About Amerisurv| Contact    
Magazine | Newsletter    
Flickr Photos | Advertise    
HomeNewsNewsletterAmerisurv DirectoryJobsStoreAuthorsHistoryArchivesBlogVideosEvents

Sponsored By

Software Reviews
Continuing Series
An RTN expert provides everything you need to know about network-corrected real-time GNSS observations.
Click Here to begin the series,
or view the Article PDF's Here
76-PageFlip Compilation
of the entire series
Test Yourself

Got Answers?
Test your knowledge with NCEES-level questions.
  Start HERE
Meet the Authors
Check out our fine lineup of writers. Each an expert in his or her field.
Wow Factor
Sponsored By

Product Reviews
Partner Sites







Spatial Media LLC properties




Home arrow Archives   The American Surveyor     

Recent Activities at the National Geodetic Survey—Part 2 of 4 Print E-mail
Written by Dr. Dru Smith, Dr. Daniel R. Roman And Monica Youngman   
Friday, 30 January 2015

A 4.981Mb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

The Gravity for the Redefinition of the American Vertical Datum (or GRAV-D) project got off the ground, literally, in 2007 when NGS's first airborne gravity flights took place. Today the GRAV-D airplanes continue to fly! With a second airborne gravimeter acquired in December 2011, NGS has been able to continue to meet, and slowly exceed, its stated completion goals every year. As of August 31, 2014 the GRAV-D project is over 38% complete toward fully covering the country with consistent, accurate airborne gravity. Data products are continually released as they Airborne Gravity Free Air Disturbance CN02: free-air gravity disturbances derived from are collected and are available GRAV-D flights in Iowa over the mid-continent gravity high. here: www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRAV-D/ data_products.shtml

One of the major lessons learned with the GRAV-D Project has been that limiting aircraft motion by using aircraft with an up-to-date autopilot and stable frame is critical to acquiring high quality gravity data, but it is sometimes difficult to predict which aircraft will perform well. Each aircraft has a unique personality in the air and certain motion, even if not felt by the passengers, translates into large errors in the gravity data. While the project does not have a dedicated aircraft, NGS has partnered with a variety of government and private entities to maintain a fleet of aircraft that have been proven to collect quality gravity data, which allows GRAV-D to survey almost year round. Aircraft that have been used include the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Pilatus, U.S. Navy King Air, NOAA Cessna Citation, NOAA P-3, NOAA Turbo Commander, Fugro King Air, Fugro Cessna Conquest, and Dynamic Aviation King Air.

Even the best aircraft will have some motion and will encounter less than optimal flying conditions and GRAV-D flights are done in a challenging high-altitude, high-speed configuration. To address these realities and deliver the precision and accuracy required to support gravimetric geoid modeling, NGS continues to research better ways to measure aircraft motion, determine aircraft position, and remove the effects of aircraft motion. Recent aircraft positioning research has focused on using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) to determine the orientation of the aircraft when it moves and to adjust the traditional GPS positions. For gravity processing, research ongoing since 2008 has improved commonly-used airborne processing techniques and been included into "Newton", NGS's internally developed gravity processing software.

In the future, the GRAV-D project is also looking for ways to increase efficiencies and accuracy through upgraded meters or alternative platforms. Newer gravimeters are designed to tolerate more aircraft movement and may allow the project to use less stable aircraft or fly in less optimal weather conditions. For alternative platforms NGS is investigating putting a gravimeter on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). Working on a UAV would allow the project to efficiently collect data in difficult areas, such as Western Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, where there are minimal resources to support manned missions. There are a number of hurdles to overcome, such as engineering the meter into a small space as well as remotely controlling or automating the gravimeter, but research is currently being conducted to make this a reality.

In addition to aerogravity collection efforts, plans for long term gravity field monitoring are starting to coalesce. With the potential loss of the GRACE gravity mission in the next few years and the earliest possible launch of GRACE Follow-On (GFO) slated for 2017, plans must be in place to ensure continuity in the longest wavelengths of the gravity field. Additionally, this monitoring will provide the basis for models of the gravity field change that will affect the placement of the new geopotential datum over time. The so-called "N-dot" represents the temporal change in the geoid (N) and must be accounted for if cm-level orthometric heights are to continue to be obtainable from GNSS observations on a dynamic Earth over the coming decades.

GEOID models
On June 30, 2014, NGS issued two experimental gravimetric geoid models—xGEOID14A and xGEOID14B. The primary difference between the two is that xGEOID14B is NGS's first publicly released geoid model containing airborne gravity from GRAV-D. Astute readers may notice that the name of these gravimetric geoid models more closely resembles the names of hybrid geoid models that NGS has issued in the past (GEOID09, GEOID12A), and doesn't seem to follow the naming conventions of previous gravimetric models (USGG2009, USGG2012). This was intentional! Here's why: The hybrid geoid model transforms between two official datums of the NSRS (NAD 83 and NAVD 88). But in 2022, when NAVD 88 is replaced with a geoid-based vertical datum and NAD 83 is replaced with a geocentric reference frame, the gravimetric geoid model created at that time will be the zero height surface of the new datum, and the need for a "hybrid" geoid will go away. That is, in 2022 the gravimetric geoid model will be the geoid which connects the two official datums.

NGS plans to release an "xGEOID" model every year from this point forward until the final replacement of NAVD 88 is available. At that time, the "x" discriminator will be removed and the final gravimetric geoid model used in the new vertical datum will have a name simply beginning with "GEOID."

While the current variety of hybrid geoid models (such as GEOID12A) will no longer be produced after 2022, a datum conversion surface will be continued so that users may transform orthometric heights in the new vertical datum (or "geopotential reference frame" as it is being called more often), to orthometric heights in NAVD 88.

Geoid Slope Validation Surveys
The target differential accuracy for the geoid model which will be used in the vertical datum that replaces NAVD 88 is one centimeter over any distance. In order to determine how well that target is being met, NGS will complete three significant surveys intended to quantify geoid accuracy over increasingly complicated regions ("low and flat", "high and flat" and "high and rugged"). These surveys are each called a "geoid slope validation survey" or GSVS.

The first of these surveys (GSVS11) took place in the summer and early fall of 2011. A line of 218 geodetic control marks were installed running mostly north/south from Austin to Rockport, Texas. Ellipsoid heights, orthometric heights, deflections of the vertical (DoV) and accelerations of gravity were all determined at each point using GPS, leveling, the DIADEM (Digital Astronomical Deflection Measuring System) camera of ETH Zurich and a mix of absolute and relative gravimetry, respectively. Additional data collected included a 1 meter resolution LIDAR DEM and digital imagery along the line. The slope of the geoid was determined from the GPS and leveling, as well as from the DoVs. Error budgets for each measurement source were carefully determined. These independent measures of the geoid slope were then compared to various gravimetric geoid models, both with and without airborne gravity from the GRAV-D project. The results were irrefutably positive: With (and only with) the addition of GRAV-D airborne gravity, NGS was able to model the geoid at a differential accuracy of one centimeter over all distances from 0 to 300 km. Full results were published in Journal of Geodesy.

Building on the success of GSVS11, the second survey ("high and flat") took place in the summer of 2014 (GSVS14) on an east-west line running from Denison to Kirkwood, Iowa. One of the many reasons this line was chosen was that the topography was flat yet there is a significant gravimetric signature intersecting the line due to the mid-continent rift zone. Similar surveys were done as in Texas. Initial results were announced at the December AGU meeting in San Francisco.

The third ("high and rugged") survey has not yet been planned. It will likely take place sometime in the 2016­2018 range, and most likely somewhere in or around the Rocky Mountains. In order to properly constrain error budgets for this survey, significant new research and/or literature searches will need to be conducted to account for 2nd and 3rd order effects (e.g. the effect of rugged topography on geodetic leveling). NGS must make sure its software properly accounts for these effects.

Dr. Dru Smith has been the Chief Geodesist at NGS since 2005, and most recently led the development of the NGS Ten Year Strategic Plan. During his years at NGS, he has been involved in geoid modeling, ionosphere research and most recently in updating the datum transformation software GEOCON.
Dr. Daniel R. Roman earned his Ph.D from the Ohio State University in 1999 after which he started working for NGS. He has served for more than a decade in geoid modeling and is now the Chief, Spatial Reference Systems Division.
Monica Youngman is the acting project manager for the National Geodetic Survey's Gravity for the Redefinition of the American Vertical Datum (GRAV-D) project. Monica received a Masters degree from Duke University in Environmental Management as well as Bachelor of Science in physics and a Bachelor of Arts in political science from Iowa State University.

A 4.981Mb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

< Prev   Next >

 American Surveyor Recent Articles
Thought Leader: Land is Too Important to Be Left to Land Specialists
A while back I was searching the Internet for an old treatise on land titles. A Google query yielded a book published in 1914. The author was Charles Claudius Kagey and the book was titled "Land Survey and Land Titles, a book for boys and girls, a reference volume for property owners, a text ....
Read the Article
Jason E. Foose, PS 
Decided Guidance: Wacker vs. Price - Irony in Sevenfold
This month's case takes us to Phoenix, Arizona in 1950. The Arizona Supreme Court went all guns-a-blazin' in Wacker vs. Price (216 P.2d 707 (Ariz. 1950)). Maybe it's just me, but I'm sensing plenty of irony and have taken license to point it out along the way. I like what the Court did with this case ....
Read the Article
Allen E. Cheves 
Around the Bend - A Visit to Carlson Software
The Ohio River is one of America's greatest, running near 1,000 miles between Pittsburgh and the Mighty Mississippi. Much of the coal and other products that fueled our nation's industrial expansion flowed between the shores of this maritime ....
Read the Article
Lee Lovell, PS 
Surveying & Mapping Economics Part 3 - Customers & Services
This article continues an inquiry into the economic conditions of the Surveying and Mapping industry (NAICS 541370) using data from the U.S. Census Bureau. This time we will look at customers and services. The data comes from the Economic Census conducted every 5 years on American ....
Read the Article
Jerry Penry, PS 
True Elevation: Black Elk Peak
Black Elk Peak, located in the Black Hills region of South Dakota, is the state's highest natural point. It is frequently referred to as the highest summit in the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. Two other peaks, Guadalupe Peak in Texas and ....
Read the Article
Larry Trojak 
Bringing The Goods - Mobile Scanning an Integral Component
When Jim Smith, Jerrad Burns and Charlie Patton left the Memphis division of a major construction company in 2015, they took with them the knowledge of how to get even the most complex jobs done and what equipment could best serve them in making that happen. So when they joined West ....
Read the Article
Lee Lovell, PS 
Test Yourself 41: Integers, Integers, and Integers
ABF is a 5:12:13 triangle, ACF is a 48:55:73 triangle, ADF is a 3:4:5 triangle, and AEF is a 7:24:25 triangle, all with integer sides and inscribed in a semi-circle. What are the lengths of BC, CD, and DE? ....
Read the Article
Wendy Lathrop, PS, CFM 
Vantage Point: Sunset or Sunrise?
While we often think of legislated government programs as static, they do change over time. Such evolution and opportunity for transformation are part of the dialogue in reauthorizing these programs. Every so many years there is a sunset on each government program, and this September is the ....
Read the Article


Amerisurv Exclusive Online-only Article ticker
Featured Amerisurv Events
List Your Event Here
contact Amerisurv


JAVAD Intros
Spoofer Buster

press [at] amerisurv.com
Online Internet Content


News Feeds

Subscribe to Amerisurv news & updates via RSS or get our Feedburn
xml feed

Need Help? See this RSS Tutorial

Historic Maps

post a job
Reach our audience of Professional land surveyors and Geo-Technology professionals with your GeoJobs career ad. Feel free to contact us if you need additional information.


Social Bookmarks

Amerisurv on Facebook 

Amerisurv LinkedIn Group 

Amerisurv Flickr Photos 

Amerisurv videos on YouTube 



The American Surveyor © All rights reserved / Privacy Statement
Spatial Media LLC
905 W 7th St #331
Frederick MD 21701
301-695-1538 - fax