The 8th International Comparison of Absolute Gravimeters (ICAG2009) took place at the headquarters of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) from September to October 2009. It was the first ICAG organized as a key comparison in the framework of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement of the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM MRA) (CIPM 1999). ICAG2009 was composed of a Key Comparison (KC) as defined by the CIPM MRA, organized by the Consultative Committee for Mass and Related Quantities (CCM) and designated as CCM.G-K1. Participating gravimeters and their operators came from national metrology institutes (NMIs) or their designated institutes (DIs) as defined by the CIPM MRA. A Pilot Study (PS) was run in parallel in order to include gravimeters and their operators from other institutes which, while not signatories of the CIPM MRA, nevertheless play important roles in international gravimetry measurements. The aim of the CIPM MRA is to have international acceptance of the measurement capabilities of the participating institutes in various fields of metrology. The results of CCM.G-K1 thus constitute an accurate and consistent gravity reference traceable to the SI (International System of Units), which can be used as the global basis for geodetic, geophysical and metrological observations of gravity. The measurements performed afterwards by the KC participants can be referred to the international metrological reference, i.e. they are SI-traceable. The ICAG2009 was complemented by a number of associated measurements: the Relative Gravity Campaign (RGC2009), high-precision levelling and an accurate gravity survey in support of the BIPM watt balance project. The major measurements took place at the BIPM between July and October 2009. Altogether 24 institutes with 22 absolute gravimeters (one of the 22 AGs was ultimately withdrawn) and nine relative gravimeters participated in the ICAG/RGC campaign. This paper is focused on the absolute gravity campaign. We review the history of the ICAGs and present the organization, data processing and the final results of the ICAG2009. After almost thirty years of hosting eight successive ICAGs, the CIPM decided to transfer the responsibility for piloting the future ICAGs to NMIs, although maintaining a supervisory role through its Consultative Committee for Mass and Related Quantities.

Since the 1st International Comparison of Absolute Gravimeters (ICAG) and accompanying Relative Gravity Campaign (RGC) held at the BIPM in 1981, repeated ICAG-RGCs have been organized every four years. A total of 19 absolute gravimeters (AG) and 15 relative gravimeters (RG) participated in the 7th ICAG-RGC, which took place in 2005. Co-located absolute and relative gravity measurements as well as precision levelling measurements were carried out.The final version of the absolute g values of the 7th ICAG has been officially released recently. This paper is the final report of the 7th RGC and replaces the preliminary results published earlier. It covers the organization of the RGC and the data processing, analyses RG behaviour, computes g, δg and OAG (offset of AG) and discusses their uncertainties. In preparation for the BIPM key comparison ICAG-2009, a standard data-processing procedure has been developed and installed in the BIPM ICAG-RGC software package, GraviSoft. This was used for the final data processing.

The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM), Sèvres, France, hosted the 7th International Comparison of Absolute Gravimeters (ICAG) and the associated Relative Gravity Campaign (RGC) from August to September 2005.ICAG 2005 was prepared and performed as a metrological pilot study, which aimed:(1) To determine the gravity comparison reference values;(2) To determine the offsets of the absolute gravimeters; and (3) As a pilot study to accumulate experience for the CIPM Key Comparisons.This document presents a complete and extensive review of the technical protocol and data processing procedures. The 1st ICAG-RGC comparison was held at the BIPM in 1980-1981 and since then meetings have been organized every 4 years.In this paper, we present an overview of how the meeting was organized, the conditions of BIPM gravimetric sites, technical specifications, data processing strategy and an analysis of the final results. This 7th ICAG final report supersedes all previously published reports.Readings were obtained from participating instruments, 19 absolute gravimeters and 15 relative gravimeters. Precise levelling measurements were carried out and all measurements were performed on the BIPM micro-gravity network which was specifically designed for the comparison.

FG5 absolute gravimeters are the most accurate gravimeters available at present and have significant influence on the realization of a gravity reference through international comparisons of absolute gravimeters. The latter comparisons are the only way to maintain the traceability of absolute gravimetry to the International System of Units (SI). Sources of systematic error such as the self-attraction effect (SAE) have to be taken into account when determining accurate values of the acceleration due to gravity, as needed, for example, for the watt balance project or the International Gravity Reference System. In this paper the SAE for two types of FG5 gravimeter is estimated using two independent methods. The resulting SAEs are 1.2(0.2) µGal and 1.7(0.2) µGal for FG5 with fibre and bulk interferometer types, respectively. The importance of accurately defining the measurement height is emphasized in the context of the SAE. The accuracy and advantages of referring gravity measurements to an effective position of the free-fall solution are demonstrated together with a simple and accurate empirical estimation of this effective position.

The 8th International Comparison of Absolute Gravimeters (ICAG-2009) and the associated Relative Gravity Campaign (RGC2009) took place at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) between July and October 2009. Altogether 24 institutes with 22 absolute gravimeters and 9 relative gravimeters participated in the ICAG/RGC campaign. Accurate absolute and relative gravity measurements as well as precision levelling measurements were performed on the micro-gravity 3D-grid at the BIPM. The 2009 comparison was the first to be organized as a Comité International des Poids et Mesures (CIPM)metrological Key Comparison under the CIPM MRA (Mutual Recognition Arrangement), which means that the result will be officially recognized by the governmental organizations responsible. As a consequence, the relative gravimeters employed were carefully selected and the measurement schedules were rigorously enforced compared to earlier campaigns. Thus the quality of the RGC2009 and the determination of the BIPM local gravity network were improved.After thirty years and eight successive ICAGs, the BIPM has decided to transfer its role to the National Metrological Institutes, although the CIPM will continue to organize the key comparison as ICAGs. The background to the RGC2009, and the organization, data processing and final results of the gravity and vertical gravity gradients are presented in this paper. This report is more detailed than previous final reports of the RGCs. Notation ICAG: International Comparison of Absolute Gravimeters RGC: Relative Gravity Campaign organized in association with ICAG AG: absolute gravimeter RG: relative gravimeter KC: CIPM key comparison WB: BIPM watt balance 1 µGal = 10 -8 m s −2 g: measured absolute acceleration due to gravity in µGal (minus a constant value of 980 900 000 µGal) G: adjusted g value KCRV: KC reference value of G δg, δG: differences of g or G H: height in meters above the ground benchmark γ H : average gradient corresponding to the height H RMS: root mean square error given by a least-squares adjustment (1-σ statistic estimation) Mean: mean value of a data set Std: standard deviation u: standard uncertainty Site, Station and point: The BIPM gravity network comprises indoor and outdoor relative measurement ties between 5 sites (A, B, C1, C2 and WB) and 12 stations (Figures 2.2.1, A, B, B1-B6, C1, C2, W1 and W2). The WB site is used for the BIPM watt balance project. Results at the WB site are not discussed in this paper. This paper therefore is limited to 4 sites and 10 stations. At each station, 3 points are defined at 0.30 m, 0.90 m and 1.30 m above the ground benchmark (C1 and C2 have only 2 points at 0.90 m and 1.30 m). There are 28 points in total. Naming convention is by station plus height in cm, e.g. A.030, A.090 and A.130.

19 Lantmäteriet-the Swedish mapping, cadastral and land registration, Sweden

The second international comparison of absolute gravimeters was held in Walferdange, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in November 2007, in which twenty absolute gravimeters took part. A short description of the data processing and adjustments will be presented here and will be followed by the presentation of the results. Two different methods were applied to estimate the relative offsets between the gravimeters. We show that the results are equivalent as the uncertainties of both adjustments overlap. The absolute gravity meters agree with one another with a standard deviation of 2 μgal (1 gal = 1 cm/s 2 ). In 1999, a laboratory ( Fig. 5.1) dedicated to the comparison of absolute gravimeters was built within the WULG. The laboratory lies 100 m below the surface at a distance of 300 m from the entrance of the mine. The WULG is environmentally stable (i.e., constant temperature and humidity within the lab), and is extremely well isolated from anthropogenic noise. It has the power and space requirements to be able to accommodate up 16 instruments operating simultaneously. IntroductionMultiple absolute gravimeter comparisons are regularly carried out. Being absolute instruments, these gravimeters cannot really be calibrated. Only some of their components (such as the atomic clock and the laser) can be calibrated by comparison with known standards. The only way one currently has to verify their good working order is via a simultaneous comparison with other absolute gravimeters of the same and/or if possible even of a different model, to detect possible systematic errors.During a comparison, we cannot estimate how accurate the meters are: in fact, as we have no way to know the true value of g, we can only investigate the relative offsets between instruments. This means that all instruments can suffer from the same unknown and undetectable systematic error. However, differences larger than the uncertainty of the measurements, is usually indicative of a possible systematic error.For the second comparison in Walferdange, a few new procedures have been introduced. First, some of the participants accepted to take part in a

No abstract