Some Topics Related to the Solution of Boundary-Value Problems in Geodesy

  • P. Holota
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 127)


In geodesy the theory of boundary-value problems has a great number of important applications. It is hardly possible to approach all of them in one single paper. For this reason the exterior Neumann problem is discussed to demonstrate some of the topics which may be encountered in the solution of geodetic boundary-value problems in general. In addition, the problem is closely related to the gravimetric boundary value problem, which has a considerable practical importance. The tie to variational methods and the minimization of the respective quadratic functional are in the focus of the explanation. Within this concept Euler’s necessary condition has a form of an integral identity and represents a natural starting point for the interpretation of the solution in terms of function bases. The convergence of Galerkin’s approximations is also treated. For the solution domain given by the exterior of a sphere and also of an ellipsoid of revolution the particular attention is paid to the construction of kernels which have a reproducing property with respect to the inner product in the Sobolev space used. They generate suitable function bases for the approximation solution of the boundary-value problem considered. In particular, in the spherical case they allow for a closed expression of the elements in Galerkin’s matrix. A relation of the kernels to Dirichlet’s and Neumann’s function is also shown. Spherical and ellipsoidal harmonics are used as an efficient tool in constructing the respective integral kernels Finally, an approach to problems with data given on a more complicated boundary is discussed.


Earth’s gravity field geodetic bound-ary-value problems Green’s functions variational methods reproducing kernels ellipsoidal harmonics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ambrouche C, Girault V and Giroire J (1997) Dirichlet and Neumann exterior problems for the n-dimensional Laplace operator. An approach in weighted Sobolev spaces. J. Math. Pures Appl., 76: 55–81Google Scholar
  2. Antonov VA, Timoshkova EI and Kholshevnikov KV (1983) On the possibility of geopotential representation by means of the point masses system on the basis of satellite observations. In: Holota P (ed.) Proc. Int. Symp. Figure of the Earth, the Moon and other Planets, Prague, Sept. 2025, 1982. Monograph Series of the Res. Inst. of Geod., Topogr. and Cartogr., Prague: 291–304 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  3. Balmino G (1972) Represeantation of the Earth potential by buried masses. In: Henriksen SW, Mancini A and Chovitz BH. (eds.) The Use of Artificial Satellites for Geodesy. Geophysical Monograph 15, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Barthelems F (1986) Untersuchungen zur Approximation des äusseren Gravitationsfeldes der Erde durch Punktmassen mit optimierten Positionen. Veröff. d. Zentralinst. far Physik d. Erde, Nr. 92, PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman H and A Erdély A (1965) Higer Transcendental Functions, Volume 1. Russion translation of the English original published by Nauka Publishers, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  6. Freeden W, Gervens T and Schreiner M (1998) Constructive approximation on the sphere — With applications to geomathematics. Claredon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Freeden W and Michel V (1999) Constructive approximation and numerical methods in geodetic research today — An attempt at a categorization based on an uncertainty principle. Journal of Geodesy, 73: 452–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garabedian PR (1964) Partial differential equations. John Wiley and Son, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Giaquinta M (2000) Hilbert e il calcolo delle variazioni. Le Matematiche, Vol. LV, Supplemento n. 1: 47–58Google Scholar
  10. Heikkinen M (1981) Solving the shape of the Earth by using digital density models. The Finnish Geod. Inst., Rep. 81:2, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  11. Heiskanen WA and Moritz H (1967) Physical geodesy. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco and LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Hobson EW (1952) The theory of spherical and ellipsoidal harmonics. Inostrannaya Literatura Publishers, Moscow. ( Russian translation of the English original published by the University Press, Cambridge, 1931 )Google Scholar
  13. Holota P (1979) Representation of the Earth’s gravity field by the potential of point masses. Obs. of Artif. Sat. of the Earth, No. 18, Warszawa-Lodz: 159–169Google Scholar
  14. Holota P (1997) Coerciveness of the linear gravimetric boundary-value problem and a geometrical interpretation. Journal of Geodesy, 71: 640–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holota P (2000a) Direct method in physical geodesy. In: Schwarz KP (ed.) Geodesy Beyond 2000, The Challenges of the First Decade. IAG Symposia, Vol. 121, Springer-Verlag: 163–170Google Scholar
  16. Holota P (2000b) Variational methods in the recovery of the gravity field — Galerkin’s matrix for an ellipsoidal domain. In: Sideris MG (ed.) Gravity, Geoid and Geodynamics 2000, GGG2000 IAG Intl. Symp., Banff, Alberta, Canada, July 31–August 4, 2000. Intl. Assoc. of Geodesy Symposia, Vol. 123, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York etc., 2001: 277–283Google Scholar
  17. Holota P (2001) Variational methods in the representation of the gravitational potential. Presented at the AROPA workshop, “Institute d’Europe”, Castle of Münsbach, Luxembourg, 23–27 October 2001. Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie (to appear)Google Scholar
  18. Holota P (2002a) Model refinements in the recovery of the gravity field of the Earth - Variational approach [CD-ROM]. Proc. IAG 2001 Scientific Assembly — Vistas for Geodesy in the New Millennium, 2–7 September 2001, Budapest, Hungary, IAG and Hungarian Acad. of SciencesGoogle Scholar
  19. Holota P (2002b) Green’s function and external masses in the solution of geodetic boundary-value problem. Presented at the 3rd Meeting of the IAG Intl. Gravity and Geoid Commission, Thessaloniki, Greece, August 26–30, 2002. Ziti Publishers (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  20. Hotine M. (1969) Mathematical geodesy. ESSA Monographs, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  21. Ihde J, Schirmer U, Stefani F and Töppe F (1998) Geoid modelling with point masses. In: Vermeer M and Adam J (eds.) Second Continental Workshop on the Geoid in Europe, Budapest, Hungary, March 10–14, 1998, Proceedings, Reports of the Finnish Geodetic Inst. No. 98:4, Masala: 199–204Google Scholar
  22. Kautzleben H and Barthelmes F (1983) Point mass representation of the Earth’s gravity field. In: Holota P (ed.) Proc. Int. Symp. Figure of the Earth, the Moon and other Planets, Prague, Sept. 20–25, 1982. Monograph Series of the Res. Inst. of Geod., Topogr. and Cartogr., Prague: 307–313Google Scholar
  23. Kellogg OD (1953) Foundations of potential theory. Dover Publications, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Krarup T (1969) A contribution to the mathematical foundation of physical geodesy. Danish Geod. Inst., Publ. No. 44, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  25. Kufner A, John O and Fucik S (1977) Function spaces. Academia, PragueGoogle Scholar
  26. Lehmann R (1992) Geoid computation in the Gulf of Bothnia by free-positioned point masses. In: Holota P and Vermeer M (eds.) Proc. First continental workshop on the geoid in Europe, Prague, May 11–14, 1992. Research Inst. of Geod., Topog. and Cartog., Prague, in co-operation with IAG-Subcommis. for the Geoid in Europe, Prague: 428–443Google Scholar
  27. Lehmann R (1993) The method of free-positioned point masses — Geoid studies on the Gulf of Bothnia. Bull. Geod., Vol. 67: 31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lense J (1950) Kugelfunktionen. Akad. V1g., LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  29. Marchenko AN (1983) On the use of fundamental solutions of Laplace’s equation for the determination of the gravitational field and figure of the Earth. In: Holota P (ed.) Proc. Int. Symp. Figure of the Earth, the Moon and other Planets, Prague, Sept. 20–25, 1982. Monograph Series of the Res. Inst. of Geod., Topogr. and Cartogr., Prague: 317–328 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  30. Marchenko AN (1998) Parametrization of the Earth’s gravity field — Point and line singularities. Lviv Astronomical and Geodetic Society, LvivGoogle Scholar
  31. Meschowski H (1962) Hilbertsche Räume mit Kernfunktion. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Michlin AG (1970) Variational methods in mathematical physics. Nauka Publisher, Moscow (in Russian); also in Slovakian: Alpha, Bratislava, 1974 and in English: Pergamon Press, New York, 1964Google Scholar
  33. Moritz H (1980) Advanced physical geodesy. H WichmannGoogle Scholar
  34. Karlsruhe and Abacus Press Tunbridge Wells KentGoogle Scholar
  35. Necas J (1967) Les méthodes directes en théorie des équa-tions elliptiques. Academia, PragueGoogle Scholar
  36. Necas J and Hlavacek I (1981) Mathematical theory of elastic and elasto-plastic bodies: An introduction. Elsevier Sci. Publ. Company, Amterdam-Oxford-New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Neyman YuM (1979) A variational method of physical geodesy. Nedra Publishers, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  38. Rektorys K (1974) Variacni metody v inzenyrskych problemech a v problemech matematicke fyziky. SNTL Publishers of Technical Literature, Prague 1974; also in English: Variational methods. Reidel Co., Dordrecht-Boston, 1977Google Scholar
  39. Sanso F (1986) Statistical methods in physical geodesy. In: Sünkel H (ed.) Mathematical and numerical techniques in physical geodesy. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, Vol. 7, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York etc.: 49–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sanso F and Sona G (2001) ELGRAM: an ellipsoidal gravity model manipulator. Anno LX/Bollettino di Geodesia e Scienze Affini — N. 3: 215–226Google Scholar
  41. Sona G (1995) Numerical problems in the computation of ellipsoidal harmonics. Journal of Geodesy, 70: 117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stromeyer D and Ballani L (1984) Uniqueness of the inverse gravimetric problem for point mass models. Manuscripta geodaetica, Vol. 9, No. 1 /2: 125–136Google Scholar
  43. Tscheming CC (1975) Application of collocation. Determination of a local approximation to the anomalous potential of the Earth using “exact” astro-gravimetric collocation. In: Bosowski B and Mortensen E (eds.) Methoden und Verfaren der Mathematischen Physik, Vol. 14: 83–110Google Scholar
  44. Weightman JA (1967) Gravity, geodesy and artificial satellites, a unified analytical approach. In: Veis G (ed.) Use of Artificial Satellites for Geodesy, Vol. 2. Natl. Technical University, Athens: 467–486Google Scholar
  45. Yurkina MI (1994) On a more precise Stoke’s series. Studia geoph. et geod., Vol. 38, No. 4: 325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhidkov NP (1977) Linear approximations of functionals. Moscow University Publishers, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Holota
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute of GeodesyTopography and CartographyPraha-vychodCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations