A Comparison of Different Integral-Equation-Based Approaches for Local Gravity Field Modelling: Case Study for the Canadian Rocky Mountains

  • R. TenzerEmail author
  • I. Prutkin
  • R. Klees
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 136)


We compare the accuracy of local gravity field modelling in rugged mountains using three different discretised integral equations; namely (1) the single layer approach, (2) Poisson’s integral approach, and (3) Green’s integral approach. The study area comprises a rough part of the Canadian Rocky Mountains with adjacent plains. The numerical experiment is conducted for gravity disturbances and for topographically corrected gravity disturbances. The external gravity field is parameterized by gravity disturbances (Poisson’s integral approach) and disturbing potential values (Green’s integral approach), both discretised below the data points at the same depth beneath the Bjerhammar sphere. The point masses in the single layer approach are discretised below the data points on a parallel surface located at the same depth beneath the Earth’s surface. The accuracy of the gravity field modelling is assessed in terms of the STD of the differences between predicted and observed gravity data. For the three chosen discretisation schemes, the most accurate gravity field approximation is attained using Green’s integral approach. However, the solution contains a systematic bias in mountainous regions. This systematic bias is larger if topographically corrected gravity disturbances are used as input data.


Gravity Field Gravity Data Flat Terrain Poisson Kernel Gravity Disturbance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alberts B, Klees R (2004) A comparison of methods for the inversion of airborne gravity data. J Geod 78:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjerhammar A (1962) Gravity reductions to a spherical surface. Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Geodesy, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjerhammar A (1987) Discrete Physical Geodesy. Report 380, Dept. of Geodetic Science and Surveying, The Ohio State University, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  4. Kellogg OD (1929) Foundations of potential theory. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Klees R, Tenzer R, Prutkin I, Wittwer T (2007) A data-driven approach to local gravity field modelling using spherical radial basis functions. J Geod 82:457–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Martinec Z (1996) Stability investigations of a discrete downward continuation problem for geoid determination in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. J Geod 70:805–828Google Scholar
  7. Novák P (2003) Geoid determination using one-step integration. J Geod 77:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Novák P, Kern M, Schwarz KP, Sideris MG, Heck B, Ferguson S, Hammada Y, Wei M (2003) On geoid determination from airborne gravity. J Geod 76:510–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Starostenko VI (1978) Stable computational approaches in gravimetry problems. Kiev, Naukova dumkaGoogle Scholar
  10. Tenzer R, Klees R (2008) The choice of the spherical radial basis functions in local gravity field modelling. Stud Geoph Geod 52:287–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Vajda P, Ellmann A, Meurers B, Vaníček P, Novák P, Tenzer R (2008) Global ellipsoid-referenced topographic, bathymetric and stripping corrections to gravity disturbance. Stud Geoph Geod 52(1):19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Young D (1971) Iterative solutions of large linear systems. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Surveying, Faculty of SciencesUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Delft Institute of Earth Observation and Space Systems (DEOS)Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations