2014
DOI: 10.1007/s00190-014-0768-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Consistent estimates of the dynamic figure parameters of the earth

Abstract: The Earth's dynamic figure parameters, namely the principal moments of inertia and dynamic ellipticities of the whole Earth, the fluid outer core and the solid inner core, are fundamental parameters for geodetic, geophysical and astronomical studies. This study aims to re-estimate the mass and the dynamic figure parameters of the Earth on the basis of some global gravity models (EGM2008, EIGEN-6C and EIGEN-6C2) recently released with unprecedented accuracies, as well as an improved value of the gravitational c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
32
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although there is a high degree of agreement among different determinations of it, we found no recent, reliable, explicit evaluation of its uncertainty and had to resort to indirect estimations. For instance, we could consider the recent determinations of the moments of inertia of Earth's layers appearing in Table 9 of Chen et al (2015), which assimilate information from the most accurate geopotential models. The r cm uncertainty estimated from those data is ±0.00005 and contributes with ±0.006 mas/ cy to the dp uncertainty, whose final value has been set to ±0.01 mas/cy in Table 4.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although there is a high degree of agreement among different determinations of it, we found no recent, reliable, explicit evaluation of its uncertainty and had to resort to indirect estimations. For instance, we could consider the recent determinations of the moments of inertia of Earth's layers appearing in Table 9 of Chen et al (2015), which assimilate information from the most accurate geopotential models. The r cm uncertainty estimated from those data is ±0.00005 and contributes with ±0.006 mas/ cy to the dp uncertainty, whose final value has been set to ±0.01 mas/cy in Table 4.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dynamical figure parameters are the principal moments of inertia and dynamical ellipticities of the whole Earth, the fluid outer core, and the elastic inner core, respectively. In Model 1, we use the triaxial three‐layered dynamical figure parameters of Case III of Table 8 from Chen et al (), who estimated these parameters based on new gravity field models EGM2008 (Pavlis et al, ), EIGEN‐6C (Förste et al, ), and EIGEN‐6C2 (Förste et al, ). In Model 2, the rotational symmetric equatorial principal moments of inertia trueA, trueAf, and trueAs are obtained by averaging Model 1's equatorial principal moments of inertia, and the polar principal moments of inertia are obtained by C=trueAfalse(1+efalse), Cf=trueAffalse(1+effalse), Cs=trueAsfalse(1+esfalse), with the dynamical ellipticities deploying Model 1's values.…”
Section: Model Input Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Chen et al (), only the uncertainties of principal moments of inertia for whole Earth are estimated simply, and in Mathews et al (), the uncertainties for dynamical ellipticities of the whole Earth and fluid outer are, respectively, 0.0000000012 and 0.0000020, while the dynamical ellipticity of the elastic inner core is a theoretical value based on PREM Earth model, and the corresponding uncertainty is not provided.…”
Section: Model Input Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It should be noted that the accuracy of satellite observations became more precise after the launch of the Italian LARES mission designed to test General Relativity in the weak gravity field of the Earth, including geodetic data. In the last decades these satellites together with astronomical data allow to determine with higher accuracy the Earth's fundamental constants by means of different approaches [Marchenko & Schwintzer, 2003;Groten, 2004;Petit & Luzum, 2010;Chen & Shen 2010;Chen et al, 2015;Cheng et al, 2011;Cheng, et al, 2013;etc]. Generally speaking due to unstable determination of the precession constant (before 2002) [Marchenko & Schwintzer, 2003].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%