Coastal gravity field refinement by combining airborne and ground-based data
- 115 Downloads
Gravity field modelling in coastal region faces challenges due to the degradation of the quality of altimeter data and poor coverage of gravimetric measurements. Airborne gravimetry can provide seamless measurements both onshore and offshore with uniform accuracies, which may alleviate the coastal zone problem. We study the role of airborne data for gravity field recovery in a coastal region and the possibility to validate coastal gravity field model against recent altimetry data (CryoSat-2, Jason-1, and SARAL/Altika). Moreover, we combine airborne and ground-based gravity data for regional refinement and quantify and validate the contribution introduced by airborne data. Numerical experiments in the Gippsland Basin over the south-eastern coast of Australia show that the effects introduced by airborne gravity data appear as small-scale patterns on the centimetre scale in terms of quasi-geoid heights. Numerical results demonstrate that the combination of airborne data improves the coastal gravity field, and the recent altimetry data can be potentially used to validate the high-frequency signals introduced by airborne data. The validation against recent altimetry data demonstrates that the combination of airborne measurements improves the coastal quasi-geoid, by ~ 5 mm, compared with a model computed from terrestrial and altimetry-derived gravity anomalies alone. These results show that the recently released altimetry data with relatively denser spatial resolutions and higher accuracies than older altimeter data may be beneficial for gravity field model assessment in coastal areas.
KeywordsCoastal gravity field modelling Airborne gravimetry Jason-1 CryoSat-2 SARAL/Altika data
The authors would like to give sincerest thanks to the three anomalous reviewers for the beneficial suggestions and comments, which are of great value for improving the manuscript. The authors also thank the Editor and Associate Editor for their kind assistances and constructive comments. Thanks to Prof. Roland Klees and Dr. Cornelis Slobbe from Delft University of Technology for kindly providing their original software. We gratefully acknowledge the CarbonNet Project Airborne Gravity Survey over Gippsland contracted by Department of Primary Industries of Victoria State in Australia. This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, China (No. BK20190498), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2018B07314), the State Scholarship Fund from Chinese Scholarship Council (No. 201306270014), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 41830110, 41931074), the Open Research Fund Program of the State Key Laboratory of Geodesy and Earth’s Dynamics (No. SKLGED2018-1-2-E), and the Key Laboratory of Geospace Environment and Geodesy, Ministry of Education, Wuhan University (No. 17-01-09).
All the authors have contributed to designing the study and writing the manuscript. YW and AA initiated the study, designed the numerical experiments, and wrote the manuscript. WF, JM, and OA provided the data and supplied beneficial suggestions. YW finalized the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Amos MJ, Featherstone WE (2004) A comparison of gridding techniques for terrestrial gravity observations in New Zealand. In: Proceedings of gravity, geoid and space missions symposium 2004, Porto, PortugalGoogle Scholar
- Andersen OB, Scharroo R (2011) Range and geophysical corrections in coastal regions: and implications for mean sea surface determination. In: Vignudelli S et al (eds) Coastal altimetry. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Andersen OB, Piccioni G, Knudsen P, Stenseng L (2015) The DTU15 mean sea surface and mean dynamic topography—focusing on Arctic issues and development. In: OSTST meeting. Reston, USAGoogle Scholar
- Andersen OB, Nielsen K, Knudsen P, Hughes CW, Bingham R, Fenoglio-Marc L, Gravelle M, Kern M, Polo SP (2018) Improving the coastal mean dynamic topography by geodetic combination of tide gauge and satellite altimetry. Mar Geod 41(6):517–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2018.1530320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cipollini P, Beneviste J, Bouffard J, Emery W, Fenoglio-Marc L, Gommenginger C, Griffin D, Hoyer J, Kurapov A, Madsen K, Mercier F, Miller L, Pascual A, Ravichandran M, Shillington F, Snaith H, Strub, T, Vandemark D, Vignudelli S, Wilkin J, Woodworth P, Zavala-Garay J (2010) The role of altimetry in coastal observing systems. In: Hall J, Harrison DE, Stammer D (eds) Proceedings of OceanObs’09: sustained ocean observations and information for society, vol 2. European Space Agency, WPP-306, pp 181–191. https://doi.org/10.5270/OceanObs09.cwp.16
