definitions. Moreover, normal heights are often defined as heights of points above the quasigeoid. This contribution reviews alternative definitions of normal heights and respective height systems. It is argued that both orthometric and normal heights refer to the geoid. In the case physical heights are estimated by satellite positioning, normal heights must be computed through the height anomaly estimated at each point of interest, whether it is below, at or above the Earth’s surface. On the contrary, orthometric heights of all points along the same plumbline, be it below, at or above the Earth’s surface, are estimated by introducing one value of the geoid height. Normal heights of surface points can be estimated by spirit levelling easier than orthometric heights as no topographic mass density hypothesis is required; however, one has to keep in mind the gravity field approximation used both for their definition and realization.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica\",\"volume\":\"68 1-2\",\"pages\":\"1 - 24\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11200-023-1138-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11200-023-1138-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

物理高度是物理大地测量学中最重要的课题之一。19 世纪提出的最初概念将物理高程定义为地球重力场在大地水准面和感兴趣的点之间的垂线长度。传统上,地表点的正测高度是通过水准测量和重力测量估算出来的;然而,地形质量(大地水准面和地球表面之间的质量)的密度分布需要一定的知识,这极大地影响了它们的可确定性。这也是 20 世纪中期提出新型物理高度的主要原因。法线高度近似于正交高度,因为地球重力场被法线重力场取代,法线重力场是基于等势椭球理论的解析模型。从那时起,欧洲和其他地区的不同国家就开始采用这种高度系统。与基于正高的经典高度系统不同,基于法线高度的经典高度系统的定义可能略有不同。此外,法线高度通常被定义为准大地水准面以上各点的高度。这篇论文回顾了法线高度的其他定义和各自的高度系统。本文认为,正高和法高都是指大地水准面。在通过卫星定位估算物理高度的情况下,法线高度必须通过估算每个相关点的高度异常值来计算,无论该点是在地球表面之下、之上还是之下。相反,通过引入一个大地水准面高度值,就可以估算出同一垂线上所有点的正交高度,无论是在地球表面之下、之上还是之下。由于不需要地形质量密度假设,通过精神水准测量估算地表点的法线高度比估算正测高度更容易;但是,我们必须牢记在定义和实现法线高度时所使用的重力场近似值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
On correct definition and use of normal heights in geodesy

Physical heights is one of the most important topics in physical geodesy. Their original concept, introduced in the 19-th century, defined physical heights as lengths of plumblines of the Earth’s gravity field between the geoid and points of interest. There are orthometric heights of surface points, that have been traditionally estimated by spirit levelling and measured gravity; however, the knowledge of the density distribution of topographic masses (masses between the geoid and Earth’s surface) is required that significantly affects their determinability. This was also the main reason why a new type of physical heights was proposed in the mid of the 20-th century. Normal heights approximate orthometric heights in a sense that the Earth’s gravity field is replaced by the normal gravity field, an analytic model based on the theory of an equipotential ellipsoid. This height system has been introduced since that time in different countries in Europe and beyond. Contrary to the classical height system based on orthometric heights, its counterpart based on normal heights may have slightly different definitions. Moreover, normal heights are often defined as heights of points above the quasigeoid. This contribution reviews alternative definitions of normal heights and respective height systems. It is argued that both orthometric and normal heights refer to the geoid. In the case physical heights are estimated by satellite positioning, normal heights must be computed through the height anomaly estimated at each point of interest, whether it is below, at or above the Earth’s surface. On the contrary, orthometric heights of all points along the same plumbline, be it below, at or above the Earth’s surface, are estimated by introducing one value of the geoid height. Normal heights of surface points can be estimated by spirit levelling easier than orthometric heights as no topographic mass density hypothesis is required; however, one has to keep in mind the gravity field approximation used both for their definition and realization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica
Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica 地学-地球化学与地球物理
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Studia geophysica et geodaetica is an international journal covering all aspects of geophysics, meteorology and climatology, and of geodesy. Published by the Institute of Geophysics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, it has a long tradition, being published quarterly since 1956. Studia publishes theoretical and methodological contributions, which are of interest for academia as well as industry. The journal offers fast publication of contributions in regular as well as topical issues.
期刊最新文献
Present-day crustal deformation based on an interpolated GPS velocity field in the collision zone of the Arabia-Eurasia tectonic plates Effect of the 2021 Cumbre Vieja eruption on precipitable water vapor and atmospheric particles analysed using GNSS and remote sensing Geophysical structure of a local area in the lunar Oceanus Procellarum region investigated using the gravity gradient method Estimation of the minimal detectable horizontal acceleration of GNSS CORS The area of rhumb polygons
×
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