Abstract
We describe the development of a hybrid geoid model for Peninsular Malaysia, based on two approaches. The first approach is utilising an ordinary method fitting the gravimetric geoid to the geometric undulation derived from GNSS-levelling data; the second approach directly fits the gravimetric geoid to the reference mean sea level derived from the tide measurements of Port Klang tide gauge station. The hybrid geoid model fitted to Port Klang (PMHGG2020_PK) is produced by adding an offset of 0.446 m to the gravimetric geoid, based on the comparison at the tide gauge benchmark. To calculate the gravimetric geoid, a new model for Peninsular Malaysia (PMGG2020) has been developed based on Least-Squares Modification of Stokes’ Formula with Additive correction (LSMSA). Three different sources of gravity data which are terrestrial, airborne, and satellite altimetry-derived gravity anomaly (DTU17) have been combined to construct the geoid model. The height information has been extracted from the newly released global digital elevation model, TanDEM-X DEM. GO_CONS_GCF_2_SPW_R4 model derived from GOCE data provides long-wavelengths gravity field up to maximum degree and order 130. The gravity datasets are gridded by 3D Least-Squares Collocation method. The PMGG2020 model is consistent with the geometric geoid heights from 173 GNSS-levelling measurements, with a standard deviation of ±5.8 cm. Evaluation of the hybrid geoid model constructed from the first approach shows a significant improvement over the two existing hybrid geoid models. The accuracy of ±4.6 cm has been achieved after evaluating by 20 GNSS-levelling points, externally. Hybrid geoid model fitted to Port Klang has also been evaluated via 173 GNSS-levelling points, and the result shows that 71% of the total data exhibit height differences lower than 10 cm. The overall results indicate that the hybrid geoid model developed in this study can be valuable as an alternative to the current modern height system in Peninsular Malaysia for surveying and mapping.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbak R.A., Sjoberg L.E., Ellmann A. and Ustun A., 2012. A precise gravimetric geoid model in a mountainous area with scarce gravity data: A case study in Central Turkey. Stud. Geophys. Geod., 56, 909–927, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-011-9001-0
Abbak R.A., 2014. Effect of ASTER DEM on the prediction of mean gravity anomalies: A case study over the Auvergne test region. Acta Geod. Geophys., 49, 491–502, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40328-014-0062-8
Abdalla A. and Tenzer R., 2011. The evaluation of the New Zealand’s geoid model using the KTH method. Geodesy and Cartography, 37, 5–14, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/13921541.2011.558326
Ågren J., 2004. Regional Geoid Determination Methods for the Era of Satellite Gravimetry Numerical Investigations Using Synthetic Earth Gravity Models. Ph.D. Thesis. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden
Ågren J., Sjöberg L.E. and Kiamehr R., 2009. The new gravimetric quasigeoid model KTH08 over Sweden. J. Appl. Geodesy., 3, 143–153, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/JAG.2009.015
Amos M.J., 2007. Quasigeoid Modelling in New Zealand to Unify Multiple Local Vertical Datums. PhD Thesis. Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia
Amos M.J. and Featherstone W., 2003. Comparisons of recent global geopotential models with terrestrial gravity field observations over New Zealand and Australia. Geomat. Res. Australia, 79, 1–20
Andersen O.B., Knudsen P., Kenyon S., Factor J.K. and Holmes S., 2017. Global gravity field from recent satellites (DTU15) — Arctic improvements. First Break, 35, 37–40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.2017022
Arana D., Camargo P.O. and Guimarães G.N., 2017. Hybrid geoid model: Theory and application in Brazil. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc., 89, 1943–1959, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201720160802
Bae T.S., Lee J., Kwon J.H. and Hong C.K., 2012. Update of the precision geoid determination in Korea. Geophys. Prospect., 60, 555–571, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01017.x
Brown N.J., McCubbine J.C., Featherstone W.E., Gowans N., Woods A. and Baran I., 2018. AUSGeoid2020 combined gravimetric — geometric model: location-specific uncertainties and baseline-length-dependent error decorrelation. J. Geodesy, 92, 1457–1465, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-018-1202-7
Chen Y.Q. and Luo Z., 2004. A hybrid method to determine a local geoid model — case study. Earth Planets Space, 56, 419–427, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352495
Din A.H.M., Zulkifli N.A., Hamden M.H. and Aris W.A.W., 2019. Sea level trend over Malaysian seas from multi-mission satellite altimetry and vertical land motion corrected tidal data. Adv. Space Res., 63, 3452–3472, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2019.02.022
Din A.H.M., Abazu I.C., Pa’suya, M.F., Omar K.M. and Hamid A.I.A., 2016. The impact of sea level rise on geodetic vertical datum of Peninsular Malaysia. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLII-4/W1, 237–245, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-W1-237-2016
Ellmann A. and Sjöberg L.E., 2004. Ellipsoidal correction for the modified Stokes formula. Boll. Geod. Sci. Aff., 63, 153–172
Featherstone W.E., McCubbine J.C., Brown N.J., Claessens S.J., Filmer M.S. and Kirby J.F., 2018. The first Australian gravimetric quasigeoid model with location-specific uncertainty estimates. J. Geodesy, 92, 149–168, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-017-1053-7
Fotopoulos G., 2003. An Analysis on the Optimal Combination of Geoid, Orthometric and Ellipsoidal Height Data. PhD Thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
Förste C., Bruinsma S., Abrikosov O., Lemoine J.M., Schaller T., Götze H.J., Ebbing J., Marty J.C., Flechtner F., Balmino G. and Biancale R., 2014. EIGEN-6C4: The latest combined global gravity field model including GOCE data up to degree and order 2190 of GFZ Potsdam and GRGS Toulouse. GFZ Data Services, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5880/icgem.2015.1
Forsberg R., Olesen A., Munkhtsetseg D. and Amarzaya B., 2007. Downward continuation and geoid determination in mongolia from airborne and surface gravimetry and srtm topography. International Forum on Strategic Technology, 470–475, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/IFOST.2007.4798634
Forsberg R., Olesen A.V., Einarsson I., Manandhar N. and Shreshta K., 2014. Geoid of Nepal from airborne gravity survey. In: Rizos C. and Willis P. (Eds), Earth on the Edge: Science for a Sustainable Planet. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, 139, 521–527. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37222-3_69
Hwang C., Hsu H.J., Featherstone W.E., Cheng C.C., Yang M., Huang W., and Su W.Y., 2020. New gravimetric-only and hybrid geoid models of Taiwan for height modernisation, cross-island datum connection and airborne LiDAR mapping. J. Geodesy, 94, ArtNo. 83, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-020-01412-5
Jamil H., Kadir M., Forsberg R., Olesen A., Isa M.N., Rasidi S. and Sulaiman A.S., 2017. Airborne geoid mapping of land and sea areas of East Malaysia. J. Geod. Sci., 7, 84–93, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jogs-2017-0010
Jiang T., Dang Y. and Zhang C., 2020. Gravimetric geoid modeling from the combination of satellite gravity model, terrestrial and airborne gravity data: a case study in the mountainous area, Colorado. Earth Planets Space, 72, ArtNo. 189, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-020-01287-y
Kiamehr R., 2007. A new height datum for Iran based on the combination of the gravimetric and geometric geoid models. Acta Geod. Geophys. Hung., 42, 69–81, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/AGeod.42.2007.1.4
Kim S.K., Park J., Gillins D. and Dennis M., 2018. On determining orthometric heights from a corrector surface model based on leveling observations, GNSS, and a geoid model. J. Appl. Geod., 12, 323–333, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jag-2018-0014
Kiamehr R. and Eshagh M., 2008. EGMlab, a scientific software for determining the gravity and gradient components from global geopotential models. Earth Sci. Inform., 1, 93–103, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-008-0013-4
Kotsakis C. and Sideris M.G., 1999. On the adjustment of combined GNSS/levelling/geoid networks. J. Geodesy, 73, 412–421, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s001900050261
Kuczynska-Siehien J., Lyszkowicz A. and Birylo M., 2016. Geoid determination for the area of Poland by the least squares modification of Stokes’ formula. Acta Geodyn. Geomater., 13, 19–26, DOI: https://doi.org/10.13168/AGG.2015.0041
McCubbine J.C., Amos M.J., Tontini F.C., Smith E., Winefied R., Stagpoole V. and Featherstone W.E., 2018. The New Zealand gravimetric quasigeoid model 2017 that incorporates nationwide airborne gravimetry. J. Geodesy, 92, 923–937, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-017-1103-1
Matsuo K. and Kuroishi Y., 2020. Refinement of a gravimetric geoid model for Japan using GOCE and an updated regional gravity field model. Earth Planets Space, 72, ArtNo. 33, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-020-01158-6
Miyahara B., Kodama T. and Kuroishi Y., 2014. Development of new hybrid geoid model for Japan, “GSIGEO2011”. Bulletin of the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, 62, 11–20
Mosquera J.A.T., Caverlotti Silva M., Isla F. and Prado C., 2021. Assessment of hybrid geoids in Chile and Spain, combining GGM and GNSS/Leveling observations. J. Geod. Geodyn., 12, 65–92, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geog.2020.12.003
Nordin A.F., Abu S.H., Hua C.L. and Nordin S., 2005. Malaysia Precise Geoid (MyGEOID). Coordinates (https://mycoordinates.org/malaysia-precise-geoid-mygeoid/all/1/)
Pa’suya M.F., Din A.H.M., McCubbine J.C., Omar A.H., Amin Z.M. and Yahaya N.A.Z., 2019. Gravimetric geoid modelling over peninsular Malaysia using two different gridding approaches for combining free air anomaly. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLII-4/W16, 515–522, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-W16-515-2019
Pa’suya M.F., Din A.H.M., Yusoff M.Y.M., Abbak R.A. and Hamden M.H., 2021. Refinement of gravimetric geoid model by incorporating terrestrial, marine, and airborne gravity using KTH method. Arab. J. Geosci., 14, ArtNo. 2003, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-08247-0
Piñón D.A., Zhang K., Wu S. and Cimbaro S.R., 2018. A new Argentinean gravimetric geoid model: GEOIDEAR. In: Freymueller J.T. and Sánchez L. (Eds), International Symposium on Earth and Environmental Sciences for Future Generations. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, 147, 53–62. Springer-Verlag, Cham, Switzerland, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1345_2017_267
Sjöberg L.E., 2001. Topographic and atmospheric corrections of gravimetric geoid determination with special emphasis on the effects of harmonics of degrees zero and one. J. Geodesy, 75, 288–290, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s001900100174
Sjöberg L.E., 2003a. A general model for modifying Stokes’ formula and its least-squares solution. J. Geodesy, 77, 459–464, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-003-0346-1
Sjöberg L.E., 2003b. A solution to the downward continuation effect on the geoid determined by Stokes’ formula. J. Geodesy, 77, 94–100, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-002-0306-1
Sjöberg L.E., 2007. The topographic bias by analytical continuation in physical geodesy. J. Geodesy, 81, 345–350, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-006-0112-2
Sjöberg L.E. and Bagherbandi M., 2017. Gravity Inversion and Integration. Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50298-4
Sjöberg L.E., Gidudu A. and Ssengendo R., 2015. The Uganda Gravimetric Geoid Model 2014 computed by the KTH method. J. Geod. Sci., 5, 35–46, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jogs-2015-0007
Ssengendo R., 2015. A Height Datum for Uganda Based on a Gravimetric Quasigeoid Model and GNSS/Levelling. Ph.D. Thesis. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden
Sulaiman S.A., 2016. Gravimetric Geoid Model Determination for Peninsular Malaysia Using Least Squares Modification of Stokes. Ph.D. Thesis. Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia
Tarrío M.J.A., Caverlotti S.M., Isla F. and Prado C., 2021. Assessment of hybrid geoids in Chile and Spain, combining GGM and GNSS/Leveling observations. Geod. Geodyn., 12, 65–92, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geog.2020.12.003
Varga M., Pitoňák M., Novák P. and Bašić T., 2021. Contribution of GRAV-D airborne gravity to improvement of regional gravimetric geoid modelling in Colorado, USA. J. Geodesy, 95, ArtNo. 53, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-021-01494-9
Vignudelli S., Birol F., Benveniste J., Fu L.L., Picot N., Raynal M. and Roinard H., 2019. Satellite altimetry measurements of sea level in the coastal zone. Surv. Geophys., 40, 1319–1349, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-019-09569-1
Wang Y.M., Li X., Ahlgren K. and Krcmaric J., 2020. Colorado geoid modeling at the US National Geodetic Survey. J. Geodesy, 94, Art,No, 106, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-020-01429-w
Wessel B., Huber M., Wohlfart C., Marschalk U., Kosmann D. and Roth A., 2018. Accuracy assessment of the global TanDEM-X Digital Elevation Model with GNSS data. ISPRS-J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 139, 171–182, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.02.017
Yong C.Z., Denys P.H. and Pearson C.F., 2019. Groundwater extraction-induced land subsidence: A geodetic strain rate study in Kelantan, Malaysia. J. Spat. Sci., 64, 275–286, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14498596.2018.1429329
Zeray-Ozturk E., Godah W. and Abbak R.A., 2020. Estimation of physical height changes from GRACE satellite mission data and WGHM over Turkey. Acta Geod. Geophys., 55, 301–317, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40328-020-00294-5
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Arau Campus for the financial funding through Internal Research Acculturation - Reference code: 600-UiTMPs (PJIM&A/UPP-DPPD 1/2022). We thank the Department of Survey and Mapping Malaysia (DSMM) for providing terrestrial and airborne gravity data and GNSS-levelling data over Peninsular Malaysia. The authors would also like to thank the German Aerospace Center (DLR) for providing the TanDEM-X DEM under the project —Towards 1 Centimetre Geoid Model at Southern Region Peninsular Malaysia using the New DEM Model- TanDEM-XII (Proposal ID: DEM_0THER1156). We would like to thank Dr. Jack McCubbine at Geoscience Australia for his constructive critique of this manuscript, Professor Dr. Lars Sjöberg for sharing all the valuable knowledge on geoid modelling using the LSMSA method and Dr. Saiful Aman Sulaiman for sharing his computed geoid model for verification.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pa’suya, M.F., Md Din, A.H., Abbak, R.A. et al. Hybrid geoid model over peninsular Malaysia (PMHG2020) using two approaches. Stud Geophys Geod 66, 98–123 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-021-0769-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-021-0769-2