Advertisement

Past and Future Developments in Geopotential Modeling

  • Richard H. Rapp
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 119)

Abstract

This paper reviews the development and estimation of geopotential models over the past 96 years, starting from simple ellipsoidal normal gravity models to complex high degree (360/500) spherical harmonic expansions. The paper is written to show the evolutionary changes that have taken place in the mathematical models and data used. The discussion considers geopotential models from surface gravity data, satellite tracking data, and combination solutions that incorporate numerous data types including satellite altimeter data. A number of questions are posed that relate to future modeling efforts.

Keywords

Gravity Anomaly Altimeter Data Spherical Harmonic Expansion Geopotential Model Geoid Undulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albertella A and F Sacerdote, Spectral analyses of block averaged data in geopotential global model determination, J Geodesy, 70:166–175, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderle R, Geodetic parameter set NWL-5E-6 based on Doppler satellite observations, in Proc. of 2nd Int Sym Geodetic Use of Satellites, G. Veis (ed), 179–220, Athens, Greece, 1966.Google Scholar
  3. Anderle R and S Smith, NWL-8 Geodetic parameters based on Doppler satellite observations, NWL Technical Report No. 2106, Dahlgren, Virginia, July 1967.Google Scholar
  4. Balmino G, C Reigber, B Maynot, Le modèle de potential gravitationel terrestre GRIM2: Determination, evaluation, Ann Geophys 34:55–78, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. Basic T et al, A new geopotential model tailored to gravity data in Europe, in Gravity, Gradiometry, and Gravimetry (eds. Rummel and Hipkin), I AG Sym 103, Springer, Berlin, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. Basic T and R Rapp, Oceanwide prediction of gravity anomalies and sea surface heights using Geos-3, Seasat, and Geosat altimeter data and ETOPO5U bathymetric data, Rpt 416, Dept of Geodetic Science and Surveying, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 94p, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. Bosch W, High degree spherical harmonic analyses by least squares, in Proc. of IAG Sym XIX IUGG General Assembly, 194–205, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. Bosch W, A rigorous least squares combination of low and high degree spherical harmonics, presented at IAG General Meeting, Session 11, Part D, Beijing, China, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. Bouman J, A survey of global gravity models, Delft Institute for Earth-Oriented Space Research, Report No. 97.1, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, July 1997.Google Scholar
  10. Brovar V, V Magnitsky, and B Shimbirer, The Theory of the Figure of the Earth, Moscow 1961, translation, Foreign Technology Div., Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, FTD-TT-64–930, 1964.Google Scholar
  11. Cazenave AA, P Gegout, G Ferhat and R Biancale, Temporal variations of the gravity field from Lageos 1 and Lageos 2 Observations, in Proc. Global Gravity Field and Its Temporal Variations, Rapp, Cazenave, Nerem (eds), IAG Symposium 16, Springer Berlin 1996.Google Scholar
  12. Chovitz B and K-R Koch, Combination solution for gravity field including altimetry, J Geophys Res, 84(B8), 4041–4044, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colombo O, Numerical methods for harmonic analysis on the sphere, Rpt 310, Dept of Geodetic Science and Surveying, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 140pp, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. Cruz JY, Ellipsoidal corrections to potential coefficients obtained from gravity anomaly data on the ellipsoid, Rpt 367, Dept of Geodetic Science and Surveying, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 38pp, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. DMA, Supplement to the Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1984, Tech Rpt Part I, Methods, Techniques and Data Used in WGS84 Development, DMA TR 8350, 2-A, 412p, Washington, DC, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. Eanes RJ and SV Bettadpur, Temporal variations of Earth’s gravitational field from satellite laser ranging, in Proc. Global Gravity Field and Its Temporal Variations, Rapp, Cazenave, Nerem (eds), IAG Symposium 16, Springer Berlin 1996.Google Scholar
  17. Freeden W and F Schneider, An integrated wavelet concept of physical geodesy, No. 173, Univ of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 27p, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. Freeden W, U Windheuser Combined spherical harmonic and wavelet expansion-a future concept in Earth’s gravitational determination, Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis 4, 1–37, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaposchkin EM and K Lambeck, 1969 Smithsonian Standard Earth (II), Smithsonian Astrophys Obs, Spec Rep 315, 93 pp, 1970.Google Scholar
  20. Gaposchkin EM(ed), 1973 Smithsonian Standard Earth (III), Smithsonian Astrophys Obs, Spec Rep 353, 388 pp, 1973.Google Scholar
  21. Gaposchkin M, Earth’s gravity field to the eighteenth degree and geocentric coordinates for 104 stations from satellite and terrestrial data, J Geophys Res, 79, 5377–5411, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gleason D, Comparing ellipsoidal corrections to the transformation between the geopotential’s spherical and ellipsoidal spectrum, manuscripta geod 13, 114–129, 1988.Google Scholar
  23. Gruber T and W Bosch, A new 360 gravity field model, presented at the European Geophysical Soc meeting, Edinburgh, 1992a.Google Scholar
  24. Gruber T and W Bosch, OGE12, A new 360 gravity field model, in Proc. (Montag and Reigber (eds)) of IAG Sym 112, Geodesy and Physics of the Earth, Springer, Berlin, 1992b.Google Scholar
  25. Gruber T and M Anzenhofer, The GFZ 360 gravity field model, in Proc. (Forsberg and Denker (eds)), The European Geoid Determination, European Geophysical Soc XVIII General Assembly, Wiesbaden, Germany, published by Geodetic Div, Kort-og Matrikelstyrelsen, Copenhagen, 13–18, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. Gruber T, M Anzenhofer and M Rentsch, The 1995 GFZ high resolution gravity model, in (Rapp, Cazenave, Nerem, eds), Global Gravity Field and Its Temporal Variations, IAG Sym 116, 61–70, Springer, Berlin, 1996.Google Scholar
  27. Gruber T et al, Improvements in high resolution gravity field modeling at GFZ, in (Segawa, J, Fujimato, H, Okubo, S, eds) Proc. Gravity, Geoid, Marine Geodesy, Springer, Berlin, 1997.Google Scholar
  28. Guier WH and RR Newton, The Earth’s gravity field deduced from the Doppler tracking of five satellites, J. Geophys. Res, 70, 4613–4626, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hwang C, High precision gravity anomaly and sea surface height estimation from GEOS-3/Seasat satellite altimeter data, Rpt 399, Dept of Geodetic Science and Surveying, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 155p, 1989.Google Scholar
  30. Jeffreys H, The determination of the Earth’s gravitational field, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, Geophys. Suppl., 5, 1, 1–22, 1941.Google Scholar
  31. Jeffreys H, The determination of the Earth’s gravitational field, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, Geophys. Suppl., 5, 3, 55–66, 1943.Google Scholar
  32. Jeffreys H, The figures of the Earth and moon, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, Geophys. Suppl., 5, 7, 219–247, 1948.Google Scholar
  33. Jekeli C, The exact transformation between ellipsoidal and spherical harmonic expansion, manuscript geod 13, 106–113, 1988.Google Scholar
  34. Jekeli C, Methods to reduce aliasing in spherical harmonic analyses, in (Rapp, Nerem, Cazenave, eds) Global Gravity Field and Temporal Variations IAG Sym 115, Springer, Berlin, 121–130, 1996.Google Scholar
  35. Kaula WM, Statistical and harmonic analyses of gravity, J Geophys Res, 64(12), 2401–2421, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaula WM, Tests and combinations of satellite determinations of the gravity field with gravimetry, J Geophys Res, 71, 5303–5314, 1966.Google Scholar
  37. Kearsley WH and R Forsberg, Tailored geopotential models-applications, and short comings, manuscripta geod, 15, 151–158, 1990.Google Scholar
  38. Koch K-R, Surface density values for the Earth from satellite and gravity observations, Geophys. J.R. Astr. Soc, 21, 1–15, 1970.Google Scholar
  39. Koch K-R, Earth’s gravity field and station coordinates from Doppler data, satellite triangulation, and gravity anomalies, NOAA Technical Report NOS 62, 1974.Google Scholar
  40. Koch K-R and B Witte, Earth’s gravity field represented by a simple-layer potential from Doppler tracking of satellites, J. Geophys. Res., 76(35), 8471–8479, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Köhnlein W, The Earth’s gravitational field as derived from a combination of satellite data with gravity data, presented at 14th General Assembly, IUGG, Lucerne, Switzerland, 1967.Google Scholar
  42. Lelgemann D, Spherical approximation and the combination of gravimetric and satellite data, Bulletino di Geodesia e Scienze Affini, XXXII, M4, 1973.Google Scholar
  43. Lerch FJ et al, Gravitational field models for the Earth (GEM 1&2), NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Report X-553–72–146, May 1972.Google Scholar
  44. Lerch FJ et al, Gravity model improvement using Geos 3 (GEM9 and 10), J Geophys Res, 84(B8), 3897–3916, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lerch FJ et al, Goddard Earth models for oceanographic applications (GEM 10B and 10C), Marine Geodesy, Vol. 5(2), 145–187, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lerch FJ et al., Gravity model improvement for SEASAT, J Geophys Res, 87(C5), 3281–3296, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lerch FJ, S Klosko, G Patel, A refined gravity model from Lageos (GEM-L2), Geophys Res, Letrs 9(11), 1263–1266, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lerch FJ et al, Geopotential models of the Earth from satellite tracking, altimeter and surface gravity observations, GEM-T3 and GEM-T3S, NASA Tech Mem 104555, Jan 1992.Google Scholar
  49. Li Y and M Sideris, Minimization and estimation of geoid undulation errors, Bulletin Geod, 68, 201–219, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lundquist CA and G Veis (eds), Geodetic Parameters for a 1966 Smithsonian Institution Standard Earth, 3 vols., Smithsonian Astrophys Obs, Spec Rep 200, 1966.Google Scholar
  51. Marsh JG et al, A new gravitational model for the Earth from satellite tracking data: GEM-T1, J Geophys Res, 93(B6), 6169–6215, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Marsh J, et al, The GEM-T2 gravitational model, NASA Tech Memo, TM 100746, 52pp, 1989.Google Scholar
  53. Motao H et al, On the improvement of geopotential model using gravity data in China, in (Rapp, Cazenave, Nerem, eds), Global Gravity Field and Its Temporal Variation, IAG Sym 116, 180–197, Springer, Berlin, 1996.Google Scholar
  54. Molodensky, MS, VF Eremeev and MI Yurkina, Methods for the Study of the External Gravitational Field and Figure of the Earth, translated from Russian Israel Program for Scientific Translation, (OTS61–31207), 1962.Google Scholar
  55. NRC, Satellite gravity and the geosphere, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1997.Google Scholar
  56. Nerem RS et al, Gravity model development for TOPEX/POSEIDON: Joint Gravity Models 1 and 2, J Geophys Res, 99(C12), 1994a.Google Scholar
  57. Nerem RS et al, Ocean dynamic topography from satellite altimetry based on the GEM-T3 geopotential model, manuscripta geod 19, 346–366, 1994b.Google Scholar
  58. Nerem RS and SM Klosko, Secular variations of the zonal harmonies and polar motion as geophysical constraints, in Proc. Global Gravity Field and Its Temporal Variations, Rapp A, Cazenave A, Nerem A (eds), IAG Symposium 16, Springer Berlin 1996.Google Scholar
  59. Pavlis N, Modeling and estimation of a low degree geopotential model from terrestrial gravity data, Rpt 386, Dept of Geodetic Science and Surveying, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 478p, 1988.Google Scholar
  60. Pavlis NK and RH Rapp, The development of an isostatic gravitational model to degree 360 and its use in global gravity modeling, Geophys J Int, 100, 369–378, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pavlis NK, JC Chan, and F Lerch, Altemative estimation techniques for global high-degree modeling, in (Rapp, Nerem, Cazenave, eds) Global Gravity Field and Temporal Variations IAG Sym 115, Springer, Berlin, 111–120, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pellinen L, A method for expanding the gravity potential of the Earth in spherical functions, Trans, of the Central Scientific Res Inst of Geodesy, Aerial Survey and Cartography, Issue 171, 92 p, Nedra, Moscow, 1966 (translation ACIC-TC-1282).Google Scholar
  63. Perasanz F, JC Marty, G Balmino, Dynamic orbit determination and gravity field model improvement from GPS, DORIS and laser measurements on TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite, J. Geodesy, 71:160–170, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rapp RH, Gravitational potential coefficients from gravity data alone, Allgemeine Vermessungs-Nachrichten, 76, 228–233, 1969a.Google Scholar
  65. Rapp RH, The geopotential to (14, 14) from a combination of satellite and gravimetric data, Bulletin Geodesique, No. 91, 47–80, 1969b.Google Scholar
  66. Rapp RH, Analytical and numerical differences between two methods for the combination of gravimetric and satellite data, Bolletino di Geofísica Theorica ed Applicata, 11(41), 108–118, 1969c.Google Scholar
  67. Rapp RH, Procedures and results related to the determination of gravity anomalies from satellite and terrestrial gravity data, Rept 211 Dept of Geod Sci and Surv, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1974.Google Scholar
  68. Rapp RH, Determination of potential coefficients to degree 52 from 5° mean gravity anomalies, Bulletin Geodesique, 51, 301–323, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rapp RH, Geos 3 processing for the recovery of geoid undulations and gravity anomalies, J Geophys Res, 84(B8), 3784–3792, 1979a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rapp RH, A review of anomaly and undulations determination from Geos-3 altimeter data, presentation, 1979 Spring Mt, American Geophysical Union, Washington, May 1979b.Google Scholar
  71. Rapp RH, The Earth’s gravity field to degree and order 180 using Seasat altimeter data, terrestrial gravity data, and other data, Rpt 322, Dept of Geodetic Science and Surveying, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 58pp, 1981.Google Scholar
  72. Rapp RH, The determination of geoid undulation and gravity anomalies from Seasat altimeter data, J Geophys Res, 88, 1552–1562, 1983a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rapp RH, The development of the January 1983 1° × 1° mean free-air anomaly data tape, internal report, Dept of Geod Sci and Surv, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1983b.Google Scholar
  74. Rapp RH Global geopotential solutions, in Mathematical and Numerical Techniques in Physical Geodesy, Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, Vol. 7, 365–415, Springer, Berlin, 1986.Google Scholar
  75. Rapp RH and J Cruz, The representation of the Earth’s gravitational potential in a spherical harmonic expansion to degree 250, Rpt 372, Dept of Geodetic Science and Surveying, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 70pp, 1986a.Google Scholar
  76. Rapp RH and J Cruz, Spherical harmonic expansions of the Earth’s gravitational potential to degree 360 using 30′ means anomalies, Rpt 376, Dept of Geodetic Science and Surveying, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 27pp, 1986b.Google Scholar
  77. Rapp RH and NK Pavlis, The development and analysis of geopotential models to spherical harmonic degree 360, J Geophys Res, 95(B13), 21, 885–21, 911, 1990.Google Scholar
