Abstract

Current International Association of Geodesy efforts within regional geoid determination include the comparison of different computation methods in the quest for the “1-cm geoid.” Internal (formal) and external (empirical) approaches to evaluate geoid errors exist, and ideally they should agree. Spherical radial base functions using the spline kernel (SK), least-squares collocation (LSC), and Stokes’s formula are three commonly used methods for regional geoid computation. The three methods have been shown to be theoretically equivalent, as well as to numerically agree on the millimeter level in a closed-loop environment using synthetic noise-free data (Ophaug and Gerlach in J Geod 91:1367–1382, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-017-1030-1). This companion paper extends the closed-loop method comparison using synthetic data, in that we investigate and compare the formal error propagation using the three methods. We use synthetic uncorrelated and correlated noise regimes, both on the 1-mGal (=10^{-5}~{mathrm {m s}}^{-2}) level, applied to the input data. The estimated formal errors are validated by comparison with empirical errors, as determined from differences of the noisy geoid solutions to the noise-free solutions. We find that the error propagations of the methods are realistic in both uncorrelated and correlated noise regimes, albeit only when subjected to careful tuning, such as spectral band limitation and signal covariance adaptation. For the SKs, different implementations of the L-curve and generalized cross-validation methods did not provide an optimal regularization parameter. Although the obtained values led to a stabilized numerical system, this was not necessarily equivalent to obtaining the best solution. Using a regularization parameter governed by the agreement between formal and empirical error fields provided a solution of similar quality to the other methods. The errors in the uncorrelated regime are on the level of sim 5 mm and the method agreement within 1 mm, while the errors in the correlated regime are on the level of sim 10 mm, and the method agreement within 5 mm. Stokes’s formula generally gives the smallest error, closely followed by LSC and the SKs. To this effect, we note that error estimates from integration and estimation techniques must be interpreted differently, because the latter also take the signal characteristics into account. The high level of agreement gives us confidence in the applicability and comparability of formal errors resulting from the three methods. Finally, we present the error characteristics of geoid height differences derived from the three methods and discuss them qualitatively in relation to GNSS leveling. If applied to real data, this would permit identification of spatial scales for which height information is preferably derived by spirit leveling or GNSS leveling.

Highlights

  • Regional gravity field modeling is an important task in physical geodesy (Sansò and Sideris 2013)

  • We investigated the impact of band-limiting the kernel functions on the formal error estimates in case of Stokes’s formula

  • The results of the formal error propagation from gravity anomalies to geoid heights in both data and target areas using the three methods are shown in Table 3, and Figs. 4 and 5

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Regional gravity field modeling is an important task in physical geodesy (Sansò and Sideris 2013). Different regional gravity modeling methods were investigated within an International Association of Geodesy (IAG) InterCommission Committee on Theory Joint Study Group (Schmidt et al 2015). Ophaug and Gerlach (2017) reviewed three methods for regional geoid computation: Stokes’s formula (Stokes 1849), least-squares collocation (LSC) 1969; Moritz 1980), and radial base functions (RBFs) (e.g., Freeden et al 1998), the latter modeled using least-squares estimation (e.g., Schmidt et al 2007; Lieb et al 2016; Liu et al 2020). The ongoing IAG Joint Working Group 2.2.2: “The 1-cm geoid experiment” is based on a 500 km × 800 km test dataset in Colorado, USA. Its main objective is to unveil differences in regional geoid solutions due to the use of different computation methods, and several computation centers have already contributed with preliminary geoid solutions

Objectives
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call