Abstract
The recovery of local (time-variable) gravity features from satellite-to-satellite tracking missions is one of the current challenges in Geodesy. Often, a global spherical harmonic analysis is used and the area of interest is selected later on. However, this approach has deficiencies since leakage and incomplete recovery of signal are common side effects. In order to make better use of the signal content, a gravity recovery using localizing base functions can be employed. In this paper, two different techniques are compared in a case study using simulated potential observations at satellite level – namely position-optimized radial base functions and a single layer representation using a piecewise continuous density. The first one is the more common approach. Several variants exist which mainly differ in the choice of the position of the base function and the regularization method. Here, the position of each base is subject to an adjustment process. On the other hand, the chosen radial base functions are developed as a series of Legendre functions which still have a global support although they decay rapidly. The more rigorous approach is to use base functions with a strictly finite support. One possible choice is a single layer representation whereas the density is discretized by basic shapes like triangles, rectangles, or higher order elements. Each type of shape has its own number of nodes. The higher the number of nodes of a particular element, the more complicated becomes the solution strategy but at the same time the regularity of the solution increases. Here, triangles are used for the comparison. As a result, the radial base functions in the employed variant allow a modeling with a minimum number of parameters but do not achieve the same level of approximation as the discretized single layer representation. The latter do so at the cost of a higher number of parameters and regularization. This case study offers an interesting comparison of a near localizing with a strictly localizing base function. However, results can currently not be generalized as other variants of the radial base functions might perform better. Also, the extension to a GRACE-type observable is desirable.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Antoni M, Keller W, Weigelt M (2007) Representation of regional gravity fields by radial base functions. In: Sideris M (ed) Observing our changing Earth. International association of geodesy symposia, vol 133. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 293–299
Barthelmes F (1986) Untersuchungen zur Approximation des äusseren Gravitationsfeldes der Erde durch Punktmassen mit optimierten Positionen. Ph.D. Thesis, Zentralinstitut für Physik der Erde, Potsdam
Eicker A (2008) Gravity field refinement by radial base functions from in-situ satellite data. Ph.D. Thesis, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn
Klees R, Tenzer R, Prutkin I, Wittwer T (2008) A data-driven approach to local gravity field modelling using spherical radial basis functions. J Geod 82:457–471. doi:10.1007/s00190-007-0196-3
Lemoine F, Luthcke S, Rowlands D, Chinn D, Klosko S, Cox C (2007) The use of mascons to resolve time-variable gravity from GRACE. In: Tregoning P, Rizos C (eds) Dynamic planet: monitoring and understanding a dynamic planet with geodetic and oceanographic tools. International association of geodesy symposia, vol 130. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 231–236. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-49350-1{ _}35
Marquardt D (1963) An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. J Appl Math 11:431–441
Rowlands D, Luthcke S, Klosko S, Lemoine F, Chinn D, McCarthy J, Cox C, Anderson O (2005) Resolving mass flux at high spatial and temporal resolution using GRACE intersatellite measurements. Geophys Res Lett 32(L04310):1–4. doi:10.1029/ 2004GL021908
Simons F, Dahlen F, Wieczorek M (2006) Spatiospectral concentration on a sphere. SIAM Rev 48(3):504–536. doi:10.1137/S0036144504445765
Tapley B, Ries J, Bettadpur S, Chambers D, Cheng M, Condi F, Gunter B, Kang Z, Nagel P, Pastor R, Pekker T, Poole S, Wang F (2005) GGM02 – an improved Earth gravity field model from GRACE. J Geod 79:467–478. doi:10.1007/s00190-005-0480-z
Weigelt M, Antoni M, Keller W (2008) Regional gravity field recovery from GRACE using position optimized radial base functions. In: Stelios M (ed) Gravity, geoid and earth observation. International association of geodesy symposia, vol 135. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 139–146
Wittwer T (2009) Regional gravity field modelling with radial basis functions. Publications on Geodesy, vol 72. NCG Nederlandse Commissie voor Geodesie,Delft
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Weigelt, M., Keller, W., Antoni, M. (2012). On the Comparison of Radial Base Functions and Single Layer Density Representations in Local Gravity Field Modelling from Simulated Satellite Observations. In: Sneeuw, N., Novák, P., Crespi, M., Sansò, F. (eds) VII Hotine-Marussi Symposium on Mathematical Geodesy. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, vol 137. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22078-4_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22078-4_29
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-22077-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-22078-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)