DOCSLIB.ORG

3.02 Potential Theory and Static Gravity Field of the Earth C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3.02 Potential Theory and Static Gravity Field of the Earth C 3.02 Potential Theory and Static Gravity Field of the Earth C. Jekeli, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA ª 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 3.02.1 Introduction 12 3.02.1.1 Historical Notes 12 3.02.1.2 Coordinate Systems 14 3.02.1.3 Preliminary Definitions and Concepts 14 3.02.2 Newton’s Law of Gravitation 15 3.02.3 Boundary-Value Problems 18 3.02.3.1 Green’s Identities 18 3.02.3.2 Uniqueness Theorems 20 3.02.3.3 Solutions by Integral Equation 21 3.02.4 Solutions to the Spherical BVP 22 3.02.4.1 Spherical Harmonics and Green’s Functions 22 3.02.4.2 Inverse Stokes and Hotine Integrals 25 3.02.4.3 Vening-Meinesz Integral and Its Inverse 26 3.02.4.4 Concluding Remarks 27 3.02.5 Low-Degree Harmonics: Interpretation and Reference 28 3.02.5.1 Low-Degree Harmonics as Density Moments 28 3.02.5.2 Normal Ellipsoidal Field 30 3.02.6 Methods of Determination 32 3.02.6.1 Measurement Systems and Techniques 33 3.02.6.2 Models 37 3.02.7 The Geoid and Heights 38 References 41 Glossary geodetic reference system Normal ellipsoid with deflection of the vertical Angle between direction defined parameters adopted for general geodetic of gravity and direction of normal gravity. and gravimetric referencing. density moment Integral over the volume of a geoid Surface of constant gravity potential that body of the product of its density and integer closely approximates mean sea level. powers of Cartesian coordinates. geoid undulation Vertical distance between the disturbing potential The difference between geoid and the normal ellipsoid, positive if the geoid Earth’s gravity potential and the normal potential. is above the ellipsoid. eccentricity The ratio of the difference of squares geopotential number Difference between gravity of semimajor and semiminor axes to the square of potential on the geoid and gravity potential at a the semimajor axis of an ellipsoid. point. ellipsoid Surface formed by rotating an ellipse gravitation Attractive acceleration due to mass. about its minor axis. gravitational potential Potential due to gravita- equipotential surface Surface of constant tional acceleration. potential. gravity Vector sum of gravitation and centrifugal flattening The ratio of the difference between acceleration due to Earth’s rotation. semimajor and semiminor axes to the semimajor gravity anomaly The difference between Earth’s axis of an ellipsoid. gravity on the geoid and normal gravity on the 11 12 Potential Theory and Static Gravity Field of the Earth ellipsoid, either as a difference in vectors or a dif- normal gravity Gravity associated with the normal ference in magnitudes. ellipsoid. gravity disturbance The difference between normal gravity potential Gravity potential asso- Earth’s gravity and normal gravity, either as a dif- ciated with the normal ellipsoid. ference in vectors or a difference in magnitudes. orthometric height Distance along the plumb line gravity potential Potential due to gravity from the geoid to a point. acceleration. potential Potential energy per unit mass due to the harmonic function Function that satisfies gravitational field; always positive and zero at Laplace’s field equation. infinity. linear eccentricity The distance from the center of sectorial harmonics Surface spherical harmonics an ellipsoid to either of its foci. that do not change in sign with respect to latitude. mean Earth ellipsoid Normal ellipsoid with para- Stokes coefficients Constants in a series expan- meters closest to actual corresponding parameters sion of the gravitational potential in terms of for the Earth. spherical harmonic functions. mean tide geoid Geoid with all time-varying tidal surface spherical harmonics Basis functions effects removed. defined on the unit sphere, comprising products of multipoles Stokes coefficients. normalized associated Legendre functions and Newtonian potential Harmonic function that sinusoids. approaches the potential of a point mass at infinity. tesseral harmonics Neither zonal nor sectorial non-tide geoid Mean tide geoid with all (direct harmonics. and indirect deformation) mean tide effects zero-tide geoid Mean tide geoid with just the removed. mean direct tidal effect removed (indirect effect due normal ellipsoid Earth-approximating reference to Earth’s permanent deformation is retained). ellipsoid that generates a gravity field in which it is a zonal harmonics Spherical harmonics that do not surface of constant normal gravity potential. depend on longitude. 3.02.1 Introduction (or rise, in the case of some gases), and the more material the greater the tendency to do so. It was Gravitational potential theory has its roots in the late enough of a self-evident explanation that it was not Renaissance period when the position of the Earth in yet to receive the scrutiny of the scientific method, the cosmos was established on modern scientific the beginnings of which, ironically, are credited to (observation-based) grounds. A study of Earth’s grav- Aristotle. Almost 2000 years later, Galileo Galilei itational field is a study of Earth’s mass, its influence (1564–1642) finally took up the challenge to under- on near objects, and lately its redistributing transport stand gravitation through observation and scientific in time. It is also fundamentally a geodetic study of investigation. His experimentally derived law of fall- Earth’s shape, described largely (70%) by the surface ing bodies corrected the Aristotelian view and of the oceans. This initial section provides a historical divorced the effect of gravitation from the mass of backdrop to potential theory and introduces some the falling object – all bodies fall with the same concepts in physical geodesy that set the stage for acceleration. This truly monumental contribution to later formulations. physics was, however, only a local explanation of how bodies behaved under gravitational influence. Johannes Kepler’s (1571–1630) observations of pla- 3.02.1.1 Historical Notes netary orbits pointed to other types of laws, Gravitation is a physical phenomenon so pervasive principally an inverse-square law according to and incidental that humankind generally has taken it which bodies are attracted by forces that vary with for granted with scarcely a second thought. The the inverse square of distance. The genius of Issac Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BC) allowed Newton (1642–1727) brought it all together in his no more than to assert that gravitation is a natural Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica of 1687 property of material things that causes them to fall with a single and simple all-embracing law that in Potential Theory and Static Gravity Field of the Earth 13 one bold stroke explained the dynamics of the entire needed to be corrected for the irregular direction of universe (today there is more to understanding the gravitation. Today, the modern view of a height dynamics of the cosmos, but Newton’s law remark- reference is changing to that of a geometric, mathe- ably holds its own). The mass of a body was again an matical surface (an ellipsoid) and three-dimensional essential aspect, not as a self-attribute as Aristotle had coordinates (latitude, longitude, and height) of points implied, but as the source of attraction for other on the Earth’s surface are readily obtained geometri- bodies: each material body attracts every other mate- cally by ranging to the satellites of the Global rial body according to a very specific rule (Newton’s Positioning System (GPS). The requirements of law of gravitation; see Section 3.02.2). Newton gravitation for GPS orbit determination within an regretted that he could not explain exactly why Earth-centered coordinate system are now largely mass has this property (as one still yearns to know met with existing models. Improvements in gravita- today within the standard models of particle and tional models are motivated in geodesy primarily for quantum theories). Even Albert Einstein (1879– rapid determination of traditional heights with 1955) in developing his general theory of relativity respect to a level surface. These heights, for example, (i.e., the theory of gravitation) could only improve on the orthometric heights, in this sense then become Newton’s theory by incorporating and explaining derived attributes of points, rather than their cardinal action at a distance (gravitational force acts with the components. speed of light as a fundamental tenet of the theory). Navigation and guidance exemplify a further spe- What actually mediates the gravitational attraction cific niche where gravitation continues to find still intensely occupies modern physicists and important relevance. While GPS also dominates cosmologists. this field, the vehicles requiring completely autono- Gravitation since its early scientific formulation mous, self-contained systems must rely on inertial initially belonged to the domain of astronomers, at instruments (accelerometers and gyroscopes). These least as far as the observable universe was concerned. do not sense gravitation (see Section 3.02.6.1), yet Theory successfully predicted the observed perturba- gravitation contributes to the total definition of the tions of planetary orbits and even the location of vehicle trajectory, and thus the output of inertial previously unknown new planets (Neptune’s discov- navigation systems must be compensated for the ery in 1846 based on calculations motivated by effect of gravitation. By far the greatest emphasis in observed perturbations in Uranus’ orbit was a major gravitation, however, has shifted to the Earth triumph for Newton’s law). However, it was also dis- sciences, where detailed knowledge of the configura- covered that gravitational acceleration varies on tion of masses (the solid, liquid, and atmospheric Earth’s surface, with respect to altitude and latitude. components) and their transport and motion leads Newton’s law of gravitation again provided the back- to improved understanding of the Earth systems (cli- drop for the variations observed with pendulums. An mate, hydrologic cycle, tectonics) and their early achievement for his theory came when he suc- interactions with life.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evaluation of Recent Global Geopotential Models Based on GPS/Levelling Data Over Afyonkarahisar (Turkey)
    Scientific Research and Essays Vol. 5(5), pp. 484-493, 4 March, 2010 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE ISSN 1992-2248 © 2010 Academic Journals Full Length Research Paper Evaluation of recent global geopotential models based on GPS/levelling data over Afyonkarahisar (Turkey) Ibrahim Yilmaz1*, Mustafa Yilmaz2, Mevlüt Güllü1 and Bayram Turgut1 1Department of Geodesy and Photogrammetry, Faculty of Engineering, Kocatepe University of Afyonkarahisar, Ahmet Necdet Sezer Campus Gazlıgöl Yolu, 03200, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey. 2Directorship of Afyonkarahisar, Osmangazi Electricity Distribution Inc., Yuzbası Agah Cd. No: 24, 03200, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey. Accepted 20 January, 2010 This study presents the evaluation of the global geo-potential models EGM96, EIGEN-5C, EGM2008(360) and EGM2008 by comparing model based on geoid heights to the GPS/levelling based on geoid heights over Afyonkarahisar study area in order to find the geopotential model that best fits the study area to be used in a further geoid determination at regional and national scales. The study area consists of 313 control points that belong to the Turkish National Triangulation Network, covering a rough area. The geoid height residuals are investigated by standard deviation value after fitting tilt at discrete points, and height-dependent evaluations have been performed. The evaluation results revealed that EGM2008 fits best to the GPS/levelling based on geoid heights than the other models with significant improvements in the study area. Key words: Geopotential model, GPS/levelling, geoid height, EGM96, EIGEN-5C, EGM2008(360), EGM2008. INTRODUCTION Most geodetic applications like determining the topogra- evaluation studies of EGM2008 have been coordinated phic heights or sea depths require the geoid as a by the joint working group (JWG) between the Inter- corresponding reference surface.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fast Method for Calculation of Marine Gravity Anomaly
    applied sciences Article A Fast Method for Calculation of Marine Gravity Anomaly Yuan Fang 1, Shuiyuan He 2,*, Xiaohong Meng 1,*, Jun Wang 1, Yongkang Gan 1 and Hanhan Tang 1 1 School of Geophysics and Information Technology, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China; [email protected] (Y.F.); [email protected] (J.W.); [email protected] (Y.G.); [email protected] (H.T.) 2 Guangzhou Marine Geological Survey, China Geological Survey, Ministry of Land and Resources, Guangzhou 510760, China * Correspondence: [email protected] (S.H.); [email protected] (X.M.); Tel.: +86-136-2285-1110 (S.H.); +86-136-9129-3267 (X.M.) Abstract: Gravity data have been playing an important role in marine exploration and research. However, obtaining gravity data over an extensive marine area is expensive and inefficient. In reality, marine gravity anomalies are usually calculated from satellite altimetry data. Over the years, numer- ous methods have been presented for achieving this purpose, most of which are time-consuming due to the integral calculation over a global region and the singularity problem. This paper proposes a fast method for the calculation of marine gravity anomalies. The proposed method introduces a novel scheme to solve the singularity problem and implements the parallel technique based on a graphics processing unit (GPU) for fast calculation. The details for the implementation of the proposed method are described, and it is tested using the geoid height undulation from the Earth Gravitational Model 2008 (EGM2008). The accuracy of the presented method is evaluated by comparing it with marine shipboard gravity data.
    [Show full text]
  • THE EARTH's GRAVITY OUTLINE the Earth's Gravitational Field
    GEOPHYSICS (08/430/0012) THE EARTH'S GRAVITY OUTLINE The Earth's gravitational field 2 Newton's law of gravitation: Fgrav = GMm=r ; Gravitational field = gravitational acceleration g; gravitational potential, equipotential surfaces. g for a non–rotating spherically symmetric Earth; Effects of rotation and ellipticity – variation with latitude, the reference ellipsoid and International Gravity Formula; Effects of elevation and topography, intervening rock, density inhomogeneities, tides. The geoid: equipotential mean–sea–level surface on which g = IGF value. Gravity surveys Measurement: gravity units, gravimeters, survey procedures; the geoid; satellite altimetry. Gravity corrections – latitude, elevation, Bouguer, terrain, drift; Interpretation of gravity anomalies: regional–residual separation; regional variations and deep (crust, mantle) structure; local variations and shallow density anomalies; Examples of Bouguer gravity anomalies. Isostasy Mechanism: level of compensation; Pratt and Airy models; mountain roots; Isostasy and free–air gravity, examples of isostatic balance and isostatic anomalies. Background reading: Fowler §5.1–5.6; Lowrie §2.2–2.6; Kearey & Vine §2.11. GEOPHYSICS (08/430/0012) THE EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD Newton's law of gravitation is: ¯ GMm F = r2 11 2 2 1 3 2 where the Gravitational Constant G = 6:673 10− Nm kg− (kg− m s− ). ¢ The field strength of the Earth's gravitational field is defined as the gravitational force acting on unit mass. From Newton's third¯ law of mechanics, F = ma, it follows that gravitational force per unit mass = gravitational acceleration g. g is approximately 9:8m/s2 at the surface of the Earth. A related concept is gravitational potential: the gravitational potential V at a point P is the work done against gravity in ¯ P bringing unit mass from infinity to P.
    [Show full text]
  • Detection of Caves by Gravimetry
    Detection of Caves by Gravimetry By HAnlUi'DO J. Cmco1) lVi/h plates 18 (1)-21 (4) Illtroduction A growing interest in locating caves - largely among non-speleolo- gists - has developed within the last decade, arising from industrial or military needs, such as: (1) analyzing subsUl'face characteristics for building sites or highway projects in karst areas; (2) locating shallow caves under airport runways constructed on karst terrain covered by a thin residual soil; and (3) finding strategic shelters of tactical significance. As a result, geologists and geophysicists have been experimenting with the possibility of applying standard geophysical methods toward void detection at shallow depths. Pioneering work along this line was accomplishecl by the U.S. Geological Survey illilitary Geology teams dUl'ing World War II on Okinawan airfields. Nicol (1951) reported that the residual soil covel' of these runways frequently indicated subsi- dence due to the collapse of the rooves of caves in an underlying coralline-limestone formation (partially detected by seismic methods). In spite of the wide application of geophysics to exploration, not much has been published regarding subsUl'face interpretation of ground conditions within the upper 50 feet of the earth's surface. Recently, however, Homberg (1962) and Colley (1962) did report some encoUl'ag- ing data using the gravity technique for void detection. This led to the present field study into the practical means of how this complex method can be simplified, and to a use-and-limitations appraisal of gravimetric techniques for speleologic research. Principles all(1 Correctiolls The fundamentals of gravimetry are based on the fact that natUl'al 01' artificial voids within the earth's sUl'face - which are filled with ail' 3 (negligible density) 01' water (density about 1 gmjcm ) - have a remark- able density contrast with the sUl'roun<ling rocks (density 2.0 to 1) 4609 Keswick Hoad, Baltimore 10, Maryland, U.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Reference Systems for Surveying and Mapping Lecture Notes
    Delft University of Technology Reference Systems for Surveying and Mapping Lecture notes Hans van der Marel ii The front cover shows the NAP (Amsterdam Ordnance Datum) ”datum point” at the Stopera, Amsterdam (picture M.M.Minderhoud, Wikipedia/Michiel1972). H. van der Marel Lecture notes on Reference Systems for Surveying and Mapping: CTB3310 Surveying and Mapping CTB3425 Monitoring and Stability of Dikes and Embankments CIE4606 Geodesy and Remote Sensing CIE4614 Land Surveying and Civil Infrastructure February 2020 Publisher: Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences Delft University of Technology P.O. Box 5048 Stevinweg 1 2628 CN Delft The Netherlands Copyright ©2014­2020 by H. van der Marel The content in these lecture notes, except for material credited to third parties, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attributions­NonCommercial­SharedAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY­NC­SA). Third party material is shared under its own license and attribution. The text has been type set using the MikTex 2.9 implementation of LATEX. Graphs and diagrams were produced, if not mentioned otherwise, with Matlab and Inkscape. Preface This reader on reference systems for surveying and mapping has been initially compiled for the course Surveying and Mapping (CTB3310) in the 3rd year of the BSc­program for Civil Engineering. The reader is aimed at students at the end of their BSc program or at the start of their MSc program, and is used in several courses at Delft University of Technology. With the advent of the Global Positioning System (GPS) technology in mobile (smart) phones and other navigational devices almost anyone, anywhere on Earth, and at any time, can determine a three–dimensional position accurate to a few meters.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Earth Gravitational Models Used in Astrodynamics
    JEROME R. VETTER THE EVOLUTION OF EARTH GRAVITATIONAL MODELS USED IN ASTRODYNAMICS Earth gravitational models derived from the earliest ground-based tracking systems used for Sputnik and the Transit Navy Navigation Satellite System have evolved to models that use data from the Joint United States-French Ocean Topography Experiment Satellite (Topex/Poseidon) and the Global Positioning System of satellites. This article summarizes the history of the tracking and instrumentation systems used, discusses the limitations and constraints of these systems, and reviews past and current techniques for estimating gravity and processing large batches of diverse data types. Current models continue to be improved; the latest model improvements and plans for future systems are discussed. Contemporary gravitational models used within the astrodynamics community are described, and their performance is compared numerically. The use of these models for solid Earth geophysics, space geophysics, oceanography, geology, and related Earth science disciplines becomes particularly attractive as the statistical confidence of the models improves and as the models are validated over certain spatial resolutions of the geodetic spectrum. INTRODUCTION Before the development of satellite technology, the Earth orbit. Of these, five were still orbiting the Earth techniques used to observe the Earth's gravitational field when the satellites of the Transit Navy Navigational Sat­ were restricted to terrestrial gravimetry. Measurements of ellite System (NNSS) were launched starting in 1960. The gravity were adequate only over sparse areas of the Sputniks were all launched into near-critical orbit incli­ world. Moreover, because gravity profiles over the nations of about 65°. (The critical inclination is defined oceans were inadequate, the gravity field could not be as that inclination, 1= 63 °26', where gravitational pertur­ meaningfully estimated.
    [Show full text]
  • Gravity Anomaly Measuring Gravity
    Gravity Newton’s Law of Gravity (1665) 2 F = G (m1m2) / r F = force of gravitational attraction m1 and m2 = mass of 2 attracting objects r = distance between the two objects G -- ? Earth dimensions: 3 rearth = 6.378139 x 10 km (equator) 27 mearth = 5.976 x 10 g 2 F = G (m1m2) / r ) 2 F = mtest (G mEarth / rEarth ) Newton’s Second Law: F = ma implies that the acceleration at the surface of the Earth is: 2 (G mEarth / rEarth ) = ~ 981 cm/sec2 = 981 “Gals” variations are on the order of (0.1 mgal) Precision requires 2 spatially based corrections must account for 2 facts about the Earth it is not round (.... it’s flattened at the poles) it is not stationary ( .... it’s spinning) Earth is an ellipsoid first detected by Newton in 1687 clocks 2 min/day slower at equator than in England concluded regional change in "g" controlling pendulum translated this 2 min into different values of Earth radii radiusequator > radiuspole requator / rpole = 6378/6357 km = flattening of ~1/298 two consequences equator farther from center than poles hence gravity is 6.6 Gals LESS at the equator equator has more mass near it than do the poles hence gravity is 4.8 Gals MORE at the equator result gravity is 1.8 Gals LESS at the equator Earth is a rotating object circumference at equator ~ 40,000 km; at poles 0 km all parts of planet revolve about axis once in 24 hrs hence equator spins at 40,000 =1667 km/hr; at poles 0 km/hr 24 outward centrifugal force at equator; at poles 0 result ....
    [Show full text]
  • A Hierarchy of Models, from Planetary to Mesoscale, Within a Single
    A hierarchy of models, from planetary to mesoscale, within a single switchable numerical framework Nigel Wood, Andy White and Andrew Staniforth Dynamics Research, Met Office © Crown copyright Met Office Outline of the talk • Overview of Met Office’s Unified Model • Spherical Geopotential Approximation • Relaxing that approximation • A method of implementation • Alternative view of Shallow-Atmosphere Approximation • Application to departure points © Crown copyright Met Office Met Office’s Unified Model Unified Model (UM) in that single model for: Operational forecasts at ¾Mesoscale (resolution approx. 12km → 4km → 1km) ¾Global scale (resolution approx. 25km) Global and regional climate predictions (resolution approx. 100km, run for 10-100 years) + Research mode (1km - 10m) and single column model 20 years old this year © Crown copyright Met Office Timescales & applications © Crown copyright Met Office © Crown copyright Met Office UKV Domain 4x4 1.5x4 4x4 4x1.5 1.5x1.5 4x1.5 4x4 1.5x4 4x4 Variable 744(622) x 928( 810) points zone © Crown copyright Met Office The ‘Morpeth Flood’, 06/09/2008 1.5 km L70 Prototype UKV From 15 UTC 05/09 12 km 0600 UTC © Crown copyright Met Office 2009: Clark et al, Morpeth Flood UKV 4-20hr forecast 1.5km gridlength UK radar network convection permitting model © Crown copyright Met Office © Crown copyright Met Office © Crown copyright Met Office The underlying equations... c Crown Copyright Met Office © Crown copyright Met Office Traditional Spherically Based Equations Dru uv tan φ cpdθv ∂Π uw u − − (2Ω sin
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Journal International
    Geophysical Journal International Geophys. J. Int. (2015) 203, 1773–1786 doi: 10.1093/gji/ggv392 GJI Gravity, geodesy and tides GRACE time-variable gravity field recovery using an improved energy balance approach Kun Shang,1 Junyi Guo,1 C.K. Shum,1,2 Chunli Dai1 and Jia Luo3 1Division of Geodetic Science, School of Earth Sciences, The Ohio State University, 125 S. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 2Institute of Geodesy & Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China 3School of Geodesy and Geomatics, Wuhan University, 129 Luoyu Road, Wuhan 430079, China Accepted 2015 September 14. Received 2015 September 12; in original form 2015 March 19 Downloaded from SUMMARY A new approach based on energy conservation principle for satellite gravimetry mission has been developed and yields more accurate estimation of in situ geopotential difference observ- ables using K-band ranging (KBR) measurements from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) twin-satellite mission. This new approach preserves more gravity in- http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/ formation sensed by KBR range-rate measurements and reduces orbit error as compared to previous energy balance methods. Results from analysis of 11 yr of GRACE data indicated that the resulting geopotential difference estimates agree well with predicted values from of- ficial Level 2 solutions: with much higher correlation at 0.9, as compared to 0.5–0.8 reported by previous published energy balance studies. We demonstrate that our approach produced a comparable time-variable gravity solution with the Level 2 solutions. The regional GRACE temporal gravity solutions over Greenland reveals that a substantially higher temporal resolu- at Ohio State University Libraries on December 20, 2016 tion is achievable at 10-d sampling as compared to the official monthly solutions, but without the compromise of spatial resolution, nor the need to use regularization or post-processing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Joint Gravity Model 3
    Journal of Geophysical Research Accepted for publication, 1996 The Joint Gravity Model 3 B. D. Tapley, M. M. Watkins,1 J. C. Ries, G. W. Davis,2 R. J. Eanes, S. R. Poole, H. J. Rim, B. E. Schutz, and C. K. Shum Center for Space Research, University of Texas at Austin R. S. Nerem,3 F. J. Lerch, and J. A. Marshall Space Geodesy Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland S. M. Klosko, N. K. Pavlis, and R. G. Williamson Hughes STX Corporation, Lanham, Maryland Abstract. An improved Earth geopotential model, complete to spherical harmonic degree and order 70, has been determined by combining the Joint Gravity Model 1 (JGM 1) geopotential coef®cients, and their associated error covariance, with new information from SLR, DORIS, and GPS tracking of TOPEX/Poseidon, laser tracking of LAGEOS 1, LAGEOS 2, and Stella, and additional DORIS tracking of SPOT 2. The resulting ®eld, JGM 3, which has been adopted for the TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter data rerelease, yields improved orbit accuracies as demonstrated by better ®ts to withheld tracking data and substantially reduced geographically correlated orbit error. Methods for analyzing the performance of the gravity ®eld using high-precision tracking station positioning were applied. Geodetic results, including station coordinates and Earth orientation parameters, are signi®cantly improved with the JGM 3 model. Sea surface topography solutions from TOPEX/Poseidon altimetry indicate that the ocean geoid has been improved. Subset solutions performed by withholding either the GPS data or the SLR/DORIS data were computed to demonstrate the effect of these particular data sets on the gravity model used for TOPEX/Poseidon orbit determination.
