From Discrete Gravity Survey Data to a High-resolution Gravity Field Representation in the Nordic-Baltic Region

References

• Ågren, J. 2009. Beskrivning av de nationella geoidmodellerna SWEN08_RH2000 och SWEN08_RH70 (Description of national geoid models SWEN08_RH2000 and SWEN08_RH70) (No. 2009:1). Reports in Geodesy and Geographic Information Systems. Gävle, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Ågren, J. 2004. Regional geoid determination methods for the era of satellite gravimetry: numerical investigations using synthetic earth gravity models. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Ågren, J., and L.E. Sjöberg. 2014. Investigation of gravity data requirements for a 5 mm-quasigeoid model over Sweden. Gravity, Geoid and Height Systems: Proceedings of the IAG Symposium (GGHS'12). Venice, Italy, Springer International Publishing, pp. 143–150.
   Google Scholar
• Ågren, J., L.E. Sjöberg, and R. Kiamehr. 2009. The new gravimetric quasigeoid model KTH08 over Sweden. Journal of Applied Geodesy 3:143–153. doi:10.1515/JAG.2009.015
   Google Scholar
• Ågren, J., G. Strykowski, M. Bilker-Koivula, O. Omang, S. Märdla, R. Forsberg, A. Ellmann, T. Oja, I. Liepinš, E. Paršeliūnas, J. Kaminskis, L. Sjöberg, and G. Valsson. 2016. The NKG2015 gravimetric geoid model for the Nordic-Baltic region. 1st Joint Commission 2 and IGFS Meeting International Symposium on Gravity, Geoid and Height Systems. Thessaloniki, Greece, 19–23 September.
   Google Scholar
• Ågren, J., G. Strykowski, M. Bilker-Koivula, O. Omang, S. Märdla, T. Oja, I. Liepinš, E. Paršeliūnas, R. Forsberg, J. Kaminskis, A. Ellmann, L. Sjöberg, and V. Valsson. 2015. On the development of the new Nordic gravimetric geoid model NKG2015. 26th IUGG General Assembly. Prague, Czech Republic, June 22–July 2.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, O.B. 2010. The DTU10 Global Gravity field and mean sea surface. 2nd International Symposium of the Gravity Field of the Earth (IGFS2). Fairbanks, Alaska.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, O.B., and P. Knudsen. 2016. Deriving and evaluating the DTU15 Global high resolution marine gravity field. 1st Joint Commission 2 and IGFS Meeting International Symposium on Gravity, Geoid and Height Systems. Thessaloniki, Greece, 19–23 September.
   Google Scholar
• Bae, T.-S., J. Lee, J.H. Kwon, and C.-K. Hong. 2012. Update of the precision geoid determination in Korea. Geophysical Prospecting 60:555–571. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01017.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baptiste, J., G. Martelet, M. Faure, L. Beccaletto, P.-A. Reninger, J. Perrin, and Y. Chen. 2016. Mapping of a buried basement combining aeromagnetic, gravity and petrophysical data: The substratum of southwest Paris Basin, France. Tectonophysics 683:333–348. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2016.05.049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barzaghi, R., G. Vergos, A. Albertella, D. Carrion, N.E. Cazzaniga, I. Tziavos, V. Grigoriadis, D. Natsiopoulos, S. Bruinsma, S. Bonvalot, L. Seoane, F. Reinquin, M.-F. LeQuentrec-Lalancette, C. Salaun, P. Bonnefond, P. Knudsen, O. Andersen, M. Simav, H. Yildiz, T. Basic, M. Varga, O. Bjelotomic, and A.J. Gil. 2016. Gravimetric geoid model development in the Mediterranean Sea within the Geomed2 project. 1st Joint Commission 2 and IGFS Meeting International Symposium on Gravity, Geoid and Height Systems. Thessaloniki, Greece, 19–23 September.
   Google Scholar
• Bilker-Koivula, M. 2014. Assessment of high-resolution global gravity field models and their application in quasi-geoid modelling in Finland. Marti, U. (ed.), Gravity, Geoid and Height Systems: Proceedings of the IAG Symposium (GGHS'12), October 9–12:2012, Venice, Italy: International Association of Geodesy Symposia. Springer, pp. 51–58.
   Google Scholar
• Bilker-Koivula, M. 2010. Development of the Finnish Height Conversion Surface FIN2005N00. Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research 7:76–88.
   Google Scholar
• Bolkas, D., G. Fotopoulos, and A. Braun. 2016. On the impact of airborne gravity data to fused gravity field models. Journal of Geodesy 90:561–571. doi:10.1007/s00190-016-0893-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruinsma, S.L., C. Förste, O. Abrikosov, J.-C. Marty, M.-H. Rio, S. Mulet, and S. Bonvalot. 2013. The new ESA satellite-only gravity field model via the direct approach. Geophysical Research Letters 40:3607–3612. doi:10.1002/grl.50716
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cressie, N. 2015. Statistics for Spatial Data, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
   Google Scholar
• Darbeheshti, N., and W.E. Featherstone. 2009. Non-stationary covariance function modelling in 2D least-squares collocation. Journal of Geodesy 83:495–508. doi:10.1007/s00190-008-0267-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denker, H. 2016. A new European Gravimetric (Quasi)Geoid EGG2015. 1st Joint Commission 2 and IGFS Meeting International Symposium on Gravity, Geoid and Height Systems. Thessaloniki, Greece, 19–23 September.
   Google Scholar
• Denker, H. 2013. Regional gravity field modeling: Theory and practical results. Xu, G. (ed.), Sciences of Geodesy—II. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 185–291.
   Google Scholar
• Denker, H., J.-P. Barriot, R. Barzaghi, D. Fairhead, R. Forsberg, J. Ihde, A. Kenyeres, U. Marti, M. Sarrailh, and I.N. Tziavos. 2009. The development of the European gravimetric geoid model EGG07. Sideris, M.G. (ed.). Observing Our Changing Earth: Proceedings of the 2007 IAG General Assembly, Perugia, Italy, July 2–13, 2007, International Association of Geodesy Symposia. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 177–185.
   Google Scholar
• Dermanis, A. 1984. Kriging and Collocation—A Comparison. Manuscripta Geodetica 9:159–167.
   Google Scholar
• DMA. 1987. Supplement to Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1984 Technical Report: Part II—Parameters, Formulas and Graphics for the Practical Application of WGS84 (Technical Report No. 8350.2-B). Defence Mapping Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Elkins, T.A. 1951. The second derivative method of gravity interpretation. Geophysics 16:29–50. doi:10.1190/1.1437648
   Google Scholar
• Ellmann, A. 2011. Downward continuation of airborne gravity data using high resolution global geopotentail models. Cygas, D. and K.D. Froehner (eds.), Selected Papers of the 8th International Conference on Environmental Engineering, Vilnius, Lithuania: Vilnius Gediminas Technical University press “Technika,” pp. 1315–1320.
   Google Scholar
• Ellmann, A. 2005. Two deterministic and three stochastic modifications of Stokes's formula: a case study for the Baltic countries. Journal of Geodesy 79:11–23. doi:10.1007/s00190-005-0438-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellmann, A. 2002. An improved gravity anomaly grid and a geoid model for Estonia. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, Geology, 199–214.
   Google Scholar
• Ellmann, A., T. All, and T. Oja. 2009. Towards unification of terrestrial gravity data sets in Estonia. Estonian Journal of Earth Sciences 58:229–245. doi:10.3176/earth.2009.4.02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellmann, A., T. Oja, and H. Jürgenson. 2011. Kosmosetehnoloogia rakendused geoidi ja gravitatsioonivälja täpsustamiseks Eesti alal (Application of space technologies to improve geoid and gravity field models over Estonia). Geodeet 41:22–25.
   Google Scholar
• Ellmann, A., and P. Vaníček. 2007. UNB application of Stokes–Helmert's approach to geoid computation. Journal of Geodynamics, Potential Fields in Geostatics and Geodynamics 43:200–213. doi:10.1016/j.jog.2006.09.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FAMOS Consortium. 2014. The FAMOS project. Available at http://www.famosproject.eu/famos/
   Google Scholar
• Featherstone, W.E. 2009. Only use ship-track gravity data with caution: a case-study around Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 56:195–199. doi:10.1080/08120090802547025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsberg, R. 1997. Terrain effects in geoid determination. Sansò, F. (ed.), Lecture Notes, International School for the Determination and Use of the Geoid. Int. Geoid Service, DICA—Polytecnico di Milano. Rio de Janeiro.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, R. 1991. A new high-resolution geoid of the Nordic area. Rapp, R.H., and F. Sansò (eds.), Determination of the Geoid, International Association of Geodesy Symposia. New York: Springer, pp. 241–250.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, R. 1984. A study of terrain reductions, density anomalies and geophysical inversion methods in gravity field modelling (No. 355). Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, R., J. Kaminskis, and D. Solheim. 1997. Geoid of the Nordic and Baltic Region from Gravimetry and Satellite Altimetry. Segawa, P.D.J., P.D.H., Fujimoto, and P.D.S. Okubo (eds.), Gravity, Geoid and Marine Geodesy, International Association of Geodesy Symposia. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 540–547.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, R., and A.V. Olesen. 2010. Airborne gravity field determination. Xu, G. (ed.), Sciences of Geodesy I—Advances and Future Directions. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 83–104.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, R., and M.G. Sideris. 1993. Geoid computations by the multi-band spherical FFT approach. Manuscripta Geodaetica 18:82–90.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, R., G. Strykowski, and D. Solheim. 2004. NKG-2004 Geoid of the Nordic and Baltic Area. Proceedings on CD-ROM from the International Association of Geodesy. Presented at the Gravity, Geoid and Satellite Gravity Missions, August 30–September 3, Porto, Portugal.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, R., and C.C. Tscherning. 2008. An Overview Manual for the GRAVSOFT Geodetic Gravity Field Modelling Programs. 2nd ed. Available at https://www.academia.edu/9206363/An_overview_manual_for_the_GRAVSOFT_Geodetic_Gravity_Field_Modelling_Programs.
   Google Scholar
• Förste, C., S.L. Bruinsma, O. Abrikosov, J.-M. Lemoine, J.C. Marty, F. Flechtner, G. Balmino, F. Barthelmes, and R. Biancale. 2015. EIGEN-6C4 The latest combined global gravity field model including GOCE data up to degree and order 2190 of GFZ Potsdam and GRGS Toulouse [WWW Document]. GFZ Data Services. Available at http://doi.org/10.5880/icgem.2015.1
   Google Scholar
• Gil, A.J., and Rodríguez‐Caderot, G. 1998. Processing gravity data in the territory of Andalusia. Marine Geodesy 21:81–89. doi:10.1080/01490419809388123
   Google Scholar
• Golden Software LLC. 2016. Surfer [WWW Document]. Available at http://www.goldensoftware.com/products/surfer. Last accessed 9.1.16.
   Google Scholar
• Goos, J.M., W.E. Featherstone, J.F. Kirby, and S.A. Holmes. 2003. Experiments with two different approaches to gridding terrestrial gravity anomalies and their effect on regional geoid computation. Survey Review 37:92–112. doi:10.1179/sre.2003.37.288.92
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haagmans, R., E. de Min, and M. Gelderen. 1993. Fast evaluation of convolution integrals on the sphere using 1D FFT, and a comparison with existing methods for Stokes' integral. Manuscripta Geodaetica 18:227–241.
   Google Scholar
• Hackney, R.I., and W.E. Featherstone. 2003. Geodetic versus geophysical perspectives of the “gravity anomaly.” Geophysical Journal International 154:35–43. doi:10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01941.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Häkli, P., M. Lidberg, L. Jivall, T. Nørbech, O. Tangen, M. Weber, P. Pihlak, I. Aleksejenko, and E. Paršeliunas. 2016. The NKG2008 GPS campaign—final transformation results and a new common Nordic reference frame. Journal of Geodetic Science 6:1–33. doi:10.1515/jogs-2016-0001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heiskanen, W.A., and H. Moritz. 1967. Physical Geodesy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Hinze, W., C. Aiken, J. Brozena, B. Coakley, D. Dater, G. Flanagan, R. Forsberg, T. Hildenbrand, G. Keller, J. Kellogg, R. Kucks, X. Li, A. Mainville, R. Morin, M. Pilkington, D. Plouff, D. Ravat, D. Roman, J. Urrutia-Fucugauchi, M. Véronneau, M. Webring, and D. Winester. 2005. New standards for reducing gravity data: The North American gravity database. Geophysics 70:J25–J32. doi:10.1190/1.1988183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirt, C. 2013. RTM gravity forward-modeling using topography/bathymetry data to improve high-degree global geopotential models in the coastal zone. Marine Geodesy 36:183–202. doi:10.1080/01490419.2013.779334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirt, C. 2010. Prediction of vertical deflections from high-degree spherical harmonic synthesis and residual terrain model data. Journal of Geodesy 84:179–190. doi:10.1007/s00190-009-0354-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, C., Y.-S. Hsiao, H.-C. Shih, M. Yang, K.-H. Chen, R. Forsberg, and A.V. Olesen. 2007. Geodetic and geophysical results from a Taiwan airborne gravity survey: Data reduction and accuracy assessment. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 112. doi:10.1029/2005JB004220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaaks, E.H., and R.M. Srivastava. 1989. Applied Geostatistics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Janák, J., and P. Vaníček. 2005. Mean free-air gravity anomalies in the mountains. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica 49:31–42. doi:10.1007/s11200-005-1624-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jekeli, C., H.J. Yang, and J.H. Kwon. 2009. Using gravity and topography-implied anomalies to assess data requirements for precise geoid computation. Journal of Geodesy 83:1193–1202. doi:10.1007/s00190-009-0337-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jürgenson, H. 2003. Eesti täppisgeoidi arvutus (Determination of Estonian Precision Geoid). Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia.
   Google Scholar
• Klitzke, P., J. Sippel, J.I. Faleide, and M. Scheck-Wenderoth. 2016. A 3D gravity and thermal model for the Barents Sea and Kara Sea. Tectonophysics, Special Issue on GeoMod 2014 – Modelling in Geoscience 684:131–147. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2016.04.033
   Google Scholar
• Korhonen, J.V., T. Koistinen, S. Elo, H. Säävuori, J. Kääriäinen, H. Nevanlinna, S. Aaro, L.Å. Haller, J.R. Skilbrei, D. Solheim, A. Chepik, A. Kulinich, L. Zhdanova, R. Vaher, T. All, and H. Sildvee. 1999. Preliminary magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the Fennoscandian shield 1: 10 000 000. Special Paper—Geological Survey of Finland, 173–180.
   Google Scholar
• Krige, D.G. 1951. A Statistical Approach to Some Mine Valuation and Allied Problems on the Witwatersrand. D.G. Krige.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, M., W.E. Featherstone, and J.F. Kirby. 2009. Complete spherical Bouguer gravity anomalies over Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 56:213–223. doi:10.1080/08120090802547041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, J., and M.G. Sideris. 1997. Marine gravity and geoid determination by optimal combination of satellite altimetry and shipborne gravimetry data. Journal of Geodesy 71:209–216. doi:10.1007/s001900050088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lysaker, D.I., O.C.D. Omang, B.R. Pettersen, and D. Solheim. 2007. Quasigeoid evaluation with improved levelled height data for Norway. Journal of Geodesy 81:617–627. doi:10.1007/s00190-006-0129-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandal, A., S. Gupta, W.K. Mohanty, and S. Misra. 2015. Sub-surface structure of a craton–mobile belt interface: Evidence from geological and gravity studies across the Rengali Province–Eastern Ghats Belt boundary, eastern India. Tectonophysics, Special issue on Comparative tectonic and dynamic analysis of cratons, orogens, basins, and metallogeny 662:140–152. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2015.01.016
   Google Scholar
• Märdla, S., A. Ellmann, T. Oja, and H. Jürgenson. 2015. Improving and validating gravity data over ice-covered marine areas. Rizos, C., and P. Willis (Eds.), IAG 150 Years: Proceedings of the 2013 IAG Scientific Assembly, Postdam, Germany, 1–6 September, 2013, International Association of Geodesy Symposia. Springer International Publishing, 263–270.
