Abstract
In this study we propose the complementation of satellite-only gravity field models by additional a priori information to obtain a complete model. While the accepted gravity field models are restricted to a sub-domain of the frequency space, the complete models form a complete basis in the entire space, which can be represented in the frequency domain (spherical harmonics) as well as in the space domain (data grids). The additional information is obtained by the smoothness of the potential field. Using this a priori knowledge, a stochastic process on the sphere is established as a background model. The measurements of satellite-only models are assimilated to this background model by a subdivision into the commission, transition and omission sub-domain. Complete models can be used for a rigorous fusion of complementary data sets in a multi-mission approach and guarantee also, as stand-alone gravity-field models, full-rank variance/covariance matrices for all vector-valued, linearly independent functionals.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For practical reasons we work with \(\ell_{o_{\mathit{max}}} = 18, 000\). It is well known that the variance \(\mathrm{cov}(0,\sigma _{l}^{2})\) of the stochastic process using Kaula’s degree variances (20) is finite and given by
$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} \mathrm{cov}(0,\sigma _{\ell}^{2})& =& 10^{-10}\sum _{ \ell=1}^{\infty }\frac{2\ell + 1} {\ell^{4}} \\ & =& 10^{-10}\left (2\sum _{\ell =1}^{\infty }\frac{1} {l^{3}} +\sum _{ \ell=1}^{\infty }\frac{1} {l^{4}}\right ) \\ & =& 10^{-10}\left (2\zeta (3) +\zeta (4)\right )\, {}\end{array}$$(21)where ζ(3) and ζ(4) denote the function values of Riemann’s zeta function. R. Apéry proved in 1977 that ζ(3) is irrational with a value of ζ(3) = 1. 20205690315959… (Hata 2000). Euler (1740) p. 133, §18 already derived \(\zeta (4) = \frac{\pi ^{4}} {90}\). These constants can be used to compute the relative approximation error for the finite summation up to 18,000 with 1 ⋅ 10−4 (2 ⋅ 10−4) starting the omission space at 181 (251).
References
Becker S, Freiwald G, Losch M, Schuh WD (2011) Rigorous fusion of gravity field, altimetry and stationary ocean models. J Geodyn (online first). doi:10.1016/j.jog.2011.07.006
Euler L (1740) De summis serierum reciprocarum. Commentarii academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae 7:123–134. http://eulerarchive.maa.org/pages/E041.html
Hata M (2000) A new irrationality measure for ζ(3). Acta Arithmetica 92(1):47–57
Jekeli C (1981) Alternative methods to smooth the Earth’s gravity field. Reports of the Department of Geodetic Science, Ohio State University (OSU), Ohio, No. 327
Jekeli C (1996) Spherical harmonic analysis, aliasing, and filtering. J. Geod 70:214–223. doi:10.1007/BF00873702
Kaula W (1966) Theory of satellite geodesy. Blaisdell Publishing Company, Toronto
Kusche J (2007) Approximate decorrelation and non-isotropic smoothing of time-variable GRACE-type gravity field models. J Geod 81:733–749. doi:10.1007/s00190-007-0143-3
Losch M, Sloyan B, Schöter J, Sneeuw, N (2002) Box inverse models, altimetry and the geoid: problems with the omission error. J Geophys Res 107(C7):3078. doi:10.1029/2001JC000855
Mayer-Gürr T, Kurtenbach E, Eicker A (2010) ITG-Grace2010 gravity field model. University Bonn, Institute of Geodesy and Geoinformation. http://www.igg.uni-bonn.de/apmg/index.phg?id=itg-grace2010
Meissl P (1971) A study of covariance functions related to the earth’s disturbing potential. Reports of the Department of Geodetic Science, Ohio State University (OSU), Ohio, No. 151
Moritz H (1980) Advanced physical geodesy. Wichmann, Karlsruhe
Pail R, Bruinsma S, Miggliaccio F, Förste C, Goiginger H, Schuh WD, Höck E, Reguzzoni M, Brockmann J, Abrikosov O, Veicherts M, Fecher T, Mayrhofer R, Krasbutter I, Sansó F, Tscherning C (2011) First GOCE gravity field models derived by three different approaches. J Geod 85:819–843. doi:10.1007/s00190-011-0467-x
Schuh WD, Becker S (2010) Potential field and smoothness conditions. In: Contadakis M, Kaltsikis C, Spatalas S, Tokmakidis K, Tziavos I (eds) The apple of knowledge - in honour of Prof. N. arabelos, pp 237–250. University of Thessaloniki, AUTH - Faculty of Rural and Surveying Engineering
Swenson S, Wahr J (2006) Post-processing removal of correlated errors in GRACE data. Geophys Res Lett 33:L0840211. doi: 10.1029/2005GL025285
Wahr J, Molenaar M, Bryan F (1998) Time variability of the Earth’s gravity field: hydrological and oceanic effects and their possible detection using GRACE. J Geophys Res 103:30205–30299. doi:10.1029/98JB02844
Acknowledgements
This work was funded within the DFG priority program SPP 1257 ‘Mass transport and mass distribution in the system Earth’. The authors acknowledge the European Space Agency for the provision of the GOCE data and the GOCO-group for providing the normal equations of the GOCE-TIM2.0 and the ITG-Grace2010s model.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Expectation and Variance of a Stochastic Process in Amplitude/Phase Notation on the Sphere
The stochastic process \(\mathcal{U}(\vartheta,\lambda )\) on the sphere is defined by
where the phases constitute random variables. The distribution is defined by
This means we have uniformly distributed phases, for each degree â„“ and order m, and phases for different degrees/orders are mutually independent.
We are interested in the expectation
Due to the independence of the phases the integral can be rewritten as
If we now interchange integration and summation and introduce the individual distribution (23) we get
Finally we see that
The variance of this process is given by
Because of the independence of the random variables this can be written as
If we extend the first cosine term in the integral to \(\left (m(\lambda -\lambda ') + m\lambda ' + p_{\ell m}\right )\), use the relation
and substitute
the integral can be solved and yields
The first term vanishes because of the skew symmetry of the sine and only the cosine term is relevant. Substituting this result into (26) yields
Applying the addition theorem
and recalling the definition of Laplace’s surface spherical harmonics (9) the right hand side can be reformulated as
Introducing now the amplitudes defined in (12) we get
The decomposition formula or addition theorem for spherical harmonics (cf. e.g. Moritz 1980, p. 23 (3–30))
allows the for further simplification
where the function value of the Legendre polynomial \(P_{\ell}\big((\vartheta,\lambda );\;(\vartheta ',\lambda ')\big)\) depends only on the spherical distance cosψ between \((\vartheta,\lambda )\) and \((\vartheta ',\lambda ')\)
Finally this results in
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Schuh, WD., Müller, S., Brockmann, J.M. (2015). Completion of Band-Limited Data Sets on the Sphere. In: Kutterer, H., Seitz, F., Alkhatib, H., Schmidt, M. (eds) The 1st International Workshop on the Quality of Geodetic Observation and Monitoring Systems (QuGOMS'11). International Association of Geodesy Symposia, vol 140. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10828-5_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10828-5_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10827-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-10828-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)