Abstract
The paper presents a modified formulation of least-squares collocation. This residual least-squares collocation (RLSC) includes a remove–compute–restore procedure with a high-resolution global geopotential model (GGM) and a topographic gravitational potential model. In contrast to previous approaches, in RLSC, the remaining input residuals are modeled with error covariance matrices instead of signal covariance matrices. Therefore, we include the full variance–covariance information of a high-resolution GGM, namely the XGM2016, to the procedure. The included covariance matrices are anisotropic and location-dependent and enable a realistic error modeling of a target area. This fact represents an advantage over covariance matrices derived from signal degree variances or empirical covariance fitting. Additionally, due to the stochastic modeling of all involved components, RLSC provides realistic accuracy estimates. In a synthetic closed-loop test case with a realistic data distribution in the Andes we demonstrate the advantages of RLSC for regional geoid modeling and quantify the benefit which results mainly from a rigorously handled high-resolution GGM. In terms of root mean square deviations from the true reference solution, RLSC delivers an improvement of about 30% compared to a standard LSC approach, where the benefit is particularly pronounced in areas with a sparse data distribution. This improved performance, together with the fact that the resulting stochastic error estimates better reflect the true errors, might be an important aspect for the application of RLSC to derive gravity potential values and their uncertainties at reference stations of the international height reference system.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andersen O, Knudsen P, Stenseng L (2015) The DTU13 MSS (mean sea surface) and MDT (mean dynamic topography) from 20 years of satellite altimetry. In: Jin S, Barzaghi R (eds) IGFS 2014. International association of geodesy symposia, vol 144. Springer, Cham, pp 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/1345_2015_182
Arabelos DN, Tscherning CC (2009) Error-covariances of the estimates of spherical harmonic coefficients computed by LSC, using second-order radial derivative functionals associated with realistic GOCE orbits. J Geod 83(5):419–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-008-0250-9
Drinkwater MR, Floberghagen R, Haagmans R, Muzi D, Popescu A (2003) GOCE: ESA’s first earth explorer core mission. In: Beutler GB et al (eds) Earth gravity field from space—from sensors to earth sciences, space sciences series of ISSI, vol 17, pp 419–432. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1333-7_36
Fecher T, Pail R, Gruber T (2015) Global gravity field modeling based on GOCE and complementary gravity data. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 35A:120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2013.10.005 (ISSN 0303-2434)
Fecher T, Pail R, Gruber T, the GOCO Consortium (2017) GOCO05c: a new combined gravity field model based on full normal equations and regionally varying weighting. Surv Geophys 38(3):571–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-016-9406-y
Forsberg R (1984) A study of terrain reductions, density anomalies and geophysical inversion methods in gravity field modelling. Reports of the Department of Geodetic Science and Surveying, No. 355, Ohio State University, Columbus
Forsberg R, Tscherning CC (1981) The use of height data in gravity field approximation by collocation. J Geophys Res 86(B9):7843–7854. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB086iB09p07843
Förste C, Bruinsma SL, Abrikosov O, Lemoine JM, Marty JC, Flechtner F, Balmino G, Barthelmes F, 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. https://doi.org/10.5880/icgem.2015.1
Gerlach C, Fecher T (2012) Approximations of the GOCE error variance–covariance matrix for least-squares estimation of height datum offsets. J Geod Sci 2(4):247–256. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10156-011-0049-0
Grombein T, Seitz K, Heck B (2016) The rock–water–ice topographic gravity field model RWI\_TOPO\_2015 and its comparison to a conventional rock-equivalent version. Surv Geophys 37(5):937–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-016-9376-0
Gruber T, Willberg M (2019) Signal and error assessment of GOCE-based high resolution gravity field models. In: International symposium gravity, geoid and height systems 2, J Geod Sci (accepted)
Gruber T, Visser PNAM, Ackermann C, Hosse M (2011) Validation of GOCE gravity field models by means of orbit residuals and geoid comparisons. J Geod 85(11):845–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-011-0486-7
Haagmans RHN, van Gelderen M (1991) Error variances–covariances of GEM-TI: their characteristics and implications in geoid computation. J Geophys Res 96(B12):20011–20022. https://doi.org/10.1029/91JB01971
Heiskanen WA, Moritz H (1967) Physical geodesy. Freeman and Company, San Francisco
Hirt C, Claessens SJ, Fecher T, Kuhn M, Pail R, Rexer M (2013) New ultra-high resolution picture of Earth’s gravity field. Geophys Res Lett 40(16):4279–4283. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50838
Hofmann-Wellenhof B, Moritz H (2006) Physical geodesy. Springer, Wien ISBN 10 2-211-33544-7
Hosse M, Pail R, Horwath M, Holzrichter N, Gutknecht BD (2014) Combined regional gravity model of the andean convergent subduction zone and its application to crustal density modelling in active plate margins. Surv Geophys 35(6):1393–1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-014-9307-x
Ihde J, Sánchez L, Barzaghi R, Drewes H, Förste C, Gruber T, Liebsch G, Marti U, Pail R, Sideris M (2017) Definition and proposed realization of the international height reference system (IHRS). Surv Geophys 38(3):549–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-017-9409-3
Krarup T (1969) A contribution to the mathematical foundation of physical geodesy. In: Borre K (ed) Mathematical foundation of geodesy—selected papers of Torben Krarup. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-33767-9
Mayer-Gürr T, and the GOCO consortium (2015) The new combined satellite only model GOCO05s. EGU General Assembly, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4688.6807
Moritz H (1980) Advanced physical geodesy. Herbert Wichmann, Karlsruhe ISBN 3-87907-106-3
Pail R, Reguzzoni M, Sansò F, Kühtreiber N (2010) On the combination of global and local data in collocation theory. Stud Geophys Geod 54(2):195–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-010-0010-1
Pail R, Fecher T, Barnes D, Factor JF, Holmes SA, Gruber T, Zingerle P (2018) Short note: the experimental geopotential model XGM2016. J Geod 92(4):443–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-017-1070-6
Pavlis NK, Holmes SA, Kenyon SC, Factor JK (2012) The development and evaluation of the Earth Gravitational Model 2008 (EGM2008). J Geophys Res 117:B04406. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008916
Rexer M (2017) Spectral solutions to the topographic potential in the context of high-resolution global gravity field modelling. Dissertation, Technical University of Munich
Rexer M, Hirt C, Claessens S, Tenzer R (2016) Layer-based modelling of the Earth’s gravitational potential up to 10-km scale in spherical harmonics in spherical and ellipsoidal approximation. Surv Geophys 37(6):1035–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-016-9382-2
Rieser D (2015) GOCE gravity gradients for geoid and Moho determination applying the Least Squares Collocation approach. Dissertation, Graz University of Technology
Sánchez L, Sideris MG (2017) Vertical datum unification for the international height reference system (IHRS). Geophys J Int 209(2):570–586. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx025
Sandwell DT, Smith WHF (2009) Global marine gravity from retracked Geosat and ERS-1 altimetry: ridge segmentation versus spreading rate. J Geophys Res 114:B01411. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB006008
Sansò F (1986) Statistical methods in physics geodesy. In: Suenkel H (ed) Mathematical and numerical techniques in physical geodesy. Lecture notes in earth sciences, vol 7. Springer, Berlin, pp 49–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0010132
Sansò F (2013) The local modelling of the gravity field by collocation. In: Sansò F, Sideris MG (eds) Geoid determination: theory and methods. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74700-0
Tapley BD, Bettadpur S, Watkins M, Reigber C (2004) The gravity recovery and climate experiment: mission overview and early results. Geophys Res Lett 31(9):L09607. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019920
Tscherning CC (1999) Construction of anisotropic covariance functions using Riesz-representers. J Geod 73(6):332–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001900050250
Tscherning CC (2015) Least-squares collocation. In: Grafarend E (ed) Encyclopedia of geodesy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02370-0_51-1
Tscherning CC, Rapp RH (1974) Closed covariance expressions for gravity anomalies, geoid undulations, and deflections of the vertical implied by anomaly degree variance models. Reports of the Department of Geodetic Science, No. 208, Ohio State University, Columbus
Acknowledgements
A large part of the investigations presented in this paper was conducted in the framework of the project ‘Optimally combined regional geoid models for the realization of height systems in developing countries’ funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG Project No. PA 1543/14-1). We also acknowledge the provision of computer resources by the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ; Address: Boltzmannstrasse 1, 85748 Garching, Germany).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Willberg, M., Zingerle, P. & Pail, R. Residual least-squares collocation: use of covariance matrices from high-resolution global geopotential models. J Geod 93, 1739–1757 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-019-01279-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-019-01279-1