- Claessens SJ (2012) Evaluation of gravity and altimetry data in australian coastal regions. In: Kenyon S, Pacino M, Marti U (eds) Geodesy for planet earth. international association of geodesy symposia, vol 136. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 435–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20338-1_52 Google Scholar
- Featherstone WE (2010) Satellite and airborne gravimetry: their role in geoid determination and some suggestions. In: Lane R (ed) Airborne gravity. Geoscience Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- Fernandes MJ, Bastos L, Forsberg R, Olesen A, Leite F (2000) Geoid modelling in coastal regions using airborne and satellite data: case study in the Azores. In: Schwarz KP (eds) Geodesy beyond 2000. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, vol 121. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59742-8_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Filmer MS, Hughes CW, Woodworth PL, Featherstone WE, Bingham RJ (2018) Comparisons between geodetic and oceanographic approaches to estimate mean dynamic topography for vertical datum unification: evaluation at Australia tide gauge. J Geod 92(12):1413–1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-018-1131-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Forsberg R (1984) A study of terrain reductions, density anomalies and geophysical inversion methods in gravity field modelling. Report No. 355, Department of Geodetic Science and Surveying, The Ohio State University, Colombus, Ohio, USAGoogle Scholar
- Forsberg R (2002) Downward continuation of airborne gravity—an Arctic case story. In: Proceedings of the international gravity and geoid commission meeting, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
- Forsberg R, Kenyon S (1995) Downward continuation of airborne gravity data. In: Proceedings of the IAG symposium on airborne gravity field determination. Report 60010, Department of Geomatics Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada, pp 73–80Google Scholar
- Forsberg R, Olesen A, Keller K, Møller M, Gidskehaug A, Solheim D (2001) Airborne gravity and geoid surveys in the arctic and baltic seas. In: Proceedings of international symposium on kinematic systems in geodesy, geomatics and navigation (KIS-2001). Banff, pp 586–593Google Scholar
- Förste C, Bruinsma SL, Abrikosov O, Lemoine JM, Schaller T, Götze HJ, Ebbing J, Marty JC, Flechtner F, Balmino R, Biancale R (2014) EIGEN-6C4 The latest combined global gravity field model including GOCE data up to degree and order 2190 of GFZ Potsdam and GRGS Toulouse. In: The 5th GOCE User workshop. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
- Martin B, Oteng M, Stefan E (2011) CarbonNet project airborne gravity survey Gippsland Basin, Victoria, Australia 2011 for Victoria State Government Department of Primary industries. Technical reportGoogle Scholar
- Olesen AV (2003) Improved airborne scalar gravimetry for regional gravity field mapping and geoid determination. Ph.D. thesis, University of Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
- Olesen AV, Forsberg R, Kearsley AHW (2000) Great Barrier Reef airborne gravity survey (BRAGS’99). A gravity survey piggybacked on a bathymetry mission. In: Sideris MG (ed) Gravity, geoid and geodynamics 2000, International association of geodesy symposia, vol 123. Springer, Berlin, pp 247–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04827-6_41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ridgway KR, Dunn JR, Wilkin JL (2002) Ocean interpolation by four-dimensional weighted least squares—application to the waters around Australasia. J Atmos Ocean Technol 19(9):1357–1375. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2002)019%3c1357:OIBFDW%3e2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Roelse A, Granger HW, Graham JW (1971) The adjustment of the Australian levelling survey 1970–1971. Technical Report 12, Division of National Mapping, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Scharroo R, Leuliette EW, Lillibridge JL, Byrne D, Naeije MC, Mitchum GT (2013) RADS: Consistent multi-mission products. In Proceedings of the symposium on 20 years of progress in radar altimetry. Venice, ItalyGoogle Scholar
- Verron J, Sengenes P, Lambin J, Noubel J, Steunou N, Guillot A, Picot N, Coutin-Faye S, Sharma R, Gairola RM, Murthy RD, Richman JG, Griffin D, Pascual A, Rémy F, Gupta PK (2015) The SARAL/AltiKa altimetry satellite mission. Mar Geod 38(SI):2–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2014.1000471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wittwer T (2009) Regional gravity field modelling with radial basis functions. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar