Effect of topographic potential difference and gravity correction on the geoid-quasigeoid separation

<p>The effect of the topographic potential difference and the gravity correction on the geoid-quasigeoid separation are usually ignored in numerical computations. Those effects are computed in a mountainous Colorado region by using the digital elevation model SRTM v4.1 and terrestrial gravity data. The effects are computed at 1′X1′ grid size in the region. The largest effect is the topographic potential difference. It reaches a maximum of 19.0 cm with a standard deviation of 1.8 cm over the whole region. The gravity correction is smaller, but it still reaches a maximum of 3.0 cm with a standard deviation 0.3 cm for the whole region. The combined (ignored) effect ranges from -12.2 to 20.0 cm, with a standard deviation of 1.8 cm for the region. This numerical computation shows that the ignored terms must be taken into account for cm-geoid computation in mountainous regions.</p>

The topographic bias in gravimetric geoid determination revisited

The topographic potential bias at geoid level is the error of the analytically continued geopotential from or above the Earth’s surface to the geoid. We show that the topographic potential can be expressed as the sum of two Bouguer shell components, where the density distribution of one is spherical symmetric and the other is harmonic at any point along the normal to a sphere through the computation point. As a harmonic potential does not affect the bias, the resulting topographic bias is that of the first component, i.e. the spherical symmetric Bouguer shell. This implies that the so-called terrain potential is not likely to contribute significantly to the bias. We present three examples of the geoid bias for different topographic density distributions.

Rigorous geoid-from-quasigeoid correction using gravity disturbances

We present rigorous solutions for the geoid-fromquasigeoid correction (GQC) using Taylor expansions of surface gravity disturbances along the vertical from the Earth’s surface to the geoid. One solution takes advantage of the topographic potential bias at the geoid, which can be expressed by a simple formula. This implies that the accurate GQC does not need a terrain correction.

Artifacts in KPFM in FM, AM and Heterodyne AM Modes

In this paper, the crosstalk in potential measurements caused by the topographic feedback and the resonance frequency in Kelvin probe force microscopy (KPFM) was investigated in frequency modulation (FM), amplitude modulation (AM) and heterodyne amplitude modulation (heterodyne AM) modes. We showed theoretically that the distance-dependence of the modulated electrostatic force in AM-KPFM is significantly weaker than in FM-and heterodyne AM-KPFMs. We experimentally confirmed that the crosstalk in FM-KPFM and heterodyne AM-KPFM is weak than that in AM-KPFM due to the bigger difference of the modulated frequencies in topographic and potential measurements in FM and heterodyne AM-KPFMs. We also compared the corrugations in the local contact potential difference (LCPD) on the surface of Si (001) show that difference on topographic (potential) images is approximately 15 pm (10 mV) between the faulted and unfaulted parts using heterodyne AM-KPFM, on the other hand, this difference cannot be observed using AM-KPFM mode. Original of this was attributed to the low crosstalk between the topographic and the LCPD measurements in heterodyne AM-KPFM.