Geoid improvement over Alaska/Yukon area by GRACE and GOCE models

Geoid improvement over Alaska/Yukon area by GRACE and GOCE models

X Li1, JL Huang2, YM Wang3, M Véronneau2, D Roman3

1ERT Inc USA2Geodetic Survey Division, CCRS, NRCan, Canada3National Geodetic Survey, NOAA, USA

European Geosciences Union, General Assembly 2012Vienna | Austria | 22 – 27 April 2012

1

Outline• Objectives

• Data sets used

• GRACE/GOCE gravity models comparison with GPS/leveling data in Alaska/Yukon area

• Improvement in local geoid computation by combing surface gravity data

• Conclusions

2

Objectives

3

• To assess the improvement of GRACE/GOCE satellite gravity models over EGM08 in the Alaska/Yukon area

• To examine the improvement of GRACE/GOCE satellite gravity models in local geoid computation based on the method of remove-restore and kernel modification

Data used

4

• Surface gravity data: 544,957– 457,477(NGS)+74,933(GSD)+12,547(NGA)

• 3,265,928 (DNSC08) altimetric gravity anomaly• 95 and 90 GPS/leveling data in Alaska and Yukon,

respectively• Sea surface topography model from Foreman et al 2008• Global gravity models used:

1. TIM (Time-wise solution GO_CONS_GCF_2_TIM_R3)2. DIR (Direct solution GO_CONS_GCF_2_DIR_R3)3. GOCO02s4. EIGEN_6c 5. EGM086. CGG10 (Canada)

5

GRACE/GOCE gravity models comparison with GPS/leveling data

6

)()(max

0 0nmnm

N

n

n

mnmnm

n

PPcomb SbRa

ra

rGMV

inm

inm

EGMnm

EGMnm

nm

nm

ba

wba

wba

)1(08

08

• To avoid leakage of high frequency, only combined models (cut/paste) used

where

Weight function used (10&60 degree)

7

Mean geoid difference by degree(h – H) – N

8

STD of Geoid difference by degree(h – H) – N

9

EIGEN_6c (10 degree c/p window)

10

EIGEN_6c (zoom in)

11

Eigen_6c and EGM08

N = MSSH(DNSC08) – SST(Foreman)

13

(MSSH – SST) – N(Combined models)

14

Local Geoid (Stokes-Helmert Method)

PITEH NNWRMGN

'EGM~1,H

TGHMDB

GOCE~1,HH

'0

maxmax)(

4

dggSRNN nn

Helmert co-geoid height:

5520

2MDB )(cos

112)(

nnn P

nnS

Geoid height:

Low-degree components:

DTE~1,H

2 EE

GOCE~1,H max

max

max)( n

n

nmnmnm

n

n

n

n NYCra

rGMN

DTE~2,H

2 E2

E

GOCE~1,H max

max

max)()1( n

n

nmnmnm

n

n

n

n AYCnra

rGMg

Modification of the Degree-Banded Stokes kernel:

Weight function and its spectral

vnnnnnv

nnL

LnuLuLnu

n

maxmaxmax

max

1,1)(cos5.0

11

,1)(cos5.0

)(2

1)( 0MDB

0 nnn Qn

Modification coefficients (Huang and Véronneau 2012) :

Spectral transfer functions:

6 MDB

MDB sin)(cos)( dPSQ nn

Truncation error coefficients:

50 100 150 200-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Spherica l Harmonic Degree n

n

5300 5400 5500 5600-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Spherica l Harmonic Degree n

n

50 100 150 200-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Spherica l Harmonic Degree n

n

0=6

5300 5400 5500 5600-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

S pherica l Harmonic Degree n

n

0=6

L=150LE=L-u/2

GPS/Levelling Test 1

93 GPS and leveling stations 90 GPS and leveling stations

Conclusions (1)• There is no noticeable improvement in GPS/leveling comparisons in Alaska (crustal motion, subsidence, PGR. etc.)

• . GPS/leveling (Yukon) comparison shows the improvement of satellite models over EGM08 happens between degree 80 to 195.

• 3 cm (21 to 18 cm) improvement of EIGEN_6c over EGM08 is seen at degree 195. There is no improvement after degree 1000. EGM08 does not improve after degree 1000, too.

18

Conclusions (2)• GOCO02s seems more accurate than other

solutions between degree 130 to 195.• Coefficients of all satellite models after degree

195 seem to degrade significantly and are not useable

• Altimetric geoid comparisons show the improvement between degree 105 to 160.

• Local geoid comparisons show a similar pattern

19