VOL. 77, NO.

20 JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH JULY 10, 1972

Self-Consistent
Statistical
Modelsfor the GravityAnomaly,
Vertical Deflections,and Undulation of the Geoid
STANLEY K. JORDAN

The Analytic SciencesCorporation

Reading, Massachusetts 01867

Mathematical relationships exist between the anomaly, deflections, and undulation that
constrain the models for the autocorrelation and cross-correlationfunctions of these processes.
In previouswork, constraintsbetween the anomaly and deflectionshave been recognized,but
constraints relating to the undulation have been ignored. In this paper, new models are
proposed that take these constraints into account. One of these new models, the 'third-order
Markov undulation model' is suggestedfor the analysisof inertial navigation systemerrors
causedby uncertaintiesin the gravity field.

During the past severalyears,it has become modelsproposedby Shawet al. and Kasperare
increasinglypopularto treat the anomalyand 'self-consistent,' since the anomaly and deflec-
deflectionsas randomprocesses. For example, tion statistics satisfy compatibility conditions
Nash [1968] used a statistical model of the that are basedon the Vening-Meinesz formulas.
deflectionsto estimatethe inertial navigation However, these models are somewhat incom-
system errors causedby gravity uncertainties. plete,sincethe undulationstatisticsare missing.
Kaula [1957] and Henriksonand Nash [1970] In this paper, the theoretical constraintsbe-
usedstatisticalmodelsfor the anomalyand de- tween the anomaly and undulation statisticsare
flectionsto estimatethe errors in gravimetri- derived.Similarly,the theoreticalconstraints be-
cally computed vertical deflections.Bradley tween the deflection and undulation statistics
[1970] used a statistical model for the deflec- are derived.From thesetheoreticalconstraints,
tionsin the designof a newtechniquefor 'direct 'necessaryconditions'are determinedthat must
recovery'of vertical deflections. Also, statistical be satisfiedin orderfor the anomaly,deflection,
modelsfor geodeticuncertaintiesare required andundulationcorrelationfunctions to be phys-
for optimal prediction,filtering,and smoothing ically reasonable.It is shown that previous
of geodeticmeasurements [Kaula, 1966; Krarup, models fail to satisfy these conditions.New
1969; Moritz, 1970]. statisticalmodelsfor the anomaly,deflections,
In some cases,statistical models for the de- and undulationare proposed.
flectionshavebeenproposedwithout considering In general,statisticalmodelsfor gravity dis-
the associatedanomaly models [Levine and turbancesare classifiedas either globalor local,
Gelb, 1969]. More recently,Shaw et al. [1969] depending on the dimensionsof the area of
recognized that the Vening-Meinesz formulas interest.In the developmentof globalstatistical
provide a constraintbetweenthe anomaly and models,the usual techniquesof spherical-har-
deflections;they used this constraintto derive monic-seriesexpansion'can be used [Meissl,
statistical models for the deflections from theo- 1971]. In this paper, attention is focused on
retical anomalymodels.In particular, Shaw and local disturbances,and the developmentmakes
his co-workersproposedthe 'exponentialanom- use of the 'fiat earth' approximation. This ap-
aly model' and the 'Besselanomaly model' and proximation is reasonable,sincethe correlation
determined the associated deflection models. In distance(1/e point) of the gravity anomalyis
a similar paper, Kasper [1971] proposeda 'sec- small relative to the radius of the earth •[Kaula,
ond-order Markov anomaly model' and deter- 1963]. The approximation is useful becauseit
mined the associated deflection models. The permits closed-formexpressionsfor all the de-
sired correlationfunctions; i.e., seriesexpan-
Copyright ¸ 1972 by the American Geophysical Union. sions are avoided.

3660
 STATISTICALI•IODELS FOR TI-IE •EOID 3661

Anotherway to classifystat.is'tical
modelsfor y) = y)
gravity disturbances
is according
to their dimen-
and
sionsin physicalspace.In general,it is desirable
to have three-dimensional
models,sincevaria-
tionsin latitude,longitude,and altitude are all
of interest.The presentpaper is restrictedto
+ y)= -7o y)
zero-mean,stationary,two-dimensional models; In order for the root-mean-square
(rms) values
variations with altitude are not considered. Non- of the deflectionsto be boundedand nonzero,
stationary three-dimensionalstatistical models (4) and (5) imply that
for the anomaly,deflections,
and undulationcan
be obtained from the two-dimensional models
given here by meansof a two-dimensionalPois- < y) < o (7)
son integral [Bellaire, 1971]. at x:y=0
NECESSARYCONDITIONS and

