{"title":"关于大地测量中正高的正确定义和使用","authors":"Pavel Novák, 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, 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}
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.
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.