Collocation and FFT-based geoid estimation within the Colorado 1 cm geoid experiment

Grigoriadis V. N., Vergos G. S., Barzaghi R., Carrion D., Koc O.

JOURNAL OF GEODESY, vol.95, no.5, 2021 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 95 Issue: 5
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s00190-021-01507-7
  • Journal Name: JOURNAL OF GEODESY
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA), Geobase, INSPEC, zbMATH
  • Istanbul Technical University Affiliated: Yes


In the frame of the International Association of Geodesy Joint Working Group 2.2.2 "The 1 cm geoid experiment", terrestrial and airborne gravity datasets along with GPS/leveling data were made available for the comparison of different geoid modeling methods and techniques in the wider area of Colorado, USA. We discuss the methods and procedures we followed for computing gravimetric quasi-geoid and geoid models and geopotential values from the available datasets. The procedures followed were based on the remove-compute-restore approach using XGM2016 as a reference geopotential model. The higher frequencies of the gravity field were computed via the residual terrain correction, using (a) the CGIAR-CSI SRTM digital elevation model with the classical technique and (b) a spectral one. Least-Squares Collocation was used for the downward continuation of the airborne data and for gridding. Finally, the geoid models were obtained by applying Least-Squares Collocation and spherical FFT-based methods, while the influence of the orthometric height correction on geoid heights was taken into account by employing simple and complete Bouguer reductions. All results were evaluated with available GPS/leveling benchmarks. Moreover, potential values were determined in support of the International Height Reference System/Frame. From the results acquired, a final accuracy of 5-7 cm for the determined geoid models was achieved depending on the adopted method and data combination, without considering the accuracy of the GPS/leveling data used for their evaluation. The contribution of the airborne gravity data was deemed as limited in combination solutions although the airborne only solution provided equal level of accuracy to the terrestrial and the combined ones. Better consistency was obtained on the points of the GSVS17 line, when compared to the GPS/leveling data, where an accuracy of 2.4 cm and 2.8 cm was reached for the FFT and LSC based methods, respectively.