   Google Scholar
• Martín, A., A.B. Anquela, J. Padín, and S. Baselga. 2009. Some notes and numerical comparisons on gravity anomalies interpolation. Survey Review 41:201–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinec, Z. 1998. Boundary-Value Problems for Gravimetric Determination of a Precise Geoid, Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Morelli, C., C. Gantar, T. Honkasalo, R.K. McConnell, T.G. Tanner, B. Szabo, U. Uotila, and C.T. Whalen. 1971. The international gravity standardisation network (IGSN71). Bulletin Géodésique, Special Publication No. 4.
   Google Scholar
• Moritz, H. 2000. Geodetic reference system 1980. Journal of Geodesy 74:128–133. doi:10.1007/s001900050278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moritz, H. 1980. Advanced Physical Geodesy. Wichmann. Tunbridge Wells, UK: Abacus Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nahavandchi, H., A. Soltanpour, and E. Nymes. 2005. A new gravimetric geoidal height model over norway computed by the least-squares modification parameters. Jekeli, P.C., D.L. Bastos, and P.J. Fernandes (eds.), IAG International Symposium on Gravity, Geoid and Space Missions: GGSM, Porto, Portugal, August 30–September 3, 2004, International Association of Geodesy Symposia. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 191–196.
   Google Scholar
• Niebauer, T.M., G.S. Sasagawa, J.E. Faller, R. Hilt, and F. Klopping. 1995. A new generation of absolute gravimeters. Metrologia 32:159. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/32/3/004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noréus, J.P., M.R. Nyborg, and K.L. Hayling. 1997. The gravity anomaly field in the Gulf of Bothnia spatially characterized from satellite altimetry and in situ measurements. Journal of Applied Geophysics 37:67–84. doi:10.1016/S0926-9851(97)00007-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novák, P., P. Vaníček, Z. Martinec, and M. Véronneau. 2001. Effects of the spherical terrain on gravity and the geoid. Journal of Geodesy 75:491–504. doi:10.1007/s001900100201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omang, O.C., C.C. Tscherning, and R. Forsberg. 2012. Generalizing the harmonic reduction procedure in residual topographic modeling. Sneeuw, N., P. Novák, M. Crespi, and F. Sansò (eds.), VII Hotine-Marussi Symposium on Mathematical Geodesy, International Association of Geodesy Symposia. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 233–238.
   Google Scholar
• Omang, O.C.D., and R. Forsberg. 2002. The northern European geoid: a case study on long-wavelength geoid errors. Journal of Geodesy 76:369–380. doi:10.1007/s00190-002-0261-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omang, O.C.D., and R. Forsberg. 2000. How to handle topography in practical geoid determination: three examples. Journal of Geodesy 74:458–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radhakrishna, M., S. Lasitha, and M. Mukhopadhyay. 2008. Seismicity, gravity anomalies and lithospheric structure of the Andaman arc, NE Indian Ocean. Tectonophysics 460:248–262. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2008.08.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renka, R.J. 1997a. Algorithm 772: STRIPACK: Delaunay Triangulation and voronoi diagram on the surface of a sphere. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 23:416–434. doi:10.1145/275323.275329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renka, R.J. 1997b. Algorithm 773: SSRFPACK: Interpolation of Scattered data on the surface of a sphere with a surface under tension. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 23:435–442. doi:10.1145/275323.275330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saleh, J., X. Li, Y.M. Wang, D.R. Roman, and D.A. Smith. 2013. Error analysis of the NGS' surface gravity database. Journal of Geodesy 87:203–221. doi:10.1007/s00190-012-0589-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sansò, F., M.G. Sideris (Eds.). 2013. Geoid Determination, Lecture Notes in Earth System Sciences. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sjöberg, L.E. 2003. A computational scheme to model the geoid by the modified Stokes formula without gravity reductions. Journal of Geodesy 77:423–432. doi:10.1007/s00190-003-0338-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjöberg, L.E. 2000. Topographic effects by the Stokes–Helmert method of geoid and quasi-geoid determinations. Journal of Geodesy 74:255–268. doi:10.1007/s001900050284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjöberg, L.E. 1991. Refined least squares modification of stokes formula. Manuscripta Geodaetica 16:367–375.
