The European Comparison of Absolute Gravimeters 2011 (ECAG-2011) in Walferdange, Luxembourg: results and recommendations

Francis, Olivier; Baumann, Henri; Volarik, Tomas; Rothleitner, Christian; Klein, Gilbert; Seil, Marc; Dando, Nicolas; Tracey, R. J.; Ullrich, Christian; Castelein, Stefaan; Hu, Hua; Wu, Kang; Shen, Chongyang; Songbo, Xuan; Tan, Hongbing; Zhengyuan, Li; Pálinkáš, Vojtech; Kostelecký, Jakub; Mäkinen, Jaakko; Näränen, Jyri; Merlet, Sébastien; Farah, Tristan; Guerlin, Christine; Santos, F. Pereira Dos; Moigne, Nicolas Le; Champollion, Cédric; Deville, Sabrina; Timmen, Ludger; Falk, Reinhard; Wilmes, H.; Iacovone, Domenico; Baccaro, Francesco; Germak, Alessandro; Biolcati, Emanuele; Krynski, Jan; Sękowski, Marcin; Olszak, T. A.; Pachuta, A.; Ågren, Jonas; Engfeldt, Andreas; Reudink, René; Inácio, Pedro; McLaughlin, Daniel L.; Shannon, G. J.; Eckl, M. C.; Wilkins, Tim; Westrum, Derek van; Billson, Ryan

doi:10.1088/0026-1394/50/3/257

Cited by 58 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[, ], or included in the uncertainty budget [ Sato et al ., ; Mémin et al ., ; Palinkas et al ., ]. Intercomparison campaigns [e.g., Francis et al ., , , , ; Jiang et al ., ; Schmerge et al ., ; Vitushkin et al ., ] showed that differences between FG5 and JILAg gravimeters are commonly of the order of 100–150 nm/s 2 . A difference as large as 461 nm/s 2 was reported for one of the A10 instruments that participated in the ICAG‐2001 intercomparison [ Vitushkin et al ., ].…”

Section: Instrumental Artifactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A difference as large as 461 nm/s 2 was reported for one of the A10 instruments that participated in the ICAG‐2001 intercomparison [ Vitushkin et al ., ]. In other comparisons, systematic and random errors of A10 gravimeters ranged between 70 and 220 nm/s 2 [ Jiang et al ., ; Francis et al ., , , ].…”

Section: Instrumental Artifactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When different AGs are used in the same study, interinstrument differences should be taken into account, as done, for example, by Lambert et al [2006Lambert et al [ , 2013b, or included in the uncertainty budget [Sato et al, 2006;Mémin et al, 2011;Palinkas et al, 2012]. Intercomparison campaigns [e.g., Francis et al, 2005Francis et al, , 2010Francis et al, , 2013Francis et al, , 2015Jiang et al, 2012;Schmerge et al, 2012;Vitushkin et al, 2002] showed that differences between FG5 and JILAg gravimeters are commonly of the order of 100-150 nm/s 2 . A difference as large as 461 nm/s 2 was reported for one of the A10 instruments that participated in the ICAG-2001 intercomparison [Vitushkin et al, 2002].…”

Section: Instrumental Artifactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Separating climate‐induced mass transfers and instrumental effects from tectonic signal in repeated absolute gravity measurements

Camp

Viron

Avouac

2016

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We estimate the signature of the climate‐induced mass transfers in repeated absolute gravity measurements based on satellite gravimetric measurements from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission. We show results at the globe scale and compare them with repeated absolute gravity (AG) time behavior in three zones where AG surveys have been published: Northwestern Europe, Canada, and Tibet. For 10 yearly campaigns, the uncertainties affecting the determination of a linear gravity rate of change range 3–4 nm/s2/a in most cases, in the absence of instrumental artifacts. The results are consistent with what is observed for long‐term repeated campaigns. We also discuss the possible artifact that can result from using short AG survey to determine the tectonic effects in a zone of high hydrological variability. We call into question the tectonic interpretation of several gravity changes reported from stations in Tibet, in particular the variation observed prior to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake.

show abstract

Section: Instrumental Artifactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Instrumental Artifactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Instrumental Artifactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Separating climate‐induced mass transfers and instrumental effects from tectonic signal in repeated absolute gravity measurements

Camp

Viron

Avouac

2016

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 5 also take into account the results of calibration of absolute gravimeters presented as part of ICAG2011 (Francis at al., 2013), therefore the values of g are at a level which is in compliance with what is defined as the European level of reference.…”

Section: Geodynamic Studies In the Pieniny Klippen Belt In 2004-2015mentioning

confidence: 99%

Geodynamic studies in the Pieniny Klippen Belt in 2004-2015

Walo¹

2016

Acta Geodynamica Et Geomaterialia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Pieniny Klippen Belt (PKB), which is situated in Southern Poland, is one of the main fault zones on the boundary of the Outer and Inner Carpathians. The geodynamic investigations which have been carried out since 1960s indicate that PKB demonstrates neo-tectonic activity. In 1990s, the Dunajec river dam and the water reservoirs in Czorsztyn and Sromowce Wyzne have been built. This has created a new aspect in investigations related to the effect of tectonic movements on the dam. In 2001, after few years break, the investigations were revived. Current the measurements are performed annually, in the beginning of September and contain GNSS and gravimetric measurements. The results of horizontal displacement in the PKB area based on GNSS measurements as well as gravity changes obtained from absolute measurements in 2004-2015 are presented and discussed in this paper. ARTICLE INFO

show abstract

“…Calculating the half difference between these two measurements, one gets the shift due to Coriolis acceleration and averaging the two measurements, the interferometer phase is corrected from Coriolis acceleration. We use this last method in [3], as well as during comparison campaigns [6,13,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective velocity distribution in an atom gravimeter: Effect of the convolution with the response of the detection

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present here a detailed study of the influence of the transverse motion of the atoms in a free-fall gravimeter. By implementing Raman selection in the horizontal directions at the beginning of the atoms free fall, we characterize the effective velocity distribution, ie the velocity distribution of the detected atom, as a function of the laser cooling and trapping parameters. In particular, we show that the response of the detection induces a pronounced asymetry of this effective velocity distribution that depends not only on the imbalance between molasses beams but also on the initial position of the displaced atomic sample. This convolution with the detection has a strong influence on the averaging of the bias due to Coriolis acceleration. The present study allows a fairly good understanding of results previously published in Louchet-Chauvet et al., NJP 13, 065025 (2011), where the mean phase shift due to Coriolis acceleration was found to have a sign different from expected.

show abstract

The European Comparison of Absolute Gravimeters 2011 (ECAG-2011) in Walferdange, Luxembourg: results and recommendations

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

Cited by 58 publications

References 11 publications

Separating climate‐induced mass transfers and instrumental effects from tectonic signal in repeated absolute gravity measurements

Separating climate‐induced mass transfers and instrumental effects from tectonic signal in repeated absolute gravity measurements

Geodynamic studies in the Pieniny Klippen Belt in 2004-2015

Effective velocity distribution in an atom gravimeter: Effect of the convolution with the response of the detection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About