Evaluation of global geopotential models: a case study for India

References

• Ahmed, S.A., et al., 2010. Evaluation of morphometric parameters derived from ASTER and SRTM DEM – a study on Bandihole sub-watershed Basin in Karnataka. Journal of the Indian society of remote sensing, 38 (2), 227–238. doi: 10.1007/s12524-010-0029-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akaike, H., 1998. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: E. Parzen, K. Tanabe, and G. Kitagawa, eds. Selected papers of Hirotugu Akaike. New York: Springer New York, 199–213.
   Google Scholar
• Amos, M. and Featherstone, W., 2003. Comparisons of recent global geopotential models with terrestrial gravity field observations over New Zealand and Australia. Geomatics research Australasia, 79, 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Barthelmes, F., 2014. Global models. In: E. Grafarend, ed. Encyclopedia of geodesy. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Barthelmes, F. and Köhler, W., 2016. International centre for global earth models (ICGEM). In: H. Drewes et al., eds. The geodesists handbook 2016. Journal of Geodesy (2016), 90(10), pp 907–1205, doi: 10.1007/s00190-016-0948-z.
   Google Scholar
• Benahmed Daho, S.A., 2010. Assessment of the EGM2008 gravity field in Algeria using gravity and GPS/levelling data. In: S.P. Mertikas, ed. Gravity, geoid and earth observation: IAG Commission 2: gravity field, Chania, Crete, Greece, 23–27 June 2008. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 459–466.
   Google Scholar
• Doganalp, S., 2016. An evaluation of recent global geopotential models for strip area project in Turkey. Earth sciences research journal, 20 (3), 1.
   Google Scholar
• Ellmann, A., 2010. Validation of the new earth gravitational model EGM2008 over the altic countries. In: S.P. Mertikas, ed. Gravity, geoid and earth observation: IAG commission 2: gravity field, Chania, Crete, Greece, 23–27 June 2008. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 489–496.
   Google Scholar
• Featherstone, W., 1998. Do we need a gravimetric geoid or a model of the Australian height datum to transform GPS heights in Australia? Australian surveyor, 43 (4), 273–280. doi: 10.1080/00050350.1998.10558758
   Google Scholar
• Ghilani, C.D., 2010. Adjustment computations: spatial data analysis. 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Heck, B., 1990. An evaluation of some systematic error sources affecting terrestrial gravity anomalies. Bulletin géodésique, 64 (1), 88–108. doi: 10.1007/BF02530617
   Google Scholar
• Heiskanen, W.A. and Moritz, H., 1993. Physical geodesy, re-print. New York: Springer-Wien.
   Google Scholar
• Heumann, C., Schomaker, M., and Shalabh, 2016. Introduction to statistics and data analysis with exercises, solutions and applications in R. Switzerland: Springer-Cham.
   Google Scholar
• Kotsakis, C. and Sideris, M.G., 1999. On the adjustment of combined GPS/levelling/geoid networks. Journal of geodesy, 73 (8), 412–421. doi: 10.1007/s001900050261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotsakis, C., et al., 2010. Evaluation of EGM2008 using GPS and leveling heights in Greece. In: S.P. Mertikas, ed. Gravity, geoid and earth observation: IAG commission 2: gravity field, Chania, Crete, Greece, 23–27 June 2008. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 481–488.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, A., Chingkhei, R.K., and Dolendro, T., 2007. Tsunami damage assessment: a case study in Car Nicobar Island, India. International journal of remote sensing, 28 (13–14), 2937–2959. doi: 10.1080/01431160601091852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambeck, K. and Coleman, R., 1983. The earth’s shape and gravity field: a report of progress from 1958 to 1982. Geophysical journal of the royal astronomical society, 74, 25–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1983.tb01869.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Losch, M. and Seufer, V. 2003. How to compute geoid undulations (geoid height relative to a given reference ellipsoid) from spherical harmonic coefficients for satellite altimetry applications. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.508.185&rep=rep1&type=pdf [Accessed 28 September 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, D. 2011. ASTER global digital elevation model version 2 – summary of validation results. Joint Japan-US ASTER Science Team. Available from: http://www.jspacesystems.or.jp/ersdac/GDEM/ver2Validation/Summary_GDEM2_validation_report_final.pdf [Accessed 20 October 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Moazezi, S. and Zomorrodian, H., 2012. GGMCalc a software for calculation of the geoid undulation and the height anomaly using the iteration method, and classical gravity anomaly. Earth science informatics, 5 (2), 123–136. doi: 10.1007/s12145-012-0102-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moritz, H., 1980. Geodetic reference system 1980. Bulletin éodésique, 54 (3), 395–405. doi: 10.1007/BF02521480
   Google Scholar
• Pavlis, N.K. 2006. An overview considering current and future dedicated gravity mapping missions: prepared for IGeS geoid school 2006. Proc., Lecture Notes, International school for the determination and use of the geoid. Como, Italy, 15–19 September 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Ramakrishnan, D., Bandyopadhyay, A., and Kusuma, K.N., 2009. SCS-CN and GIS-based approach for identifying potential water harvesting sites in the Kali Watershed, Mahi River Basin, India. Journal of earth system science, 118 (4), 355–368. doi: 10.1007/s12040-009-0034-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao, C.R., Toutenburg, H., and Shalabh, H.C., 2008. Linear models and generalizations. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Rapp, R.H., 1997. Use of potential coefficient models for geoid undulation determinations using a spherical harmonic representation of the height anomaly/geoid undulation difference. Journal of geodesy, 71 (5), 282–289. doi: 10.1007/s001900050096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapp, R.H., 1998. Past and future developments in geopotential modeling. In Geodesy on the move. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Springer, 58–78.
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez, E., et al. n.d. An assessment of the SRTM topographicgraphic products. Jet Propulsion Laboratory D-31639. Avaliable from: https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/SRTM_D31639.pdf. [Accessed 20 October 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Saari, T. and Bilker-Koivula, M., 2017. Applying the GOCE-based GGMs for the quasi-geoid modelling of Finland. Journal of applied geodesy, 12 (1), 15–27. doi: 10.1515/jag-2017-0020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sansó, F. and Sideris, M.G., 2013. Geoid determination: theory and methods. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Satishkumar, B., et al., 2013. Bias-corrected GOCE geoid for the generation of high-resolution digital terrain model. Current science, 104 (7), 940–943.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selvan, M.T., Ahmad, S., and Rashid, S.M., 2011. Analysis of the geomorphometric parameters in high altitude glacierised terrain using SRTM DEM data in Central Himalaya, India. ARPN journal of science and technology, 1 (1), 22–27.
   Google Scholar
• Singh, B. and Dowerah, J., 2010. ASTER DEM based studies for geological investigation around Singhbhum Shear Zone (SSZ) in Jharkhand, India. Journal of geographic information system, 02 (01), 11–14. doi: 10.4236/jgis.2010.21003
   Google Scholar
• Sjöberg, L. and Bagherbandi, M., 2017. Gravity inversion and integration: theory and applications in geodesy and geophysics. Switzerland: Springer-Cham.
   Google Scholar
• Sreedevi, P.D., et al., 2009. Morphometric analysis of a watershed of South India using SRTM data and GIS. Journal of the geological society of India, 73 (4), 543–552. doi: 10.1007/s12594-009-0038-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strykowski, G. and Forsberg, R., 2010. Testing EGM2008 on leveling data from Scandinavia, adjacent Baltic areas, and Greenland. In: S.P. Mertikas, ed. Gravity, geoid and earth observation: IAG commission 2: gravity field, Chania, Crete, Greece, 23–27 June 2008. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 505–509.
   Google Scholar
• Tscheming, C.C. and Rapp, R.H. 1974. Closed covariance expressions for gravity anomalies, geoid undulations, and deflections of the vertical implied by anomaly degree variances. Report no. 208. Columbus: Dept. of Geodetic Science and Surveying, The Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Y.M., 2012. On the omission errors due to limited grid size in geoid computations. In: N. Sneeuw et al., eds. VII Hotine-Marussi symposium on mathematical geodesy. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, Vol 137. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 221–226.
   Google Scholar
• Wenzel, G. 2008. Global models of the gravity field of high and ultra-high resolution. Proc., Lecture Notes, International school for the determination and use of the geoid. Como, Italy, 15–19 September.
   Google Scholar
• Yılmaz, I., Yılmaz, M., and Turgut, B., 2010. Evaluation of recent global geopotential models based on GPS/levelling data over Afyonkarahisar (Turkey). Scientific research and essays, 5 (5), 484–493.
   Google Scholar
• Yılmaz, M., et al., 2017. The evaluation of high-degree geopotential models for regional geoid determination in Turkey. Afyon Kocatepe University journal of sciences and engineering, 17 (1), 147–153. doi: 10.5578/fmbd.50706
   Google Scholar