Advertisement

Acta Geophysica

, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 1–17 | Cite as

On regularized time varying gravity field models based on grace data and their comparison with hydrological models

  • Mehdi Eshagh
  • Jean-Michel Lemoine
  • Pascal Gegout
  • Richard Biancale
Research article

Abstract

Determination of spherical harmonic coefficients of the Earth’s gravity field is often an ill-posed problem and leads to solving an ill-conditioned system of equations. Inversion of such a system is critical, as small errors of data will yield large variations in the result. Regularization is a method to solve such an unstable system of equations. In this study, direct methods of Tikhonov, truncated and damped singular value decomposition and iterative methods of ν, algebraic reconstruction technique, range restricted generalized minimum residual and conjugate gradient are used to solve the normal equations constructed based on range rate data of the gravity field and climate experiment (GRACE) for specific periods. Numerical studies show that the Tikhonov regularization and damped singular value decomposition methods for which the regularization parameter is estimated using quasioptimal criterion deliver the smoothest solutions. Each regularized solution is compared to the global land data assimilation system (GLDAS) hydrological model. The Tikhonov regularization with L-curve delivers a solution with high correlation with this model and a relatively small standard deviation over oceans. Among iterative methods, conjugate gradient is the most suited one for the same reasons and it has the shortest computation time.