  78. Reigber C, A Balmino, B Moynot, and H Miiler, The GRIM3 Earth gravity field model, manuscripta geod, 8(2), 93–138, 1983.Google Scholar
  79. Reigber C et al., GRIM Gravity model improvement using LAGEOS (GRIM3-L1), J Geophys Res, 90(B11), 9285–9299, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rizos C, An efficient computer technique for the evaluation of geopotential from spherical harmonic models, Australian J of Geodesy, Photogrammetry, and Cartography, No. 31, 161–170, 1979.Google Scholar
  81. Rummel R and R Rapp, The influence of the atmosphere in detailed geoid computations and in potential coefficient determinations with gravity data, J Geophys Res, 81(32), 5639–5642, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Scharroo R, P Visser, G Mets, Precise orbit determinations and gravity field improvement for the ERS satellites, J Geophys Res (Oceans), ERS Spec Sect, in press, 1998.Google Scholar
  83. Schwintzer P et al, A new Earth gravity model in support of ERS-1 and SPOT-2: GRIM4-S1/C1, final Rpt to DARA and CNES, DGFI/GRGS, Münich/Toulouse, 1991.Google Scholar
  84. Schwintzer P et al, Improvement of GRIM4 Earth gravity models using Geosat altimeter and SPOT-2 and ERS-1 tracking data, in Proc. (Montag A and Reigber A, eds) Geodesy and Physics of the Earth, IAG Sym 112, Potsdam, Springer, Berlin, 1992.Google Scholar
  85. Schwintzer P et al, Long-wave length global gravity field models: GRIM4-S4, GRIM4-C4, J Geodesy, 71:189–208, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Seppelin T, The Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1972, The Canadian Surveyor, 28(5), 496–506, 1974.Google Scholar
  87. Shum C-K et al, An improved model for the Earth’s gravity field, in Gravity, Gradiometry, Gradiometry, and Gravimetry (eds. Rummel and Hipkin), IAG Sym 103, 97–108, Springer, Berlin, 1989.Google Scholar
  88. Tapley B et al, An improved model for the Earth’s gravity field, in Progress in the Determination of the Earth’s Gravity Field, Rpt 397, Dept of Geodetic Science and Surveying, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1989.Google Scholar
  89. Tapley B et al, The University of Texas Earth gravity model, presented at the IUGG General Assembly, IAG Sym, G3, Gravity Field Determination from Space and Airborne Measurements, Vienna, Austria, Aug 1991.Google Scholar
  90. Tapley B et al, The Joint Gravity Model 3, J Geophys Res, 101(B12), 28,029–28,049, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tapley B et al, The TEG-3 Earth gravity field model, in (Segawa, J, Fujimato, H, Okubo, S, eds), Proc. Gravity, Geoid, Marine Geodesy, Springer, Berlin, 1997.Google Scholar
  92. Uotila UA, Determination of the shape of the geoid, Pub. Inst. Geod. Photogr. Cart. No. 7, 90–97, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1957.Google Scholar
  93. Uotila UA, Harmonic analysis of worldwide gravity material, Annalis Academiae Fennicae, Ser. A, 111, Geologica-Geographica., 60, 1–17, 1962.Google Scholar
  94. Weber G, H Zomorrodian, Regional geopotential model improvement for the Iranian geoid determination, Bulletin Geodesique, 62, 125–141, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wenzel H-G, Hochaufloesende Kugelkenktionsmodelle fuer das Gravitationspotential der Erde, Wiss Arb Fachrichtung Vermessungswesen der Universitaet Hannover, 1985.Google Scholar
  96. White H, The World Geodetic System 1984 Earth Gravitational Model, in Proc. 4th Int. Geodetic Symp. on Satellite Positioning, The University of Texas at Austin, Applied Res. Lab, Vol. 1, 93–116, 1986.Google Scholar
  97. Vetter J, The evolution of Earth gravitational models used in astrodynamics, Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, 15(4): 319–335, 1994.Google Scholar
  98. Zhongolovich ID, The external gravitational field of the Earth and the fundamental constants related to it, Acad. Sci. Publ. Inst. Teor. Astron., Leningrad, 1952.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard H. Rapp
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Geodetic ScienceThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations