Closed-Form transformation between geodetic and ellipsoidal coordinates

We present formulas for direct closed-form transformation between geodetic coordinates(Φ, λ, h) and ellipsoidal coordinates (β, λ, u) for any oblate ellipsoid of revolution.These will be useful for those dealing with ellipsoidal representations of the Earth's gravityfield or other oblate ellipsoidal figures. The numerical stability of the transformations for nearpolarand near-equatorial regions is also considered

On the topographic effects by Stokes’ formula

Traditional gravimetric geoid determination relies on Stokes’ formula with removal and restoration of the topographic effects. It is shown that this solution is in error of the order of the quasigeoid-to-geoid difference, which is mainly due to incomplete downward continuation (dwc) of gravity from the Earth’s surface to the geoid. A slightly improved estimator, based on the surface Bouguer gravity anomaly, is also biased due to the imperfect harmonic dwc the Bouguer anomaly. Only the third estimator,which uses the (harmonic) surface no-topography gravity anomaly, is consistent with the boundary condition and Stokes’ formula, providing a theoretically correct geoid height. The difference between the Bouguer and no-topography gravity anomalies (on the geoid or in space) is the “secondary indirect topographic effect”, which is a necessary correction in removing all topographic signals

A numerical test of the topographic bias

In 1962 A. Bjerhammar introduced the method of analytical continuation in physical geodesy, implying that surface gravity anomalies are downward continued into the topographic masses down to an internal sphere (the Bjerhammar sphere). The method also includes analytical upward continuation of the potential to the surface of the Earth to obtain the quasigeoid. One can show that also the common remove-compute-restore technique for geoid determination includes an analytical continuation as long as the complete density distribution of the topography is not known. The analytical continuation implies that the downward continued gravity anomaly and/or potential are/is in error by the so-called topographic bias, which was postulated by a simple formula of L E Sjöberg in 2007. Here we will numerically test the postulated formula by comparing it with the bias obtained by analytical downward continuation of the external potential of a homogeneous ellipsoid to an inner sphere. The result shows that the postulated formula holds: At the equator of the ellipsoid, where the external potential is downward continued 21 km, the computed and postulated topographic biases agree to less than a millimetre (when the potential is scaled to the unit of metre)

Empirical comparison between stochastic and deterministic modifiers over the French Auvergne geoid computation test-bed

© 2021 Survey Review Ltd. Since 2006, several different groups have computed geoid and/or quasigeoid (quasi/geoid) models for the Auvergne test area in central France using various approaches. In this contribution, we compute and compare quasigeoid models for Auvergne using Curtin University of Technology’s and the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology’s approaches. These approaches differ in many ways, such as their treatment of the input data, choice of type of spherical harmonic model (combined or satellite-only), form and sequence of correction terms applied, and different modified Stokes’s kernels (deterministic or stochastic). We have also compared our results with most of the previously reported studies over Auvergne in order to seek any improvements with respect to time [exceptions are when different subsets of data have been used]. All studies considered here compare the computed quasigeoid models with the same 75 GPS-levelling heights over Auvergne. The standard deviation for almost all of the computations (without any fitting) is of the order of 30–40 mm, so there is not yet any clear indication whether any approach is necessarily better than any other nor improving over time. We also recommend more standardisation on the presentation of quasi/geoid comparisons with GPS-levelling data so that results from different approaches over the same areas can be compared more objectively

The zero gravity curve and surface and radii for geostationary and geosynchronous satellite orbits

A geosynchronous satellite orbits the Earth along a constant longitude. A special case is the geostationary satellite that is located at a constant position above the equator. The ideal position of a geostationary satellite is at the level of zero gravity, i.e. at the geocentric radius where the gravitational force of the Earth equals the centrifugal force. These forces must be compensated for several perturbing forces, in particular for the lunisolar tides. Considering that the gravity field of the Earth varies not only radially but also laterally, this study focuses on the variations of zero gravity not only on the equator (for geostationary satellites) but also for various latitudes. It is found that the radius of a geostationary satellite deviates from its mean value of 42164.2 km only within ±2 m, mainly due to the spherical harmonic coefficient J22, which is related with the equatorial flattening of the Earth. Away from the equator the zero gravity surface deviates from the ideal radius of a geosynchronous satellite, and more so for higher latitudes. While the radius of the former surface increases towards infinity towards the poles, the latter decreases about 520 m from the equator to the pole. Tidal effects vary these radii within ±2.3 km