Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:36:43.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improved Models for Precession and Nutation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

P.M. Mathews
P.M. Mathews*
Affiliation:
Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Madras, Chennai 600025, India

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The modeling of nutations and precession has advanced to the point where the rms of residuals between theory and the observational estimates from the VLBI data of the past decade is only 0.16 mas in Δψ sin є0 as well as in Δє. Such a fit is provided by the MHB2000 nutation series (Mathews et al., 2000) based on geophysical theory with a few basic Earth parameters estimated by a fit to nutation-precession data, and its accompanying precession rate. A brief account of the series is presented, along with an outline of the theoretical background and of the geophysical information of interest obtained in the process of constructing the series. A series due to Shirai and Fukushima (2000) also gives a somewhat comparable fit to data, improving on the IERS 1996 series, but it is essentially empirical and provides no geophysical insights.

Type
Section 2. Improved Definitions and Models
Information
International Astronomical Union Colloquium , Volume 180: Towards Models and Constants for Sub-Microarcsecond Astrometry , March 2000 , pp. 212 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © US Naval Observatory 2000

References

Bretagnon, P., Francou, G., Rocher, P., and Simon, J.-L., 1998, Astron. Astrophys., 329, 329–338.Google Scholar
Buffett, B.A., 1992, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 19581–19597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, B.F., Ray, R.D., Gipson, J.M., Egbert, G.D., and Ma, C., 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 20151–20163.Google Scholar
Dehant, V., Proc. IAU Colloq. 180 (This volume).Google Scholar
Dehant, V. and Defraigne, P., 1997, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 27659–27688.Google Scholar
Desai, S. and Wahr, J. M., 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 25205–25228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dziewonski, A.M. and Anderson, D.L., 1981, Phys. Earth Planet. 1 Inter., 25, 297–356.Google Scholar
Fukushima, T., 1991, Astron. Astrophys., 244, L11–L12.Google Scholar
Mathews, P.M., Herring, T.A., and Buflfett, B.A., 2000, (Submitted to J. Geophys. Res.)Google Scholar
Mathews, P. M., Buffett, B.A., Herring, T.A., and Shapiro, I.I., 1991, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 8219–8242.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D.D., IERS Conventions, 1996, IERS Technical Note No. 21.Google Scholar
Roosbeek, F. and Dehant, V., 1998, Celestial Mech., 70, 215–253.Google Scholar
Sasao, T. and Wahr, J.M., 1981, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc., 64, 729–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirai, T. and Fukushima, T., 2000, Proc. IAU Colloq. 180 (This volume).Google Scholar
Souchay, J., Loysel B. Kinoshita, H., and Folgueira, M., 1999, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser., 135, 111–131.Google Scholar
Wahr, J. M., 1981, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc., 64, 705–727.Google Scholar
Wahr, J. and Bergen, Z., 1986, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc., 87, 633–668.Google Scholar