The effect of EGM2008-based normal, normal-orthometric and Helmert orthometric height systems on the Australian levelling network

This paper investigates the normal-orthometric correction used in the definition of the Australian Height Datum, and also computes and evaluates normal and Helmert orthometric corrections for the Australian National Levelling Network (ANLN). Testing these corrections in Australia is important to establish which height system is most appropriate for any new Australian vertical datum. An approximate approach to assigning gravity values to ANLN benchmarks (BMs) is used, where the EGM2008-modelled gravity field is used to "re-construct" observed gravity at the BMs. Network loop closures (for first- and second-order levelling) indicate reduced misclosures for all height corrections considered, particularly in the mountainous regions of south eastern Australia. Differences between Helmert orthometric and normal-orthometric heights reach 44 cm in the Australian Alps, and differences between Helmert orthometric and normal heights are about 26 cm in the same region. Normal orthometric heights differ from normal heights by up to 18 cm in mountainous regions >2,000 m. This indicates that the quasigeoid is not compatible with normal-orthometric heights in Australia

Towards an International Height Reference System: insights from the Colorado geoid experiment using AUSGeoid computation methods

We apply the AUSGeoid data processing and computation methodologies to data provided for the International Height Reference System (IHRS) Colorado experiment as part of the International Association of Geodesy Joint Working Groups 0.1.2 and 2.2.2. This experiment is undertaken to test a range of different geoid computation methods from international research groups with a view to standardising these methods to form a set of conventions that can be established as an IHRS. The IHRS can realise an International Height Reference Frame to be used to study physical changes on and within the Earth. The Colorado experiment study site is much more mountainous (maximum height 4401 m) than the mostly flat Australian continent (maximum height 2228 m), and the available data over Colorado are different from Australian data (e.g. much more extensive airborne gravity coverage). Hence, we have tested and applied several modifications to the AUSGeoid approach, which had been tailored to the Australian situation. This includes different methods for the computation of terrain corrections, the gridding of terrestrial gravity data, the treatment of long-wavelength errors in the gravity anomaly grid and the combination of terrestrial and airborne data. A new method that has not previously been tested is the application of a spherical harmonic high-pass filter to residual anomalies. The results indicate that the AUSGeoid methods can successfully be used to compute a high accuracy geoid in challenging mountainous conditions. Modifications to the AUSGeoid approach lead to root-mean-square differences between geoid models up to ~ 0.028 m and agreement with GNSS-levelling data to ~ 0.044 m, but the benefits of these modifications cannot be rigorously assessed due to the limitation of the GNSS-levelling accuracy over the computation area