It is well known that vertical deflections are

relatedto the gravity anomalyby the Vening-
Meinesz equations [Heiskanen and Moritz,
1967]. Shawet al. [1969] have shownthat under
reasonable assumptions (the anomalycorrelation
distanceis small comparedto the radiusof the
earth, and the anomalyis statisticallyhomo-
geneous),the Vening-Meineszequationsprovide
a simple constraint between anomaly and de-
flectionstatistics.For example,it followsfrom
(2a) and (Sa) of their paper that the anomaly
and deflection autocorrelation functions are re-
lated by
eb•(x,y) q-eb,,(x,y) = (1/go")eb•g(x,
y) (1)
Here, x, y are Cartesiancoordinates(the x, y
directions are usually taken as east and north,
respectively),•/, • are the x, y componentsof
the vertical deflection,gois the referencevalue
of gravity, and g is the gravity anomaly. The
autocorrelationfunction (acf) of a statistically
homogeneous random process(for example,the
anomaly) is definedas
,y)<O
< (8)
at x:y=0
Theserequirements canbe regardedasnecessary
conditionsthat must be satisfiedfor a proposed
undulation model to be physically reasonable.
Equation (6) can be used to determine the
anomalyacf that corresponds to a prescribed
undulation acf. Alternatively, the anomaly acf
can be prescribed and the undulation acf
unknown.In this case,(6) becomes a boundary-
value problemon an infinite plane. The bound-
ary condition to be applied is simply the
boundedness of the undulationacf. Since (6) is
a classicalequation in mathematical physics (a
two-dimensionalPoisson equation), there are
many analogs.For example,(6) is the govern-
ing equation for the steady-statetemperature
distribution on a plane with distributed heat
sources. It will be assumed that the mean undu-
lation is zero.In this case,the solutionof (6) is
[Carrier et al., 1966,p. 334]

ebg•(x,
y)= E[g(X,
Y)g(X
q-z, Yq-y)](2) qS:v:v
(x, y)= --4'-• •, go
where E is the ensembleexpectationoperator.
It is also well known that the deflections are
ßlog [(x -- u)" q- (y -- v)"]dudv (9)
related to the undulation of the geoid N For this solutionto be bounded,the anomalyacf
[Heiskanen and Moritz, 1967], must satisf.ythe constraint

ON ON
y)= -Oy y)= Ox (s) ff• qSoo(x,
y)dxdy=0 (10)
From (1) and (3) it can be shownthat [Pap- In termsof the analogous thermalproblem,(10)
oulis, 1965] meansthat if a steady-statetemperature distri-
bution existson an infiniteplat.e,the net energy
eb•(x,y) = --(O"/Oy")eb•vN(x,
y) (4) flux to the plate must be zero.In terms of gray-
3662 STANLr•Y K. JOaDAN

ity phenomena,(10) may be regarded as a Exponential-cosineanomaly model [Vysko,cil,

necessarycondition that must be satisfied for a 1970]'
proposedanomalymodel to be physicallyrea-
sonable. qboo(r) =e-,/o cosar
= o'o (21)
For the specialcasein which the undulation Second-order
Markov anomalymodel [Kasper,
and anomaly autocorrelationfunctions are iso-
tropic, i.e.,
r)oo(r)
= •ro211
q- (r/ D)]e-r/D (22)
r):v(x + r + =
The free parameters in these models are the
(11)
rms value of the anomaly • and the character-
E[g(X, Y)g(X q- x, Y q- y)] = qboo(r
) istic distance D. The model proposedby
Vyskocil includes an additional parameter a.
The symbolK• in (20) representsa modified
where r- (x• + y')•/•', (6) through (10) be-
come
Besselfunction of order one. Two examplesof
undulationmodelsthat fail to satisfy (14) are
given below.
q•NN
tt2r-lq•NN
r
t = --l•q•oo
go
(r) (13)
Exponential undulation model'
--oo < Lim (•'(r)/r) < 0 (14)
r--•0 = ,.e-,/o(23)
Bessel undulation model'

1•fo
= go ©_1pCi)oo(p
)Jo(pr)
dp(15) q•2•(r)-- •=(r/D) rl½/ D) (24)
In a later section,four new gravity-disturbance
ß --
modelsare proposedthat satisfy all the neees-
and saw conditions.
Althoughthe main interest in this paper is
with local gravity disturbances,the first two
o©rq•oo(r)
dr=0 (17)on a globalscale,sincetheseconditionsare ap-
necessaryconditions,(7) and (8), are alsovalid
where the primes in (13) and (14) indicate
plied at zero shift. Surprisingly, (10) is also
differentiationby r and the symbol Jo in (15)
valid on a global scale if it is understoodthat
and (16) representsthe zero-orderBesselfunc-
the integrationis over the surfaceof the earth,
tion. In order to satisfy (17), a proposedanom-
rather than over an infinite plane [Hirschorn,
aly acf must dip below the r axis. Since none
1970]. The theoretical constraints between the
of the anomaly models proposed by Kaula
deflectionand undulationstatistics,(4) and (5),
[1959], Hirvonen [1962], Shaw et al. [1969],
are also given by Grafarend [19713].
Vyskocil [1970], and Kasper [1971] satisfy this
requirement, these models must be considered ANOMALY AND DEFLECTION MODELS FROM AN
physically unrealistic. For convenience, the ASSUMED UNDULATION MODEL
models proposed by these authors are noted
As mentionedin the previoussection,one can
below.
construct a theoretically valid gravity-disturb-
Exponential anomaly model [Kaula, 1959; ance model by starting from either the undula-
Shaw et al., 1969]' tion or the anomaly. If the anomaly servesas
the starting point, the associatedundulationacf
r)oo(r)= a•,.e-,/D (18) is given by (9); if the undulation servesas the
Ohio anomaly model [Hirvonen, 196,2]' starting point, the associatedanomaly acf is
given by (6). In either case,the appropriatede-
rkoo(r)
= {-o'/[1 + (r/D)']} (1O) flection autocorrelationfunctionsare given by
(4) and (5).
Besselanomaly model [Shaw et al., 1969]'
From a mathematicalpoint of view, it is
easierto begin with a proposedundulationacf.
 STATISTICAL MODELS FOR THE GEOID 3663

The correspondingdeflection correlation func- 0

tions can be determined by making use of (3), •,(x, y) - --O-•
•:v(x,y) (31)
to obtain

•:v•(x,
y)-- --•yy
•:wv(x,
y) (25a)
4w2 f•_• 2\1/2
O '•NN(•I, •2)e--i(•x+•2y)
•1 •2 (32)
•N,(x,y) - --•xx
•N•v(X,
y) (25b) The symmetryconditionsassociatedwith (27)-
(32) are (seethe appendix)
0•
•,(x,y)= --O•O••(x, y) (25c) •(x, y) = •(x, y) (33a•
O•
•(x, y) = -•(x, y) (•)
•e(x,y)= --Oye
•(x, y) (25d)
O•
•.•(x, y) = -•(y, x) (•3c)
•,,(x,y) = --O••(x, y) (25e) •.(x, y) = •(y, x) (•)
The calculation of these deflection correlation The sy•etry conditions(equations26 and
functionsis aided by reco•izing the following 33) greatly reducethe effo• necessary to de-
symmetryconditions(seethe appendix): te•ine all the deflectionand anomaly correla-
tion functions.In particular, only five correla-
•,(x, y) = •e(y, x) (26a) tion functions need tb be calculated expScitly,
for example,•, •, •, .•, and •. All the
•(x, y) = -•(x, y) (•) remainingcorrelationfunctionscanbe obtained
•.•(x, y) = -•(y, •) (•c) from theseby inspection.In spite of thesesim-
plifications,the calculationsinvolvedin (27)-
•.•(x, y) = •.(•, y) (•) (32) are vew tedious.As a checkof thesecal-
culations,it is advisableto determine • two
•..(x, y) = •(y, x) (2•e)
ways, from (27) and (29) and then (inde-
The anomalyacf can be determinedfrom (1) or pendently)from (30).
(6). It remainsto determinethe anomalycross-
correlationfunctions:•, •, •, From the SUMMARY OF FORMULAS•FORTI-IE SPECIALCASE
fiat-earth Stokes'sformula,it followsthat •.v oF AN IsoTgorIc U•DULATION MODEL
can be determined by means of Fourier trans-
forms (appendix) The formulaspresented in the last sectionare
valid for either an isotropicor a nonisotropic
1/2
undulationacf. In practice,an isotropicundula-
•(x, y)= • _ (• + •) tion acf is usually assumed.In this case,the
formulasgivenabovecanbe simplified,as shown
'•NN(•i, •2)e-i(•xx+•2y)
d•l •2 (27) below:

•(•1, •) •:ve(x,y) - -- (cos (34)

= m•(x, i(•xx+
y)e •2y)
dx dy (28) •e,(x, y) - -- sin 0 cos
-- (1/r)qb•N'
(r)] (35)
The remainingtwo correlationfunctionscan be
determinedfrom (3) and (27), •e•(x,y) = --(cose
0 -- sine (36)
•e(x,y)-- --O-•
•:v(x,
y) (29)
•(r) = •o ••(•):o(•r) (37)
•(x,y)=4w
ig__•o
2 ff©
1/2
ß•(•) = r•(r)Jo(wr) dr (38)
'•N•(w•,w2)e
-•(•+•2•) d(-o1
d(M2 (30)
3664 STANLEY K. JORDAN

Third-order Markov undulation model ß

•bo•(x,y) -- --(cos O)4•off(r) (39)

•o•(x, y) - go•o• 0 ••(•)S•½r) a• qbNN(r)

= aN21q-• q- e-'/D(46)
r

sin 0 = x/r cos0 = y/r (41)

As mentionedin the last section,the remaining
correlation functions can be determined from
(1) and the sy•etry conditions(26) and (33).
The appearanceof Hankel transformsin (37),
(38), and (40) is not surprising,sincethe two-
d•ensional Fourier transform of an isotropic
function can always be expressed as • one-
dimensionalHankel transform [Papoulk, 1968].
In passing,it shouldbe noted that if a pro-
posedund•ation acf is isotropic,the associated
anomaly acf is isotropic. The converseis also
4•oo(r)
= ao"1+ D- e-'/D (47)
Note that for small valuesof r, theseanomaly
modelsdosely resemble(18) and (22).
K•per [1971] has suggestedthat for an
anomalyaef to be physiea•y realistic,it shoed
be rounded (flat) at zero shift
•'(0 = 0 •t r = 0 (4s)
The roundedanomalyaef alsoagreesbetter with
calculationsbasedon gravimetrie data [Hirvo-
hen, 1962]. Equation 48 is violated by the see-
ond-orderMarkov undulationmodel (45) but is
satisfiedby the third-order Markov undulation
/

true' if a proposedanomalyacf is isotropic,the model (47). Consequently, the third-order

associatedundulationacf is isotropic.Of course Markov undulation model is preferable. The
the cross-correlation
• is Mso isotropicunder remaining correlation functions for this model
these circumstances. A• these conclusions follow
from (6).
r r
NEW GRAVITY-DISTURBANCE MODELS •(•,y) =•f (1+•-•co•2 )
Oe
A variety of undulation modelscan be deter-
•ned that w21 satisfy (14); for example,con- r

siderthe followingtwo models. 4•..(x,

y) -- a. 1+ D • sin"0
e-•m
Gaussian undulation model' (50)
2

•(r) = a• •e-"/•' (42) •e.(x,y) = a•a.

2 D r•e- sin20 (51)
Natural undulation model [Bellaire, 1971]'
2

•(r) = [1+ (?/D")]a/"(43)

The Gaussian undulation model is attractive
causeof its simpleanalytical form. The 'natural'
be- [
ß Io K•

r r
undulation model is so called becauseit is par-
ticularly easy to extrapolate aloft. Unfortu-
-- I• r Ko •- 4D•
nately, the time-domainversionsof these auto-
corrdation functionsare not expressiblein terms
of rando•y excited d•erential equations,and
ß[/O(•D)KO(•D)
q-
(52)
this property is often desirable(seethe ne• sec-
tion). The two followingundulation modelsand cos 0 (53)
their associatedanomalymodelsare more useful
4:,:re(x,
y)= x/3-• i q- e-r/z>
becausethey are expressiblein te•s of ran-
domly excitedd•erential equations. y)-- o-.o-N
•:v.(X, %/3•r(1-• •r)e-r/D
sin 0 (54)

Second-order Markov undulation model'

4o•(x,
y) - 3o'•o'_o
h(r)cos0 (55)
•(r) = •'[1 + (r/ D)]e-"" (44)
,.(r) = •o'[x - (r/2V)]e-"ø y) - 3•,•_o
•o.(x, h(r)sin0 (56)
 STATISTICAL MODELS FOR THE GEOm 3665
where It is interesting, and perhaps surprising, that
the cross-track deflection correlation distance is
abouttwiceas largeas the along-trackdeflection
correlationdistance(c./ca -- 2.146). The valid-
ity of this result can be checkedtwo ways. First,
the author has determinedthe ratio (c./cn) for
several alternative models; the ratio (c./cn)
for all sevenof the modelsconsideredwas always
in the range 1.96 < (c./ca) • 2.37. Second,
Grafarend [1971b] has verified from experi-
(57)
mental data that the ratio (c./cn) is approxi-
mately 2.
o-N tTa
- (5s) The relationshipsbetween the anomaly, de-
•re= a,- x/3D x/2go flection, and undulation rms values (equation
In these equations,L and K• are modified 58) also deservecomment.The relation between
Besselfunctionsof order v. The free parameters the anomaly and deflection rms values, rr• --
in the model are the rms value of the anomaly rr, = •r•/[(2)•/•go], is valid for all anomaly
•roand the characteristicdistanceD. modelsthat are statistically homogeneous and
The correlation distancesof the undulation, isotropic. However, the relation of these rms
anomaly, and deflectionsare frequenfiy of in- values to the undulation rms value is model-
terest. The correlation distance of a stationary dependent.For the third-order Markov undula-
randomprocessis definedas the shift distanceat tion model, we have
which the acf equals1/½ of its rms value, where
1/e = 0.3678 -... In order to definemeaningful (owgo/o¾c•)= 0.90 (62)
correlation distancesfor the deflections,it is Thus, if the anomaly rms value and correlation
convenientto expressthe deflectionsin cross- distanceare given by •ro = 100 mgal and co =
track and along-track components.The cross- 50 km, then the undulation rms value is given
track deflection acf can be defined as
by ½rs= 4.59 meters. At present, insufficient
• (r) = cross-trackdeflectionacf data are available to adequately validate (62).
•(r) = •(x, y) for y= 0 As a preliminary check, the author has deter-
•(r) = •,,(x,y) for x= 0 (59) mined the ratio in (6.2) for three other undula-
tion models. The range of values obtained is
Similarly, the along-trackdeflectionacf may be 0.76 • rr•go/(•roco)• 1.13. Thus (62) is reason-
defined as ably consistentwith other possiblemodels.The
readershouldkeep in mind that sincefiat-earth
• • 9(r) = along-trackdeflectionacf
theory is usedthroughoutthis paper, the undu-
4,•(r)- 4,ee(x, y) for
4•• •(r) = 4•,•(x, y) for
x - 0 (60) lation rms value given above (4.59 meters) rep-
y= 0
resentsonly local (short wavelength) variations
For the third-order Markov undulation model, in the undulation. Global (long wavelength)
the correlation distances for the various auto- variationsin the undulationare typically much
correlation functions are related to the charac- larger.
teristicdistanceD by Figure I showsa comparisonof the anomaly
autocorrelationfunctions that are appropriate
c• = 2.905 D = undulation correlation
distance
for the second-orderMarkov anomaly model
[Kasper, 1971] and the second-and third-order
co = 1.361 D = anomalycorrelationdistance
Markovundulation
models.
In each'case,the
characteristic distance is selected to make the
(61)
anomalycorrelationdistanceunity.
c• = 2.146 D = cross-track deflection
correlation distance Second-orderMarkov anomalymodel:
c • = D = •1ong-trackdeflectioncorrelation
distance 1/D = 2.146 (63a)
3666 STANLEY K. JObmAN

1.0

ANOMALY ACF
0.8

0.6

0.4

SECOND-ORDER MARKOV ANOMALY

0,2
SECOND-ORDER MARKOV
UNDULATION

THIRD-ORDER MARKOV UNDULATION

--0.2 I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10
NORMALIZED SHIFT DISTANCE, r!c g

Fig. 1. Normalizedgravity-anomalyautocorrelation functions.The three curvescorrespond

to (22), (45), and (47).

Second-order Markov undulation model: i•EPRESENTATIONOF THE DEFLECTION AND

UNDULATION PROCESSES BY i•ANDOMLY
1/D = 0.6252 (635) EXCITEDDIFFERENTIALEQUATIONS

Third-order Markov undulation model: There are two motivationsfor choosing

1/D = 1.361 (63c) be expressed
Note that both the second-order and third-order
Markov undulation models dip slightly below
the r axis,so that (17) is satisfied.
The second- and third-order Markov undula-
tion models have also been comparedwith the
Kasper model by computingthe steady-state,
rms navigationerrorsthat are excitedby these
modelsin a speed-damped inertial navigation
•ystem. The rms positionand velocity errors
that correspondto the new modelsagreeclosely
with the positionandvelocityerrorsdetermined
by Kasper [1971].
anom-
aly, deflection,and undulation modelsthat can
as a set of stationary,linear,ordi-
nary differential equationsexcited by white
noise.First, in analysisof the errors in inertial
navigation systems,such modelsare convenient
becausethey lead to a simplecovariancematrix
differentialequation [Levine and Gelb, 1969].
Second,Kalman filtering techniquesare some-
times used to optimally processgeodeticmeas-
urements,and these techniquesusually require
modelsthat are expressibleas differentialequa-
tions excited by white noise [Bradley, 1970;
Roseand Nash, 1972].
Considerthe caseof a vehiclethat is moving
along a straight line at constant altitude and
 STATISTICAL 1V[ODELSFOR THE GEOID 3667

constant speed ¾. The time-domain deflection The covariancesabsentfrom (66), for example,
and undulation correlation functions are ob- E[z•(t)z3(t)], are all zero.
tainedby makingthe replacement
r -o ¾1tlin Of course, a set of differential equations
the space-domaincorrelationfunctions.For the driven by white noise can also be determined
third-order Markov undulation model, the re- that will generatea random processwith the
sulting time-domain correlation functions are desiredanomalyautocorrelationfunction (47).
givenby However, becauseof the Besselfunctionsthat
appear in (52) and (57), it is not possibleto
4•wv(t)= a•v2(1
-Jr-
fl It[-Jr-•2t•3)e-•'t' (64a) find a set of linear differential equations that
4•(t) = a•"1 + fl {tl)e -•'t' (64b) will generatea random processwith the de-
• •2
4aa(t) a (1 + • It[ __ •2 tae-•'t• (64c) sired anomaly-undulation
and anomaly-deflec-
tion cross-correlationfunctions. Nevertheless, a
,•(t) = [(ana•)/(•3)](1+ • [t[)•te set of equationscan be found that will generate
a randomprocess with correlationfunctionsthat
are approximatelyequalto the desiredcorrela-
wherefl = V/D. The t•e-domain deflection tion functions(equations52, 55, and 56).
processes with these correlationfunctionscan be COMPARISONOF TI-IE CROSS-CORRELATION
representedby the solution to the following FUNCTIONS
randomly excited differential equations if the
identificationsß = z•, 9 = 2•, and N = -- Vz• are The cross-correlationbetween any two ran-
made, domprocessesis a measureof the information
about each processthat is containedin the
• + •z• = •(t) (65a) other. Thus, the cross-correlations
amongthe
•. + •z• = z• anomaly,deflections, and undulationare very
important,sincetheypermitoneto estimateany
• + •z• = •.(t) (65c)
one of these quantitiesfrom another [Kaula,
• + •z• = z• (65a) 1966].In fact, the cross-correlations
canbe used
• + •z• = z• (C•e) to optimally mix anomaly,deflection,and un-
dulation data in order to obtain consistentesti-
where dots indicate differentiation with respect mates of all four quantities.
to time. That is, the solutionto theseequations In order to comparethe various cross-corre-
producesrandomprocesses ,I•, 9, and N having lations,it is convenient to normalizethem and
the correlation properties presented in (64). removethe azimuthalvariations,as shownbe-
The white noiseinputs m_and u• are independent low.
and have spectraldensities4•3(• and 16•'(•.
The initial conditionsfor these differential equa- Deflection-deflection'
tions are zero-mean random variables with the
followingcovariances. [4•,x, y)/(--a•a•sin 20)] (67a)
Undulation-anomaly:
E[z•(t)zx(t)]= 2•a. 2
E[z•(t)z2(t)]= /•a.2 (66a) [rkN•
(r)/ago¾
] (67b)
E[z2(t)z2(t)
] = o',r' Undulation-deflection'

E[za(t)za(t)
] = 81•%'• [4•N•(x,
y)/aga• cos0] (67c)
E[za(t)z4(t)
] = 41•a• Anomaly-deflection:
E[za(t)zs(t)] = 2a•
•[z, (t)z,(t)] = 4• •'
(66b) q•(x,y) (67d)
3ff92 (raft• COS0
E[z4(t)zs(t)]-'
l• These four quantitiesare comparedin Figure 2
3o-92 for the third-order Markov undulation model.
•[z•(t)z•(t)]
- • Note that the undulation-anomaly
correlationis
3668 STANLEYI•. JORDAN

z 1'ø
o i
•-- O.8-
z ANOMALY-DEFLECTION
UNDULATION - ANOMALY

z
UNDULATION- DEFLECTION
O
• 0.4

o 0.2
I

,• 0
0
DEFLECTION - DEFLECTION

•-0.2
N

"• -0.4

0-0.6I
Z

I I I I I ! I I I I
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
NORMALIZED SHIFT DISTANCE,r/c g

Fig. 2. Normalized cross-correlation functions for the third-order Markov undulation model.
The four curves correspondto (67).

the largest amongthe four and the deflection- conditions' serve as constraints in the selection
deflection correlation is the smallest. Figure 2 of a physicallyreasonablegravity-disturbance
also reveals the rates at which information de- model.Four new gravity-disturbancemodelsare
caysas the shift distanceis increased.Note that examined.The most appealingof theseis the
for small shift distancesthe anomaly provides third-order Markov undulation model. This
better information concerningthe undulation model is both convenientand appropriatefor
than does the deflection,but this situation re- the analysisof the errors in inertial navigation
verses at larger shift distances.Figure 2 also systemsthat are causedby gravity uncertainties.
indicates that the information contained in the In addition, this model is suitablefor usein the
cross-correlationsis negligiblebeyond a normal- optimalprediction,filtering,and smoothing algo-
ized shift distanceof about 5, so that little is rithms developedby Kalman [1960] and others.
gained by includingremote data.
APPENDIX
SUM MARY
Symmetry conditions. The fiat-earth Stokes's
The statistical modelsfor local gravity anom- formula (A1) was used by Shaw e't al. [1969]
alies that have been proposedby Shaw et al. to derive the fiat-earth Vening-Meineszformu-
[1969'] and Kasp'er [1971] do not lead to las.
reasonable undulation autocorrelation functions.
It has been shown that if the anomaly acf is 1
statistically homogeneousand isotropic, then N(x,y)- 2•go
(17) is necessaryfor the undulationacf to be
bounded,and (14) is necessaryfor the anomaly
acf to be boundedand nonzero.These 'necessary ' ff;•,[(x -- g(u, v)(y
u)•'-]- dudv
-- v)•']
(A1)
 STATISTICALMODELS FOR TI-IE GEOIO 3669

This equationmay be viewedas a linear system qbN•(x,

y) = •v,(Y, x)
with the anomalyas the input and the undula-
tion as the output. The impulse-responseand = --qb•r(x,y) = --•,•v(Y, x) (A10)
frequency-responsefunctionsare
•,(x, y) = •,•(x, y) (All)
1 and
l(x,y)-- 2•rgo(x
2+ y2)•/• (A2)
and
•,,(x, y) = •b•(y, x) (A12)
The remainingsymmetry conditions(equations
33b, 33c, and 33d) follow from (3) and (AS).
Acknowledgments. This paper is basedon work
done at The Analytic SciencesCorporation, Read-
1 ing, Massachusetts,under contract N00178-70-C-
- g0(?+ 0200 for the Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahl-
gren, Virginia. Discussionswith Drs. R. G. Bellaire
From the theory of linear systems [Papoulis, and J. F. Kasper, Jr., were helpful, and this
1968] it followsthat the power spectral density assistanceis gratefully acknowledged.
and cross-power spectraldensitiesof the undula- REFERENCES
tion are given by
Bellaire, R. G., Statistics of the geodetic uncer-
tainties aloft, paper presentedat the fall meet-
ing, A GU, San Francisco,Calif., Dec. 1971.
Bradley, C. L., Identification of vertical deflec-
- tions utilizing an inertial navigator and opti-
mum data processing,paper presented at Sym-
posium on Dynamic Gravimetry, Fort Worth,
Tex., March 1970.
--
Carrier,G. F., M. KrooklandC. F,,.Pearson,
and Functions of a Complex Variable, 438 pp.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1966.
(I).y•(O.)l,
(02)= (I)gg(O)l,
0)2)F*(•i, •2) (A6) Grafarend, E., A combined gravimetric-astrogeo-
detic method for telluroid and vertical deflec-
where• is the anomalypowerspectraldensity tion analysis, paper presented at the 15th Gen-
eral Assembly, Int. Union of Geod. and Geo-
phys., Moscow, Aug. 1971a.
Grafarend, E., Korrelationsl•ngen yon Schwerean-
omalien und Lotabweichungen, Z. Vermessung.,
=fff y)e
'(•+•)dx
dy(A7)Heiskanen,W. A., and H. Moritz, Physical Geo-
96, 132-138, 1971b.

and an asterisk (•) denotescomplexconjugate. desy, 364 pp., W. H. Freeman, San Francisco,
From (A3), (A5), and (A6), it follows that Calif., 1967.
ß • and • are equal,hencetheir inversetrans- Henrikson, P., and R. A. Nash, Jr., A statistical
analysis of errors in gravimetrically computed
forms are alsoequal vertical deflections,J. Geophys. Res., 75, 4017-
4028, 1970.
•(x, y) = •(x, y) (AS) Hirschorn, R. M., Rotation invariant probability
distributions in geodesy, Rep. TE-41, MIT
Equation27 followsfrom (A3), (A4), and (AS) Meas. Syst. Lab., Cambridge, Mass., June 1970.
and the •version theorem for Fourier trans- Hirvonen, R., On the statistical analysisof gravity
fo•s anomalies, Publ. 37, Isostatic Inst. Int. Ass.
Geod., Helsinki, 1962.
1 Kalman, R. E., A new approach to linear filtering
and prediction problems,J. Basic Eng., $er. D,
y) = 82, 35-45, 1960.
Kasper, J. F., Jr., A second-orderMarkov gravity

ßff:,,,
•o•v(co•,
w,)e
-'(ø'•z+ø"v)
d•ldw,
(A9) anomaly model, J. Geophys. Res., 76, 7844-
7849, 1971.
Kaula, W. M., Accuracyof gravimetrically com-
Equation A8 is one of the desiredsymmetry puted deflectionsof the vertical, Eos Trans.
conditions.From (3) it can be shownthat A GU, 38, 297-305, 1957.
3670 STANLEY K. JORDAN

Kaula, W. M., Statistical and harmonic analysis Nash, R. A., Jr., The estimation and control of
of gravity, J. Geophys.Res., 66, 2401-2421,1959'.
Kaula, W. M., Determination of the earth's gravi-
tational field, Rev. Geo,phys. Space Phys., 1,
507-551, 1963.
Kaula, W. M., Global harmonic and statistical
analysis of gravimetry, in Gravity Anomalies'
Unsurveyed Areas, Geophys. Monogr. Set., vol.
9, edited by I-I. Odin, pp. 58-67, AGU, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1966.
Krarup, T., A contribution to the mathematical
foundation of physical geodesy, Publ. 44, Dan.
Geod. Inst., Copenhagen, Denmark, 1969.
Levine, S. A., and A. Gelb, Effect of deflections
of the vertical on the performance of a terres-
trim inertial navigation system, J. Spacecr.
Rockets, 6, 978-984, 1969.
Meissl, P., A study of covariance functions related
to the earth's disturbing potential, Rep. 151,
Dep. of Geod.Sci., Ohio State Univ., Columbus,
Ohio, 1971.
Moritz, I-I., Least-squaresestimation in physical
geodesy,Rep. 130, Dep. of Geod. Sci., Ohio
State Univ., Columbus, Ohio, 1970.
terrestrial inertial navigation system errors due
to vertical deflections, IEEE Trans. Automat.
Contr., 13, 329-338, 1968.
Papoulis, A., Probability, Random Variables and
Stoc.hasticProcesses, 583pp., McGraw-Hill,New
York, 1965.
Papoulis,A., Systemsand Transformswith Appli-
cationsin Optics,474 pp., McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1968.
Rose,R. C., and R. A. Nash,Jr., Direct recovery
of vertical deflectionsusing an inertial navi-
gator,IEEE Trans.Geosci.Electron.GE-10(2),
April 1972.
Shaw, L., I. Paul, and P. Henrikson, Statistical
models for the vertical deflectionfrom gravity-
anomaly models, J. Geophys. Res., 74, 4259-
4265, 1969.
Vyskocil, V., On the covariance and structure
functionsof the anomalousgravity field, Stud.
Geophys.Geod.,14, 174-177,1970.
(ReceivedNovember27, 1971;
revised April 10, 1972.)