The topographic bias in Stokes’ formula vs. the error of analytical continuation by an Earth Gravitational Model - are they the same?

摘要

Geoid determination below the topographic surface in continental areas using analytical continuation of gravity anomaly and/or an external type of solid spherical harmonics determined by an Earth GravitationalModel (EGM) inevitably leads to a topographic bias, as the true disturbing potential at the geoid is not harmonic in contrast to its estimates. We show that this bias differs for the geoid heights represented by Stokes’ formula, an EGMand for the modified Stokes formula. The differences are due to the fact that the EGM suffers from truncation and divergence errors in addition to the topographic bias in Stokes’ original formula.