   Google Scholar
• Sjöberg, L.E. 1984. Least squares modification of Stokes' and Vening Meinesz’ formulas by accounting for truncation and potential coefficient errors. Manuscripta Geodaetica 9:209–229.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, W.H.F., and P. Wessel. 1990. Gridding with continuous curvature splines in tension. Geophysics 55:293–305. doi:10.1190/1.1442837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokes, G.G. 1849. On the Variation of Gravity at the Surface of the EARTH. Trans. Cambridge Philos. Soc. VIIII, 672–695.
   Google Scholar
• Sünkel, H. 1986. Global topographic-isostatic models. Sünkel, H. (ed.), Mathematical and Numerical Techniques in Physical Geodesy, Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 417–462. doi:10.1007/BFb0010137
   Google Scholar
• Tscherning, C.C. 1985. Local approximation of the gravity potential by least squares collocation. Schwarz, K.P. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Summer School on Local Gravity Field Approximation, Beijing, China, August 21–September 4, 1984. Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary, 277–362.
   Google Scholar
• Tscherning, C.C., and R. Forsberg. 1986. Geoid determination in the Nordic countries from gravity and height data, in: Bolletino Di Geodesia E Scienze Affini. Presented at the International Symposium on the Definition of the Geoid, Florence, Italy, 21–43.
   Google Scholar
• Tscherning, C.C., F. Rubek, and R. Forsberg. 1998. Combining airborne and ground gravity using collocation. Forsberg, P.D.R., P.D.M. Feissel, and P.D.R. Dietrich (eds.), Geodesy on the Move - Gravity, Geoid, Geodynamics and Antarctica: Proceedings of lAG Scientific Assembly, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 3–9, 1997, International Association of Geodesy Symposia. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 18–23. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-72245-5_3
   Google Scholar
• Vaníček, P., P. Novák, and Z. Martinec. 2001. Geoid, topography, and the Bouguer plate or shell. Journal of Geodesy 75:210–215. doi:10.1007/s001900100165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaníček, P., and L.E. Sjöberg. 1991. Reformulation of Stokes's theory for higher than second-degree reference field and modification of integration kernels. Journal of Geophysical Research 96:6529–6539. doi:10.1029/90JB02782
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaníček, P., R. Tenzer, L.E. Sjöberg, Z. Martinec, and W.E. Featherstone. 2004. New views of the spherical Bouguer gravity anomaly. Geophysical Journal International 159:460–472. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02435.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vergos, G.S., I.N. Tziavos, and V.D. Andritsanos. 2005. Gravity data base generation and geoid model estimation using heterogeneous data. Gravity, Geoid and Space Missions. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 155–160.
   Google Scholar
• Vermeer, M. 1994. A Fast Delivery GPS-Gravimetric Geoid for Estonia (No. 94:1). Reports of the Finnish Geodetic Institute. Finnish Geodetic Institute, Masala, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Véronneau, M. 2013. The Helmert Gravity Grid Used for CGG2010. Geodetic Survey Division, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Canada ( via pers. comm., 28.04.2016).
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Y.M., J. Saleh, X. Li, and D.R. Roman. 2012. The US Gravimetric Geoid of 2009 (USGG2009): model development and evaluation. Journal of Geodesy 86:165–180. doi:10.1007/s00190-011-0506-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessel, P., W.H.F. Smith, R. Scharroo, J. Luis, and F. Wobbe. 2013. Generic mapping tools: improved version released. Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union 94:409–410. doi:10.1002/2013EO450001
   Google Scholar