Multi-Scenario Evaluation of the Direct Method in Strapdown Airborne and Shipborne Gravimetry

Abstract

AbstractIn recent years, it was shown that the quality of strapdown airborne gravimetry using a navigation-grade strapdown inertial measurement unit (IMU) could be on par with “classical” airborne gravimeters as the 2-axis stabilized LaCoste and Romberg S-type gravimeter. Basically, two processing approaches exist in strapdown gravimetry. Applying the indirect method (also referred to as “inertial navigation approach” or “one-step approach”), all observations – raw GNSS observations or position solutions, IMU specific force and angular rate measurements – are combined in a single Kalman Filter. Alternatively, applying the direct method (also referred to as “accelerometry approach” or “cascaded approach”), GNSS position solutions are numerically differentiated twice to get the vehicle’s kinematic acceleration, which is then directly removed from the IMU specific force measurement in order to obtain gravity. In the scope of this paper, test runs for the application of strapdown airborne and shipborne gravimetry are evaluated using an iMAR iNAV-RQH-1003 IMU. Results of the direct and the indirect methods are compared to each other. Additionally, a short introduction to the processing scheme of the Chekan-AM gravimeter data is given and differences between Chekan-AM and strapdown results of the shipborne campaigns are analysed. Using the same data set, the cross-over residuals suggest a similar accuracy of 0.39 mGal for the Chekan-AM and 0.41 mGal for the adjusted strapdown results (direct method).