Abstract
We compare the numerical precision and the time efficiency of various integration methods for solving Newton’s integral, namely the rectangular prism and the line integral analytical approaches, the linear vertical mass and the Gauss cubature semi-analytical approaches, and the point-mass numerical approach. The relative precision of the semi-analytical and numerical integration methods with respect to the rectangular prism approach is analyzed at the vicinity of the computation point up to one arc-min of spherical distance. The results of the numerical experiment reveal that the Gauss cubature approach is more precise than the linear vertical mass and the point-mass approaches. The time efficiency of integration methods is compared, showing that the point-mass approach is the most time-efficient while the line integral approach is the most time-consuming.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Barthelmes, F., R. Dietrich, and R. Lehmann (1991). Use of point masses on optimised positions for the approximation of the gravity field. In: Rapp, R.H. and F. Sanso (eds), Determination of the Geoid, Springer, Berlin, pp. 484–493.
Heck, B. (2003). Rechenverfahren und Aswertemodelle der Landesvermessung. Klassische und moderne Methoden. 3rd ed, Wichmann, Heidelberg.
Heck, B. and K. Seitz (2007) A comparison of the tesseroid, prism and point-mass approaches for mass reductions in gravity field modelling. J. Geod., 81, 12–136.
Holstein, H., P. Schürholz, A.J. Starr, M. Chakraborty (1999). Comparison of gravimetric formulas for uniform polyhedra. Geophysics. 64(5), 1434–1446.
Li, Y.C. and M.G. Sideris (1994). Improved gravimetric terrain corrections. Geophys. J. Int., 119, 740–752.
Martinec, Z (1998). Boundary value problems for gravimetric determination of a precise geoid. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, Vol 73, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
Nagy, D., G. Papp, and J. Benedek (2000). The gravitational potential and its derivatives for the prism. J. Geod., 74, 552–560
Nagy, D., G. Papp, and J. Benedek (2002). Erratum: Corrections through “The gravitational potential and its derivatives for the prism”. J. Geod., 76(8), 475–475.
Petrović, S. (1996). Determination of the potential of homogeneous polyhedral bodies using line integrals. J. Geod., 71, 44–52.
Pohánka, V. (1988). Optimum expression for computation of the gravity field of a homogeneous polyhedral body. Geophys. Prospecting, 36, 733–751.
Tsoulis, D. (2003). Numerical investigations in the analytical and semi-analytical computation of gravimetric terrain effects. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, 47(3), 481–494.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Tenzer, R., Hamayun, Z., Prutkin, I. (2010). A Comparison of Various Integration Methods for Solving Newton’s Integral in Detailed Forward Modelling. In: Mertikas, S. (eds) Gravity, Geoid and Earth Observation. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, vol 135. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10634-7_48
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10634-7_48
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-10633-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-10634-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)