Study of Alternatives for Combining Satellite and Terrestrial Gravity Data in Regions with Poor Gravity Information

  • K. P. Jamur
  • S. R. C. de Freitas
  • H. D. Montecino
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 139)


The satellite missions CHAMP, GRACE and GOCE are substantially contributing for the improvement of the Earth gravity field knowledge. However, the respective satellite gravity information remains still limited to around 80 km of spatial resolution. In this condition, it is necessary to use local surface data in shorter wavelengths to obtain more accurate resolutions. This paper deals with strategies to model the Earth gravity field in medium and high frequencies, based on merging Global Geopotential Models (GGMs) and Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). A test area was established in southern Brazil, between the parallels 22ºS and 27ºS and meridians 48ºW and 55°W. The presented methodology uses GOCE_DIR2, already available in the degree and order of 240; GOCE_TIM2, in the degree and order of 250; GOCO02S, in the degree and order of 250; and the combined model EIGEN-06C, in the degree and order of 1420. In order to generate the proposed model, a Residual Terrain Model (RTM) technique was applied, based on the GMRT v2.0 (Global Multi-Resolution Topography 2.0 version) model data. When applying RTM technique, the proposed model achieved better resolutions than the original contained in GGMs. In the absolute analysis, the RMS in GNSS/leveling stations has been reduced by around 17 %, 18 %, 20 % and 20.5 %, respectively for GOCE_DIR2, GOCE_TIM2, GOCO02S, and EIGEN-06C models. The absolute discrepancies were reduced by around 18 % for the satellite-only models and by 28.6 % for the EIGEN-06C. Considering baselines in the range from 55 to 550 km, the contribution of the RTM for the improvement of the original resolution in ppm was around 38 %, 54 %, 57 % and 6.5 %, respectively for GOCE_DIR2, GOCE_TIM2, GOCO02S, and EIGEN-06C models.


GOCE mission Remove–restore Residual Terrain model 



The authors would like to thank the IUGG2011/IAG by the student grant for K. P. Jamur, who was also supported by CNPq in her PhD program. Also thanks to CNPq by financial support of research, Process 301797/2008-0 and 141663/2010-3. Also thanks to Prof. N. C. de Sá by providing the GNSS/leveling database.


  1. Amante C, Eakins BW (2009) ETOPO1 1 arc-minute global relief model: procedures, data sources and analysis. NOAA technical memorandum NESDIS NGDC-24, p 19Google Scholar
  2. ESA European Space Agency (1999) Gravity field and steady-state ocean circulation mission. ESA SP-1233(1), Report for mission selection of the four candidate Earth explorer missions.
  3. ESA European Space Agency (2011)
  4. Featherstone WE (2002) Expected contributions of dedicated satellite gravity field missions to regional geoid determination with some examples from Australia. J Geospat Eng 4:2–19Google Scholar
  5. Ferreira VG, de Freitas SRC (2011) Geopotential numbers from GPS satellite surveying and disturbing potential model: a case study for Parana, Brazil. J Appl Geod 5:155–162Google Scholar
  6. Flury J, Rummel R (2005) Future satellite gravimetry for geodesy. Institut für Astronomische und Physikalische Geodäsie, TU. Earth Moon Planets 94:13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Forsberg R, Tscherning CC (1981) The use of height data in gravity field approximation by collocation. J Geophys Res 86:7843–7854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forsberg R (1984) A study of terrain reductions, density anomalies and geophysical inversion methods in gravity field modelling. Report No. 355. Department of Geodetic Science and Surveying, The Ohio State University, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  9. Forsberg R, Tscherning CC (1997) Topographic effects in gravity field modelling for BVP. In: Sansò F, Rummel R (eds) Geodetic boundary value problems in view of the one centimeter geoid. Lecture notes in Earth sciences, vol 65. Springer, Berlin, pp 241–272Google Scholar
  10. Forsberg R (2009) International Geoid School. Lecture notes and personal communication, Buenos Aires, Argentina September 2009Google Scholar
  11. Hirt C, Featherstone WE, Marti U (2010) Combining EGM2008 and SRTM/DTM2006.0 residual terrain model data to improve quasigeoid computations in mountainous areas devoid of gravity data. J Geod 84:557–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ICGEM (2011) International Center for Global Earth Models.
  13. Kaula W (1966) Tests and combinations of satellite determinations of the gravity field with gravimetry. J Geophys Res 71:5303–5314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MGDS (2012) Marine geoscience data system—global multi-resolution topography data portal.
  15. Moritz H (1968) On the use of terrain correction in solving Molodensky’s problem. Scientific Report, p 46Google Scholar
  16. Pavlis NK, Holmes SA, Kenyon SC, Factor JK (2008) An Earth gravitational model to degree 2160: EGM2008. Presented at the 2008 general assembly of the European geoscience union, Vienna, April 2008, pp 13–18Google Scholar
  17. Rummel R (2000) Global integrated geodetic and geodynamic observing system (GIGGOS). In: Rummel R, Drewes H, Bosch W, Hornik H (eds) Towards an integrated global geodetic observing system (IGGOS), IAG symposia, vol 120. Springer, Berlin, pp 253–260Google Scholar
  18. Schwarz KP (1984) Data types and their spectral properties. In: Schwarz KP (ed) Local gravity field approximation. International Summer School (BSS), Beijing, pp 1–66Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. P. Jamur
    • 1
  • S. R. C. de Freitas
    • 1
  • H. D. Montecino
    • 1
  1. 1.Geodetic Reference Systems and Satellite Altimetry LaboratoryGeodetic Sciences Graduation Course, Federal University of ParanáCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations