Analysis of observations with dual sensor superconducting gravimeters

Kröner, C.; Dierks, O.; Neumeyer, J.; Wilmes, H.

doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2005.07.002

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More recent data from all four dual-sphere SGs support the early observations of CD029 (Kroner et al, 2004(Kroner et al, , 2005. No offsets have occurred in CD029 at Wettzell or D034 at Moxa, Germany, and only one or two offsets per year are observed in CD028 at Bad Homburg and in CD037 at Sutherland, South Africa.…”

supporting

confidence: 56%

“…For dual-sphere sensors, the constancy of calibration is verified to 0.001% by least squares fitting the time series of the upper sphere to the lower sphere (Kroner et al, 2005). For dual-sphere sensors, the constancy of calibration is verified to 0.001% by least squares fitting the time series of the upper sphere to the lower sphere (Kroner et al, 2005).…”

Section: Calibration Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Superconducting Gravimetry

Hinderer

2015

Treatise on Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Calibration Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 89%

Superconducting Gravimetry

Hinderer

2015

Treatise on Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As already explained, this periodical phenomenon is relatively easy to correct at a few nm/s 2 level. However, reaching the nm/s 2 level or below is not straightforward (Ducarme, 2009;Kroner et al, 2005;Van Camp, de Viron, & Avouac, 2016).…”

Section: A12 Tidal Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geophysics From Terrestrial Time‐Variable Gravity Measurements

Camp

Viron

Watlet

et al. 2017

Reviews of Geophysics

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a context of global change and increasing anthropic pressure on the environment, monitoring the Earth system and its evolution has become one of the key missions of geosciences. Geodesy is the geoscience that measures the geometric shape of the Earth, its orientation in space, and gravity field. Time‐variable gravity, because of its high accuracy, can be used to build an enhanced picture and understanding of the changing Earth. Ground‐based gravimetry can determine the change in gravity related to the Earth rotation fluctuation, to celestial body and Earth attractions, to the mass in the direct vicinity of the instruments, and to vertical displacement of the instrument itself on the ground. In this paper, we review the geophysical questions that can be addressed by ground gravimeters used to monitor time‐variable gravity. This is done in relation to the instrumental characteristics, noise sources, and good practices. We also discuss the next challenges to be met by ground gravimetry, the place that terrestrial gravimetry should hold in the Earth observation system, and perspectives and recommendations about the future of ground gravity instrumentation.

show abstract

“…The linear trend varies between −0.62 and +3.76 μGal yr −1 (Table 1). For dualsphere instruments (BH, MO and WE), we average the data from each of the sensors as the difference signal is typically a few tenths of a μGal (Kroner et al 2005). Simultaneous treatment of offsets and instrument drift was also emphasized by Hinderer et al (2002).…”

Section: Treatment Of Offsets and Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of the gravity field over Central Europe from superconducting gravimeters, GRACE and global hydrological models, using EOF analysis

Crossley

Linage

Hinderer

et al. 2012

Geophysical Journal International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY We analyse data from seven superconducting gravimeter (SG) stations in Europe from 2002 to 2007 from the Global Geodynamics Project (GGP) and compare seasonal variations with data from GRACE and several global hydrological models—GLDAS, WGHM and ERA‐Interim. Our technique is empirical orthogonal function (EOF) decomposition of the fields that allows for the inherent incompatibility of length scales between ground and satellite observations. GGP stations below the ground surface pose a problem because part of the attraction from soil moisture comes from above the gravimeter, and this gives rise to a complex (mixed) gravity response. The first principle component (PC) of the EOF decomposition is the main indicator for comparing the fields, although for some of the series it accounts for only about 50 per cent of the variance reduction. PCs for GRACE solutions RL04 from CSR and GFZ are filtered with a cosine taper (degrees 20–40) and a Gaussian window (350 km). Significant differences are evident between GRACE solutions from different groups and filters, though they all agree reasonably well with the global hydrological models for the predominantly seasonal signal. We estimate the first PC at 10‐d sampling to be accurate to 1 μGal for GGP data, 1.5 μGal for GRACE data and 1 μGal between the three global hydrological models. Within these limits the CNES/GRGS solution and ground GGP data agree at the 79 per cent level, and better when the GGP solution is restricted to the three above‐ground stations. The major limitation on the GGP side comes from the water mass distribution surrounding the underground instruments that leads to a complex gravity effect. To solve this we propose a method for correcting the SG residual gravity series for the effects of soil moisture above the station.

show abstract

Analysis of observations with dual sensor superconducting gravimeters

Cited by 11 publications

References 12 publications

Superconducting Gravimetry

Superconducting Gravimetry

Geophysics From Terrestrial Time‐Variable Gravity Measurements

A comparison of the gravity field over Central Europe from superconducting gravimeters, GRACE and global hydrological models, using EOF analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About