Advertisement

IGFS 2014 pp 71-81 | Cite as

Precise Modelling of the Static Gravity Field from GOCE Second Radial Derivatives of the Disturbing Potential Using the Method of Fundamental Solutions

  • Róbert ČunderlíkEmail author
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 144)

Abstract

The method of fundamental solutions (MFS) is used to derive the disturbing potential and gravity disturbances from the second derivatives observed by the GOCE satellite mission. Namely, the radial components T rr of the gravity disturbing tensor available from the EGG_TRF_2 product are processed to evaluate the unknown coefficients in the source points that are located directly on the real Earth’s surface. MFS as a mesh-free boundary collocation technique uses the fundamental solution of the Laplace equation as its basis functions. Hence, the system matrix is created by the second radial derivatives of the fundamental solution that depend solely on 3D positions of the GOCE observations and the source points. Once the coefficients are evaluated, the disturbing potential and gravity disturbance can be computed in any point above the Earth’s surface. This paper presents results of processing 20 datasets of the GOCE measurements, each for different 2-months period. To obtain “cm-level” precision, the source points are uniformly distributed over the Earth’s surface with the high-resolution of 0.075° (5,760,002 points). For every dataset the radial components T rr as input data are filtered using the nonlinear diffusion filtering. The large-scale parallel computations are performed on the cluster with 1.2 TB of the distributed memory. A combination of numerical solutions obtained for different datasets/periods yields the final static gravity field model. Its comparison with the SH-based satellite-only geopotential models like GOCO03S, GOCE-TIM5 or GOCE-DIR5 indicates its high accuracy. Standard deviation of differences evaluated at altitude 235 km above the reference ellipsoid is about 0.05 m2s−2 (∼5 mm) in case of the disturbing potential, and 0.01 mGal for gravity disturbances.

Keywords

Global gravity field modelling GOCE gravity gradients Method of fundamental solutions Point masses modelling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work has been supported by the grant VEGA 1/0714/15 and the project APVV-0072-11

References

  1. Barthelmes F, Dietrich R (1991). Use of point masses on optimized positions for the approximations of the gravity field. In: Rapp, RH and Sansò, F (eds) Determination of the Geoid-Present and Future, IAG Symp 106:484–493 Google Scholar
  2. Barthelmes F, Kautzleben H (1983) A new method of modelling the gravity field of the Earth by point masses. In: Mitt. Zentralinst. Phys. Erde, No. 1214, 18 pp 01/1983Google Scholar
  3. Becker JJ, Sandwell DT, Smith WHF, Braud J, Binder B, Dep-ner J, Fabre D, Factor J, Ingalls S, Kim S-H, Ladner R, Marks K, Nelson S, Pharaoh A, Sharman G, Trimmer R, vonRosenburg J, Wallace G, Weatherall P (2009) Global bathymetry and elevation data at 30 Arc seconds resolution: SRTM30_PLUS. Mar Geod 32(4):355–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouman J, Fiorot S, Fuchs M, Gruber T, Schrama E, Tscherning C, Veicherts M, Visser P (2011) GOCE gravitational gradients along the orbit. J Geod 85:791–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brockmann JM, Zehentner N, Höck E, Pail R, Loth I, Mayer-Gürr T, Schuh W-D (2014) EGM_TIM_RL05: an independent geoid with centimeter accuracy purely based on the GOCE mission. Geophys Res Lett 41(22):8089–8099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruinsma SL, Förste C, Abrikosov O, Lemoine J-M, Marty J-C, Mulet S, Rio M-H, Bonvalot S (2014) ESA’s satellite-only gravity field model via the direct approach based on all GOCE data. Geophys Res Lett 41(21):7508–7514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen W, Wang FZ (2010) A method of fundamental solutions without fictitious boundary. Eng Anal Boundary Elem 34(5):530–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Claessens SJ, Featherstone WE, Barthelmes F (2001) Experiences with point-mass modelling in the Perth region, Western Australia. Geomat Res Aust 75:53–86Google Scholar
  9. Čunderlík R, Mikula K (2010) Direct BEM for high-resolution gravity field modelling. Stud Geophys Geod 54(2):219–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Čunderlík R, Mikula K, Mojzeš M (2008) Numerical solution of the linearized fixed gravimetric boundary-value problem. J Geod 82:15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Čunderlík R, Mikula K, Tunega M (2013) Nonlinear diffusion filtering of data on the Earth’s surface. J Geod 87:143–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lehmann R (1993) Nonlinear gravity field inversion using point masses – diagnosing nonlinearity. In: H. Montag et al. (eds), Geodesy and Physics of the Earth, IAG Symp 112:256–259Google Scholar
  13. Mathon R, Johnston RL (1977) The approximate solution of elliptic boundary-value problems by fundamental solutions. SIAM J Numer Anal 638–650Google Scholar
  14. Mayer-Gürr T, Rieser D, Hoeck E, Brockmann M, Schuh WD, Krasbutter I, Kusche J, Maier A, Krauss S, Hausleitner W, Baur O, Jaeggi A, Meyer U, Prange L, Pail R, Fecher T, Gruber T (2012) The new combined satellite only model GOCO03s. In: Presented at the GGHS-2012 in Venice, Italy, October 9–12, 2012Google Scholar
  15. Pail R, Bruinsma SL, Migliaccio F, Foerste C, Goiginger H, Schuh WD, Hoeck E, Reguzzoni M, Brockmann JM, Abrikosov O, Veicherts M, Fecher T, Mayrhofer R, Krasbutter I, Sanso F, Tscherning CC (2011) First GOCE gravity field models derived by three different approaches. J Geod 85:819–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Vermeer M (1995) Mass point geopotential modelling using fast spectral techniques; historical overview, toolbox description, numerical experiment. Manuscr Geod 20:362–378Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of MathematicsSlovak University of Technology in BratislavaBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations