Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Geodetic Science

Editor-in-Chief: Eshagh, Mehdi

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2081-9943
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Accuracy assessment of test flights using the Turnkey Airborne Gravity System over Alabama in 2008

Y.M. Wang / S. Preaux / T. Diehl / V. Childers / D. Roman / D. Smith
Published Online: 2013-09-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jogs-2013-0018

Abstract

The National Geodetic Survey (NGS) performed a few test flights using Micro-g’s Turnkey Airborne Gravity System (TAGS) at altitude of 1700, 6300 and 11000 meters over Alabama in 2008. The cross-track spacing was 10 km for the two lower flights and 5 km for the highest flight. The test flights not only provided important information regarding the precision and accuracy of the TAGS but also revealed the impact of flight altitudes and track spacing on the collected gravity data. The gravity anomalies at three altitudes were modeled using 3-dimensional Fourier series, then compared at the three altitudes. The agreement was excellent - the gravity anomalies agree with each other from 1.4 to 3.3 mGal RMS at the three altitudes. When the bias was removed, the agreement was improved to better than 1.1 mGal. On the ground (h =0), the three gravity models agree from 1.9 to 3.8 mGal RMS. After removing the mean, the agreement improved to better than 1.7 mGal. Similar results were obtained in comparison with recent surface gravity which was of sub-mGal accuracy. The overall agreement between the downward continued airborne gravity and the surface gravity was better than 1.7 mGal after removing the mean values.

As expected, the flight altitude had a direct impact on accuracy of the values of gravity downward continued to the Earth’s surface. The comparisons with terrestrial gravity show that gravity collected at 11000 m is having an accuracy of ±3 mGal on the ground. This accuracy is slightly worse than the other two altitudes most probably due to smaller signal/noise ratios and larger downward continuation effects. The RMS values of differences between the downward continued airborne gravity at altitude 1700 and 6300 meters and the surface gravity are 2.0 and 1.6 mGals, respectively. Based on these comparisons, airborne gravity data collected at altitudes below 6300 meters should result in accuracy better than ±2 mGals on the ground. Note, however, that the test area is flat and the accuracy of airborne gravity would likely be worse in more rugged mountainous regions.

Keywords: Airborne gravity; airborne gravity accuracy; upward/downward continuation

  • Brady N., 2010, A Turnkey Airborne Gravity System - Concept to reality, in Airborne Gravity, Abstracts from the ASEG-PESA Airborne Gravity 2010 Workshop, edited by R. Lane.Google Scholar

  • Forsberg R., Olesen A., Bastos L., Gidskehaug A., Meyer U., Timmen L., 2000, Airborne geoid determination, EPS, 52, 863-866.Google Scholar

  • Forsberg R., Ses S., Alshamsi A., Hassan Md Din A., 2012, Coastal geoid improvement using airborne gravimetric data in the United Arab Emirates, Int. J. Phys. Sci. 7, 45, 6012-6023.Google Scholar

  • Hwang C., Hsiao Y.S., Shih H.C., Yang M., Chen K.H., Forsberg R., Olesen A., 2007, Geodetic and geophysical results from a Taiwan airborne gravity survey: Data reduction and accuracy assessment, J Geophys. Res., 112, B04407, DOI:10.1029/2005JB004220Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Liebelt P.B., 1967, An Introduction to Optimal Estimation, Addison-Wesley, Ontario.Google Scholar

  • Moritz H., 1980, Geodetic reference system 1980, Bull. Geod. 54, 3, 395-405.Google Scholar

  • Pavlis N.K., Holmes S.A., Kenyon S., Factor J.K., 2012, EGM2008 Citation: The development and evaluation of the Earth Gravitational Model 2008 (EGM2008) J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth (1978-2012) 117, B4, April 2012.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Preaux S., Diehl T., Huang C., Weil C., 2011, A Comparison of Filtering Techniques for Airborne Gravity Data, Geophys. Res. Abs., 13, EGU2011-13154, 2011 EGU General Assembly.Google Scholar

  • Press W. H., Teukolsky S.A., Vetterling W.T. and Flannery B.P., 1986, ”Preface”. Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wang Y.M., 2001, GSFC00 mean sea surface, gravity anomaly, vertical gravity gradient from satellite altimeter data, J. Geophys. Res., 106, C12, 31167-31174.Google Scholar

  • Wang Y.M., Roman D.R., Saleh J., 2008, Analytical downward continuation and Upward continuation Based on the Method of Domain Decomposition and Local Functions, VI Hotine-Marussi Symposium on Theoretical and Computational Geodesy, Vol. 132, Part IV, 356-360, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-74584-6_58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2013-09-07

Published in Print: 2013-09-01


Citation Information: Journal of Geodetic Science, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 136–142, ISSN (Print) 2081-9943, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jogs-2013-0018.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Guoquan Wang, Michael Turco, Tomás Soler, Timothy J. Kearns, and Jennifer Welch
Journal of Surveying Engineering, 2017, Volume 143, Number 4, Page 05017005
[2]
Detang Zhong, Theresa Marie Damiani, Sandra Ann Martinka Preaux, and Robert William Kingdon
GEOPHYSICS, 2015, Volume 80, Number 4, Page G107

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in