Key words

gravity field and climate experiment hydrological model inversion range-rate smoothing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aster, R.C., B. Borchers, and C.H. Thurber (2005), Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problems, Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bruinsma, S., J.M. Lemoine, R. Biancale, and N. Valés (2010), CNES/GRGS 10-day gravity field models (release 2) and their evaluation, Adv. Space Res. 45,4, 587–601, DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2009.10.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carrére, L., and F. Lyard (2003), Modeling the barotropic response of the global ocean to atmospheric wind and pressure forcing — comparisons with observations, Geophys. Res. Lett. 30,6, 1275, DOI: 10.1029/2002GL016473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. dos Santos, M.C. (1995), Real-time orbit improvement for GPS satellites, Ph.D. Thesis, Report 178, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Eshagh, M. (2010), Inversion of gravity gradients for determination of gravity anomaly in the polar gaps, Acta Geod. Geophys. Hung. 45,4, 440–451, DOI: 10.1556/AGeod.45.2010.4.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eshagh, M. (2011), Sequential Tikhonov regularization: an alternative way for inverting satellite gradiometric data, ZfV 136,2, 113–121.Google Scholar
  7. Eshagh, M., and L.E. Sjöberg (2011), Determination of gravity anomaly at sea level from inversion of satellite gravity gradiometric data, J. Geodyn. 51,5, 366–377, DOI: 10.1016/j.jog.2010.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eshagh, M., M. Abdollahzadeh, and M. Najafi-Alamdari (2008), Simplification of geopotential perturbing force acting on a satellite, Artif. Satel. 43,2, 45–64, DOI: 10.2478/v10018-009-0006-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansen, P.C. (2007), Regularization Tools version 4.0 for Matlab 7.3, Numer. Algorithms 46,2, 189–194, DOI: 10.1007/s11075-007-9136-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Janak, J., Y. Fukuda, and P. Xu (2009), Application of GOCE data for regional gravity field modeling, Earth Planets Space 61,7, 835–843.Google Scholar
  11. Janssen, P.A.E.M., A.C.M. Beljaars, A. Simmons, and P. Viterbo (1992), The determination of the surface stress in an atmospheric model, Mon. Weather Rev. 120, 2977–2985, DOI: 10.1175/1520-0493(1992)120〈2977:TDOTSS〉2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jekeli, C. (1981), Alternative methods to smooth the Earth’s gravity field, Dept. of Geodetic Science and Surveying, Ohio State University, Columbus, USA, Rep. 327, 48 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Kilmer, M.E., and D.P. O’Leary (2001), Choosing regularization parameters in iterative methods for ill-posed problems, SIAM, J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 22,4, 1204–1221, DOI: 10.1137/S0895479899345960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koch, K.-R., and J. Kusche (2002), Regularization of geopotential determination from satellite data by variance components, J. Geod. 76,5, 259–268, DOI: 10.1007/s00190-002-0245-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kotsakis, C. (2007), A covariance-adaptive approach for regularized inversion in linear models, Geophys. J. Int. 171,2, 509–522, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007. 03534.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lemoine, J.M., S. Bruinsma, S. Loyer, R. Biancale, J.C. Marty, F. Perosanz, and G. Balmino (2007), Temporal gravity field models inferred from GRACE data, Adv. Space Res. 39, 620–1629, DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2007.03.062"10.1016/j.asr.2007.03.062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maitre, H., and A.J. Levy (1983), The use of normal equations for superresolution problems, J. Opt. 14,4, 205–207, DOI: 10.1088/0150-536X/14/4/005"10.1088/0150-536X/14/4/005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parrot, D. (1989), Short arc orbit improvement for GPS satellites, M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Surveying Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Canada, Tech. Rep. 143.Google Scholar
  19. Reed, G.B. (1973), Application of kinematical geodesy for determining the shortswavelength component of the gravity field by satellite gradiometry, Report 201, Department of Geodetic Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Rodell, M., P.R. Houser, U. Jambor, J. Gottschalck, K. Mitchell, C.-J. Meng, K. Arsenault, B. Cosgrove, J. Radakovich, M. Bosilovich, J.K. Entin, J.P. Walker, D. Lohmann, and D. Toll (2004), The Global Land Data Assimilation System, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 85,3, 381–394, DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-85-3-381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rudolph, S., J. Kusche, and K.H. Ilk (2002), Investigations on the polar gap problem in ESA’s gravity field and steady-state ocean circulation explorer mission (GOCE), J. Geodyn. 33,1–2, 65–74, DOI: 10.1016/S0264-3707(01)00055-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rummel, R. (1975), Downward continuation of gravity information from satellite-tosatellite tracking or satellite gradiometry in local areas, Report 221, Department of Geodetic Science, Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  23. Somodi, B., and L. Foldvary (2011), Application of numerical integration techniques for orbit determination of state-of-the-art LEO satellites, Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. 55,2, 99–106, DOI: 10.3311/pp.ci.2011-2.02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tapley, B., J. Ries, S. Bettadpur, D. Chambers, M. Cheng, F. Condi, B. Gunter, Z. Kang, P. Nagel, R. Pastor, T. Pekker, S. Poole, and F. Wang (2005), GGM02 — An improved Earth gravity field model from GRACE, J. Geod. 79,8, 467–478, DOI: 10.1007/s00190-005-0480-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tscherning, C.C. (1988), A study of satellite altitude influence on the sensitivity of gravity gradiometer measurements, DGK, Reihe B, Heft 287 (Festschrift R. Sigl), 218–223.Google Scholar
  26. Tscherning, C.C. (1989), A local study of the influence of sampling rate, number of observed components and instrument noise on 1 deg. mean geoid and gravity anomalies determined from satellite gravity gradiometer measurements, Ric. Geod. Topogr. Fotogram. 5, 39–146.Google Scholar
  27. Tscherning, C.C., R. Forsberg, and M. Vermeer (1990), Methods for the regional gravity field modelling from SST and SGG data, Reports of the Finnish Geodetic Institute, No. 90:2, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  28. Visser, P. (1992), The use of satellites in gravity field determination and adjustment, Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Delft.Google Scholar
  29. Werner, M. (2001), Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM), Mission overview, Frequenz 55,34, 75–79, DOI: 10.1515/FREQ.2001.55.3-4.75.Google Scholar
  30. Xu, P. (1992), Determination of surface gravity anomalies using gradiometric observables, Geophys. J. Int. 110,2, 321–332, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1992.tb00877.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xu, P. (1998), Truncated SVD methods for discrete linear ill-posed problems, Geophys. J. Int. 135,2, 505–514, DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-246X.1998.00652.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xu, P. (2009a), Iterative generalized cross-validation for fusing heteroscedastic data of inverse ill-posed problems, Geophys. J. Int. 179,1, 182–200, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04280.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Xu, P. (2009b), Zero initial partial derivatives of satellite orbits with respect to force parameters violate the physics of motion of celestial bodies, Sci. China Ser. D: Earth Sci. 52,4, 562–566, DOI: 10.1007/s11430-009-0049-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Wien 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehdi Eshagh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jean-Michel Lemoine
    • 3
  • Pascal Gegout
    • 3
  • Richard Biancale
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Geodesy and GeoinformaticsRoyal Institute of Technology (KTH)StockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of GeodesyK.N.Toosi University of TechnologyTehranIran
  3. 3.Department of Space Geodesy (GRGS)French Space Agency (CNES)ToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations