Abstract
Physical heights is one of the most important topics in physical geodesy. Their original concept, introduced in the 19-th century, defined physical heights as lengths of plumblines of the Earth’s gravity field between the geoid and points of interest. There are orthometric heights of surface points, that have been traditionally estimated by spirit levelling and measured gravity; however, the knowledge of the density distribution of topographic masses (masses between the geoid and Earth’s surface) is required that significantly affects their determinability. This was also the main reason why a new type of physical heights was proposed in the mid of the 20-th century. Normal heights approximate orthometric heights in a sense that the Earth’s gravity field is replaced by the normal gravity field, an analytic model based on the theory of an equipotential ellipsoid. This height system has been introduced since that time in different countries in Europe and beyond. Contrary to the classical height system based on orthometric heights, its counterpart based on normal heights may have slightly different definitions. Moreover, normal heights are often defined as heights of points above the quasigeoid. This contribution reviews alternative definitions of normal heights and respective height systems. It is argued that both orthometric and normal heights refer to the geoid. In the case physical heights are estimated by satellite positioning, normal heights must be computed through the height anomaly estimated at each point of interest, whether it is below, at or above the Earth’s surface. On the contrary, orthometric heights of all points along the same plumbline, be it below, at or above the Earth’s surface, are estimated by introducing one value of the geoid height. Normal heights of surface points can be estimated by spirit levelling easier than orthometric heights as no topographic mass density hypothesis is required; however, one has to keep in mind the gravity field approximation used both for their definition and realization.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bruns H., 1878. Die Figur der Erde. Publikation des Königlichen Preussischen Geodätischen Institutes, Berlin, Germany (in German)
Gauss C.F., 1828. Bestimmung des Breitenunterschiedes zwischen den Sternwarten von Göttingen und Altona durch Beobachtungen am Ramsdenschen Zenithsector. Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, Göttingen, Germany (in German)
Foroughi I., Vaníček P., Sheng M., Kingdon R.W. and Santos M.C., 2017. In defence of the classical height system. Geophys. J. Int., 211, 1154–1161, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx366
Heiskanen W.A. and Moritz H., 1967. Physical Geodesy. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, CA
Hirvonen R., 1960. New theory of gravimetric geodesy. Suom. tiedeakatemian toimituksia (Ann. Acad. Sci. Fennicae) A, III, No.56, Helsinki, Finland
Huygens C., 1659. De Vi Centrifuga. Oeuvres Complètes, XVI, 255–301 (in Latin)
Kingdon R., Vaníček P., Santos M.C., Martinec Z. and Foroughi I., 2022. Assessing Molodensky’s heights: a rebuttal. In: Freymueller J.T. and Sánchez L. (Eds), Geodesy for a Sustainable Earth. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, 154. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, https://doi.org/10.1007/1345_2022_181
Listing J.B., 1872. Über unsere jetzige Kenntniss der Gestalt und Grösse der Erde. Aus den Nachrichten der K. Ges. der Wiss., Göttingen, Germany (in German)
Molodensky M.S., 1945. Fundamental problems of geodetic gravimetry. Reports of CNIIG AiK, 4242, Moscow, Russia (in Russian)
Molodensky M.S., Yeremeev V.F. and Yurkina M.I, 1960. Methods for study of the external gravitational field and figure of the Earth. TRUDY Ts NIIGAiK, 131, Geodezizdat, Moscow, Russia (in Russian, English ranslation: Israel Program for Scientific Translation, Office of Technical Services Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1962)
Moritz H., 1984. Geodetic Reference System 1980. Bull. Geod., 58, 388–398
Newton I., 1687. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Jussu Societatis Regi ac Typis Josephi Streater. Prostat apud plures Bibliopolas, London, U.K. (in Latin)
Novák P., Crespi M., Sneeuw N. and Sansò F., 2021. IX Hotine-Marussi Symposium on Mathematical Geodesy. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, 151, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, ISBN 978-3-030-54269-6
Novák P., Pitońák M. and Šprlák M., 2021. On determination of the geoid from measured gradients of the Earth’s gravity field potential. Earth Sci. Rev., 221, Art.No. 103773, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103773
Pizzetti P., 1911. Sopra il calcolo teorico delle deviazioni del geoide dall’ ellisoide. Atti Reale Accademia delle Scienze, 46, Torino, Italy (in Italian)
Sánchez L., Čunderlík R., Dayoub N., Mikula K., Minarechová Z., Šíma Z., Vatrt V. and Vojtíšková M., 2016. A conventional value for the geoid reference potential. J. Geodesy, 90, 815–835, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-016-0913-x
Sansò F., Reguzzoni M. and Barzaghi R., 2019 Geodetic Heights. Springer Nature, Cham, Swityerland, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10454-2
Sansò F. and Sideris M.G., 2013. Geoid Determination: Theory and Methods. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74700-0
Sjöberg L.E., 2018. On the geoid and orthometric height vs. quasigeoid and normal height. J. Geod. Sci., 8, 115–120, https://doi.org/10.1515/jogs-2018-0011
Somigliana C., 1929. Teoria generale del campo gravitazionale dell’ellisoide di rotazione. Memoire della Societa Astronomica Italiana, IV, Milano, Italy (in Italian)
Stokes G.G., 1849. On the variation of gravity on the surface of the Earth. Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 8, 672–695
Vaníček P. and Krakiwsky E.J., 1986. Geodesy: the Concepts. 2nd Corrected Edition, North Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Vaníček P. and Santos M.C., 2019. What height system should be used in geomatics? Int. J. Earth Environ. Sci., 4, Art.No. 4:IJEES-160, https://doi.org/10.15344/2456-351X/2019/160
Vignal J., 1954. Nivellement et Gravité. Troisieme Rapport Preliminaire de la Section des Gravimetrie presente au groupe d’etude no-4. Association Internationale de Géodésie, Paris, France (in French)
Wang Y.M., Sánchez L., Ågren J., Huang J., Forsberg R., Abd-Elmotaal H.A., Ahlgren K., Barzaghi R., Bašić T., Carrion D., Claessens S., Erol B., Erol S., Filmer M., Grigoriadis V.N., Isik M.S., Jiang T., Koç Ö., Krcmaric J., Li X., Liu Q., Matsuo K., Natsiopoulos D.A., Novák P., Pail R., Pitońák M., Schmidt M., Varga M., Vergos G.S., Véronneau M., Willberg M. and Zingerle P., 2021. Colorado geoid computation experiment: overview and summary. J. Geodesy, 95, Art.No. 127, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-021-01567-9
Acknowledgement
Pavel Novák acknowledges the financial support of the study through the project GA21-13713S of the Czech Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Novák, P., Sansò, F. On correct definition and use of normal heights in geodesy. Stud Geophys Geod 68, 1–24 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-023-1138-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-023-1138-0