    [Show full text]
  • Vertical Structure
    ESCI 341 – Atmospheric Thermodynamics Lesson 7 – Vertical Structure References: An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology, Holton Introduction to Theoretical Meteorology, Hess Synoptic-dynamic Meteorology in Midlatitudes, Vol. 1, Bluestein ‘An example of uncertainty in sea level pressure reduction’, P.M. Pauley, Mon. Wea. Rev., 13, 1998, pp. 833-850 GEOPOTENTIAL l The acceleration due to gravity is not constant. It varies from place to place, with the largest variation due to latitude. o What we call gravity is the combination of the gravitational acceleration and the centrifugal acceleration from the Earth’s rotation. o Gravity at the North Pole is approximately 9.83 m/s2, while at the Equator it is about 9.78 m/s2. l Though small, the variation in gravity must be accounted for. We do this via the concept of geopotential. l Geopotential is essentially the potential energy per unit mass. l A surface of constant geopotential represents a surface along which all objects of the same mass have the same potential energy. l If gravity were constant, a geopotential surface would lie at a constant altitude. Since gravity is not constant, a geopotential surface will have varying altitude. l Geopotential is defined as z F º ò gdz, (1) 0 or in differential form as dF = gdz. l Geopotential height is defined as F 1 Z Zº=ò gdZ (2) gg000 2 where g0 is a constant called standard gravity, and has a value of 9.80665 m/s . o Geopotential height is expressed in geopotential meters, abbreviated as gpm. l If the change in gravity with height is ignored, geopotential height and geometric height are related via g Z = z.
    [Show full text]
  • Spline Representations of Functions on a Sphere for Geopotential Modeling
    Spline Representations of Functions on a Sphere for Geopotential Modeling by Christopher Jekeli Report No. 475 Geodetic and GeoInformation Science Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 43210-1275 March 2005 Spline Representations of Functions on a Sphere for Geopotential Modeling Final Technical Report Christopher Jekeli Laboratory for Space Geodesy and Remote Sensing Research Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science Ohio State University Prepared Under Contract NMA302-02-C-0002 National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency November 2004 Preface This report was prepared with support from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency under contract NMA302-02-C-0002 and serves as the final technical report for this project. ii Abstract Three types of spherical splines are presented as developed in the recent literature on constructive approximation, with a particular view towards global (and local) geopotential modeling. These are the tensor-product splines formed from polynomial and trigonometric B-splines, the spherical splines constructed from radial basis functions, and the spherical splines based on homogeneous Bernstein-Bézier (BB) polynomials. The spline representation, in general, may be considered as a suitable alternative to the usual spherical harmonic model, where the essential benefit is the local support of the spline basis functions, as opposed to the global support of the spherical harmonics. Within this group of splines each has distinguishing characteristics that affect their utility for modeling the Earth’s gravitational field. Tensor-product splines are most straightforwardly constructed, but require data on a grid of latitude and longitude coordinate lines. The radial-basis splines resemble the collocation solution in physical geodesy and are most easily extended to three-dimensional space according to potential theory.
    [Show full text]