ijg International Journal of Geosciences 2156-8367 2156-8359 Scientific Research Publishing 10.4236/ijg.2026.171004 ijg-149221 Article Earth Environmental Sciences The Status of the Gravimetric Geoid across Nigeria Jackson Kurotamuno Peace 1 Hart Lawrence 1 Department of Surveying and Geomatics, Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

 14 01 2026 01 2026 17 01 49 65 23 12 2025 26 01 2026 29 01 2026 © 2026 by the authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 2026 This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2026.171004

Orthometric heights are obtained by Spirit leveling; however, this approach is not only slow but is also costly and time-consuming. Therefore, the uncertainties in the accuracy of geoid height models have hampered the use of GNSS heightening as an alternative method of determining Orthometric heights across Nigeria. This study was aimed at appraising the status of the geoid model in Nigeria based on gravity measurements, applying the remove-compute-restore (r-c-r) approach through the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) tool. The GRAVSOFT tool was used in evaluating the residual height anomalies and terrain effects resulting from the residual terrain model (RTM). The residual height anomalies, (ζres) were computed by applying the modified Molodenskii Integral tampered 100% zero padding so as to overcome cyclic effects. The residual height anomalies were converted to geoid undulation by adding the ζ-to-N correction. The study revealed that, the difference between the height anomaly (ζ) and the geoid height (N) is about 24 cm and the geoid values across Nigeria range between 13.738 m and 26.052 m. There is a tilt of the geoid from the South-west to North-west part of the country. The gravimetric geoid is accurate to ±41 cm rmse when compared with the geometric geoid while the surface fitting revealed that the hybrid-geoid is accurate to ±3 cm rmse.

 Fast Fourier Transform Gravimetric Geoid Height Anomalies Hybrid-Geoid Residual Terrain Model 1. Introduction

The quest for an improved local geoid for Nigeria has been on for some time now. Geoid determination or modeling is one of the essential problems in geodesy. A key aim of physical geodesy is the determination of the geoid with accuracy at the centimeter (cm) level, matching the accuracy of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) height determination. The combination of an accurate geoid model with GNSS coordinates plays a central part in achieving timely, high accuracy leveling results, mostly over long distances, unlike Spirit leveling, which is tedious, costly, and time-consuming. However, the up-to-date accuracy of global geoid modeling is a few decimeters to meters, which is not adequate for many scientific and engineering applications. Thus, there is a need to model the geoid locally.

The geoid heights, when compared to the ellipsoidal heights from GNSS, can result in orthometric heights accurate to those delivered by spiriting leveling. For practical purposes, most countries have established an officially fitted geoid model corresponding to the height system(s) in use. Such a national model can be used for height system unification, scientific purposes, and other regional tasks, but also as a national reference surface. One of the primary practical applications of geoid height (N) in surveying is to transform GNSS-derived ellipsoidal heights (h) to orthometric heights (H) as argued [1] using the simple algebraic relation as shown in Eq. 1:

H = h − N

However, there is no officially published geoid model in Nigeria for engineering and related applications. More so today, local modeling of the geoid, amongst other things, facilitates the connection between land datum and sea datum; this has been implemented in most developed countries with the terminologies such as Vdatum (Canada and US) and Vertical Offshore Reference Frame (VORF) in Great Britain, Ireland, and Northern Ireland [2]. It becomes very pertinent to emphasize the necessity for the determination of an acceptable geoid model for Nigeria, which will help and drive proper integration and effective use of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) over Nigeria for GNSS heightening. The geoid is evaluated using different methods such as geometric/leveling, astro-gravimetric, satellite, gravimetric, and a combination of any of the above methods. Each of these approaches has its peculiar strengths and weaknesses.

Thus, high-resolution regional/local models are still required for most practical purposes. There are many different methods proposed over the years for global, regional, and local geoid evaluation by gravimetric data, each with its own procedure, concepts, and philosophy. In addition, today all of these techniques integrate long-wavelength Global Geopotential Models (GGMs) with a combination of local terrestrial and airborne gravity data. However, they differ purely in the way they join these data sets.

There are different approaches to gravimetric geoid modeling such as Least Squares Collocation (LSC), Least Squares Modification of Stokes Integral with Additive Corrections, Remove-Compute-Restore (R-C-R) approach using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) Technique, etc., each based on its philosophy, weaknesses, and strengths. In the gravimetric approach to geoid modeling, the geoid is modeled using the Stokes integral after gravity reduction as shown in Eq. 2 [3].

N = R 4 π γ 0 ∬ σ Δ g S ( ψ ) d σ

where: N : The Geoid height, γ 0 : Normal gravity, Δ g : Gravity anomaly, and S ( ψ ) : Stokes kernel. The Stokes integral has two conditions that must be satisfied for the results to be true. Firstly, as the solution to the geodetic boundary-value problem (BVP), the Stokes integral requires the gravity anomalies to represent the boundary values on the geoid. That is, it must be referred to the geoid.

Secondly, there must be no masses present outside the geoid, making sure that 𝑔 on the geoid truly is the boundary surface, as the BVP’s used in physical geodesy are the solution to Laplace’s Equation, and Δ𝑉 ≠ 0 if masses exist above surface 𝑆 as opined by [3]. The gravity on the geoid and the gravity on the reference ellipsoid must be well-defined, such that there are no masses present above the geoid, to satisfy the requirements of the boundary value problems. Since gravity cannot be measured on the geoid, gravity observed on or above the Earth’s surface must be reduced to the geoid.

Even when gravity is measured at the geoid, all the mass on Earth above the geoid would have to be removed. This modifies the mass distribution of the Earth, making it difficult to define the actual geoid. The second condition of the Stokes integral; is overcome by applying the theory of Molodenskii. The terrain replaces the geoid as the boundary surface, and the result of the Stokes integral is the quasi-geoid instead of the geoid. While the quasi-geoid is approximately equivalent to the geoid in terms of shape, unlike the geoid, it has no physical meaning and is merely a mathematical surface of convenience [4]. In the remove-compute-restore (R-C-R) approach, as posited by [1], the long, medium, and short wavelength components are derived from global geopotential models, terrestrial gravity, and Digital Terrain Models (DTM). This approach adopts the procedure of computing the gravity anomalies and then the geoid model, taking into account the integration of the different wavelengths mentioned earlier.

The study is aimed at appraising the status of the geoid in Nigeria with the following objectives:

1) Compute the residual gravity anomaly ( Δ g R E S ) from terrestrial gravity, including residual terrain models for the remove and restore effects,

2) Compute residual height anomalies from Molodenskii integral based on the FFT model and sum the resulting different effects to obtain height anomalies and also convert the height anomalies to classical geoid values so as to generate the regular geoid grid file based on FFT model,

3) Compare the gravimetric and geometric geoid and tailor the geoid file to the GNSS/leveling data using a seven-parameter model.

 2. Data and Methods 2.1. Data Used for Research

The data used for this research are terrestrial gravity data, digital terrain model (DTM), and GNSS/leveling and were obtained from different sources. The terrestrial gravity dataset was obtained from Bureau Gravimetrique International [5] as shown inTable 1. These data were contributed by different organizations and individuals either for oil prospecting or for the development of a gravity geoid for the country, however, the data were domiciled at Bureau Gravimetrique International (BGI), and the fill-in gravity data were obtained from the International Centre for Global Earth Models [6]. The gravity field information received contains the absolute gravity value (g), free-air anomaly, bouguer anomaly and the height of the gravity stations. Statistically, more than ninety-five (95) percent of the gravity field information received contains this information.

Table 1. Statistics of gravity and anomalies data used for the research.

Types Counts Max. (mGal) Min. (mGal) Mean (mGal) Std. Dev. Remarks
Gravity 4,234 978203.44 977907.71 978057.46 36.16 BGI
Free-Air Anomaly 4,234 71.406 −70.960 −1.910 24.652 GRS80
Bouguer Anomaly 4,234 55.970 −85.260 −16.983 22.306 GRS80
Fill-in Dataset
Gravity 8,167 978286.21 977692.60 978073.84 128.22 EGM08
Free-Air Anomaly 8,167 72.60 −70.96 3.59 21.11 GRS80
Bouguer Anomaly 8,167 19.80 −105.05 −44.00 22.00 GRS80

Therefore, it was easier to evaluate the inner consistency between the information in the data given such as the height, free-air anomaly and the Bouguer anomaly, and to identify which normal gravity formula has been used (i.e. GRS67 or GRS80). Absence of internal consistency between constituents of a data record is a clear indication of erroneous gravity data. As it is most often not clear which constituent of a data record is erroneous, the internally non-consistent records could not be repaired and were therefore simply eliminated from the dataset. Nearly, five percent of data points were removed from the dataset, and it was discovered that the GRS67 ellipsoid was used in the computation, which was subsequently converted to align with the global ellipsoid GRS80.

The digital terrain model (DTM) sourced from ALOS Global Digital Surface Model “ALOS World 3D-30 m (AW3D30)” as reported by [7]. The SELECT subroutine was used to re-sample the DTM by low-pass filtering employing a moving average to create the detailed, coarse and reference grids. The data sets used for this study are shown pictorially in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Datasets used for this study.

 2.2. Methodology

The remove-compute-restore (R-C-R) method was used in this study. According to [1], this method takes into consideration the geoid’s long, medium, and short wavelength components, which are obtained via Digital Terrain Models (DTM), terrestrial gravity, and global geopotential models. This method uses the previously described process of calculating the gravity anomalies and subsequently the geoid model, while accounting for the integration of the various wavelengths. Four main processes are involved in modeling the gravimetric geoid and fitting it to the geometric geoid model: i.e., removal, prediction, restoration, and tailoring/fitting.

2.2.1. Gravity Anomalies from Gravity Data

There are different methods proposed over the years for gravimetric geoid modeling. These methods depend on the approach of gravity reduction such as simple or complete Bouguer anomalies, Faye anomalies and free-air anomalies etc. The methods of the treatment of the topographic masses are distinguished amongst the various techniques of gravity anomalies. In this study the basic free-air anomalies were first employed in the preliminary stage. Nevertheless, the Bouguer anomalies were employed in the conversion of the height anomalies (ζ) to the classical geoid (N). The estimates Bouguer, Δ g B , and simple Free air, Δ g F A anomalies are given in Eqs. (3) and (5).

Δ g F A = g + δ y A − γ 0 + 0.3086 H

where: g : The observed terrestrial gravity., δ y A : The atmospheric correction after [8], γ 0 : The normal gravity of a point on the ellipsoid (GRS80), 0.3086 H : The simple Free-air gradient multiplied by the height of the gravity station above the geoid.

And the normal gravity ( γ 0 ) was evaluated numerically after Somigliana as:

γ 0 = γ a 1 + k sin 2 φ ( 1 − e 2 sin 2 φ ) 1 / 2     wit h   k = b γ b a γ a − 1

Where: γ 0 : The normal gravity on the ellipsoid at a point φ , γ a : The normal gravity at the pole, γ b : The normal gravity at the equator, a , b : The semi-major and minor axes of the reference ellipsoid. The simple Bouguer anomalies were computed using Eq. (5):

Δ g B = g − A B + F − γ 0 = g − 0.1119 H + F − γ 0

where: Δ g B : The simple Bouguer anomaly, g : Observed gravity, 0.1119 H : The Bouguer plate correction multiple by the height of the gravity station, F : Normal vertical gravity gradient = 0.3086H, γ 0 : Normal gravity of a point on the ellipsoid (GRS80).

2.2.2. Evaluation of the Gravity Anomaly and Height Anomaly from Harmonic Coefficients

Global geopotential models (GGM) represent the solution of the boundary value problem for the global approach. In regional gravity field modelling, GGMs are used for computation of global, long-wavelength, contributions of different functionals such as the height anomaly ζ using [9]:

ζ ( φ , λ , r ) = G M r γ ∑ n − 2 n max   ∑ m = 0 n ( C ¯ n m cos m λ + S ¯ n m cos m λ ) P ¯ n m ( sin φ )

where: C ¯ n m and S ¯ n m are the fully normalized geopotential coefficients of the anomalous potential, P ¯ n m are the normalized Legendre functions, n max is the maximum degree of expansion. r = R + H . R is the mean radius of the Earth and H the height of the evaluation point. Gravity anomalies are computed using the equation:

Δ g G G M ( φ , λ , r ) = G M r 2 ∑ n − 2 n max ( n − 1 ) ∑ m = 0 n ( C ¯ n m cos m λ + S ¯ n m cos m λ ) P ¯ n m ( sin φ )

The Geoid Undulation N is obtained by:

N G G M ( φ , λ ) = T − 2 π G ρ H 2 γ

In a similar manner the height anomaly is obtained as:

ζ G G M = T − Δ g G G M H γ

Where: H is the height of the evaluation points. In this research EGM 2008 was used as reference to a maximum degree of 2190.

2.2.3. Evaluation of “Remove” Terrain Effects

The RTM approach was chosen for the computation of the terrain effects because it yields an optimal result and the residual gravity anomaly and indirect effect are smaller and smoother than with other methods, according to analysis done by various scholars in geoid modeling [10]. Additionally, it demonstrates that RTM reduction is one of the most accurate methods of gravity reduction in gravimetric geoid computation. In this study, the Residual Terrain Model (RTM) was used to compute the terrain effects by prism integration. One of the most used mass reduction techniques, mostly for quasi-geoid determination, is the RTM. This approach eliminates the topography’s input and replaces it with an equivalent topography model.

As a result, masses fill up the gaps below the reference surface and the topographic masses above it are eliminated. The fine (detailed) resolution topography grid was averaged, and the average grid created by taking 9’ × 9’ moving averages over the coarse 3’ × 3’ mean height grid was then low pass filtered to create the reference surface. Geoid terrain impacts by prism integration were calculated using the FFT approach. In practice, the coarse topographic grid is utilized for the entire topography of the area being evaluated, while the detailed topographic grid is utilized up to a certain distance [11]. The resolution of the available detailed DTM determines the inner zone’s radius. A grid with a lesser resolution can be utilized for points outside of this inner region.

This approach is fully implemented in the GRAVSOFT software, particularly inside the TCFOUR program [11] and [13], which is frequently used in applications of gravity field modeling. Considering the coarse/detailed grid system speeds up computation. Using this program, a bicubic spline interpolation approach is used to further densify the topographic data in a small inner zone surrounding the computation point. This allows for the integration of the inner zone’s frequently significant effects [11]. The RTM terrain was directly evaluated by the TCFOUR program by Fourier (FFT) method.

Following [12] the topographic effect on gravity of the RTM reduction is computed using Eq. (10):

Δ g RTM = G ρ ∫ ∞ ∫ − ∞ ∫ z = h r e f ( x , y ) z = h ( x , y ) z − h p [ ( x Q − x P ) 2 + ( y Q − y P ) 2 + ( z Q − h P ) 2 ] 3 / 2 d x Q d y Q d z Q

2.2.4. Evaluation of “Restore” Terrain Effects

The restore step follows after residual quasi-geoid ζ Δ g has been obtained in the compute step. The GGM and RTM contributions on the height anomalies ζ G G M and ζ R T M are computed using the same input parameters that were used in the remove step for computation of Δ g G G M and Δ g R T M contributions on gravity anomalies. The height anomaly, ζ G G M from the GGM and height anomaly, ζ R T M from the DTM are then added to the computed residual quasi-geoid ζ r e s . The RTM terrain effects on the quasi-geoid is evaluated using Eq. (10) but evaluated in Eq. (11) by FFT, here reproduced in short form:

ζ r e s t o r e = ζ R T M = G ρ γ ∫ h r e f h 1 r d x d y d z r = [ ( x P − x ) 2 + ( y P − y ) 2 + ( H P − z ) 2 ] 1 / 2

2.2.5. Evaluation of Reference Fields from the Topography

The evaluation of the terrain effects, especially by the RTM approach, required coarse, detailed and a reference grid. The purpose of the reference grid is to provide optimal smoothing of the geoid effects. Thus, a reference grid height around 100km resolution was computed using the TCGRID subroutine. The TCGRID does two operations: it first makes an average grid and then filters the average grid with a moving average operator. The topography reference field was evaluated using TCGRID module in the GRAVSOFT program.

2.2.6. Evaluation of Reduced Gravity Values

The compute step, which determines the residual gravity field by subtracting the global and local gravity effects, comes after the remove step in the gravimetric geoid evaluation using the R-C-R approach. The computation stage uses residual gravity field data as input. The data are often gravity anomalies. Since there are multiple topographic reduction techniques available, there are various variations of the R-C-R methodology. Gridding can be done either before or after the removal step, and the input data can be either Faye or RTM anomalies.

The reduced gravity values were obtained using the following steps:

1) Start from the observations on the Earth’s surface Δ g F A .

2) Compute long-wavelength contribution to the gravity Δ g G G M .

3) Compute RTM terrain effects on gravity Δ g t e r r . e f f e c t s = Δ g R T M .

4) Obtain residual gravity anomalies Δ g R E S = Δ g F A − Δ g G G M − Δ g R T M .

5) Interpolate (grid) residual gravity anomalies Δ g R E S .

2.2.7. Evaluation of the Modified Stokes/Molodenskii Integral

In Stokes integration, each gravity anomaly Δg from the grid within the integration radius is multiplied with the Stokes function S ψ . Stoke’s function can be computed spectrally using Legendre polynomial series or analytically by closed expressions. The spectral Stokes’ function was employed in this research as shown as given in Eq. (12):

Spectral : S ( ψ ) = ∑ n = 2 ∞ 2 n + 1 n − 1 P n cos ( ψ )

However, the continuous integration of gravity anomalies across the entire sphere should be used to evaluate Stokes’ integral; yet, these values are not available for integration over the entire sphere, particularly in regional gravity field modeling. Because of this, the integration can only be done inside the spherically defined area ( σ 0 ) and not over the entire sphere (σ). Since local gravity data are known to contain errors in long wavelengths, information is thus lost in the remote zone where data are not integrated ( σ − σ 0 ), resulting in long wavelength truncation errors. Long wavelength inaccuracies from gravity measurements therefore spread into the geoid under evaluation.

Molodenskii demonstrated that the modified Stokes’ kernel function, which integrates the long wavelength contribution in the form of low-degree coefficients (up to degree L) from satellite-derived GGMs and terrestrial gravity data, may minimize the truncation error of the remote zone. The Stokes kernel function is altered in this study in accordance with [14]. The low degree Legendre polynomials are eliminated from the unaltered Stokes’ function by the Wong and Gore modification. The height anomaly ( ζ ), is evaluated as given in Eq. (13):

ζ r e s = R 4 π γ ∬ σ ( Δ g r e s + G 1 ) S ( ψ ) d σ G 1 = R 2 2 π ∬ ( H − H P ) l 0 3 Δ g d σ

The quasi-geoid is derived by summing the effects from the different gravity field as shown in Eq. 14:

ζ = ζ r e s + ζ R T M + ζ G G M

The quasi-geoid is converted to the classical geoid using the relation in Eq. 15:

N = ζ − Δ g B H γ

where H P : The evaluation point and H being the reference point.

 3. Results and Discussion

The statistical results of the residual gravity anomaly, residual terrain effects are given on Table 2.

Table 2. Statistics of the RTM terrain effects (Remove effects).

Gravity Field/Unit: mGal Max. Min. Mean Std. Dev. Remarks
Δ g F A 72.599 −70.960 3.592 21.111 1
Δ g G G M 58.292 −61.591 6.963 17.326 2
Δ g F A − Δ g G G M 71.245 −92.356 −2.190 14.719 3
Δ g R T M 140.445 −154.540 −0.079 9.971 4
Δ g F A − Δ g G G M − Δ g R T M 131.766 −92.318 −0.851 14.243 5
RTM ζ R T M 1.999 −0.485 0.033 0.173 7
RTM Geoid Effects ζ R T M (Niger Republic) 1.473 −0.306 −0.014 0.069 8

The RTM impacts should have a mean value and standard deviation that are nearly zero, according to the statistics in Table 2. The RTM effects on the geoid in this study are smooth because, as Table 2 illustrates, the mean value is close to zero. The acquired results are in line with the expected RTM anomalous property, which has a small indirect influence and the smallest power at short wavelengths. Furthermore, using the same methodology, [15] findings from the neighboring Niger Republic produced results that were similar to those shown in Table 2.

Additionally, it is preferable that the remaining gravity field quantity following the remove step be smooth and free of outliers or systematic biases in the data before gridding. The residual gravity anomalies are smooth, according to the data in Table 2, and they are consistent with readings from neighboring countries that used the same methodology.

The results of the residual gravity anomaly Δ g R E S was gridded to a 3′ x 3′ grid using GEOGRID subroutine and this was input into the SPFOUR (GRAVSOFT) for the evaluation of the residual height anomaly ζ R E S after Molodenskii modified after Wong-Gore kernel modification. The statistic of the output is shown on Table 3.

Table 3. Procedure and statistics of the reduced height anomaly.

Gravity Field/Unit:(m) Max. Min. Mean Std. Dev.
FFT Contribution ζ res 2.060 -2.195 -0.004 0.446

In this study, the geoid, as defined by Eqs. 14 and 15, was initially assessed as a quasi-geoid and then transformed into a geoid by applying the quasi-geoid to the geoid correction (ζ-to-N). Mountainous regions, including the Plateau and Taraba States in North Central and East of the research area, have the highest values of the (ζ-to-N) in absolute terms. These modifications have maximum range values greater than 24 cm. This modification is minor and occasionally disregarded in low-lying and coastal regions. Although it hasn’t been accomplished yet, geodesists worldwide are working to create sub-centimeter geoid. The total accuracy of the geoid was evaluated for this study using GNSS/leveling, whose dependability is unknown. An estimate of the projected error budget of the geoid might have been obtained by performing an error propagation analysis to assess the undulations’ error if the GNSS/leveling error had been known.

But given this clear fact, we assumed that the GNSS/leveling data to be errorless. As a result, Table 4 displays the comparison and overall level accuracy of the geoid for this study, which is 41 cm (decimeters level). The Nigerian Primary Geodetic Network’s GNSS/leveling data, which mostly comes from the orthometric heights from the geodetic leveling network, is the main source of the significant disparity between the geometric and gravimetric geoids. Furthermore, unmodeled errors from the DEM utilized for this study, terrestrial gravity data, and the interpolation of the reduced gravity anomalies used in the Stokes or Molodenskii integral may potentially be responsible for the decimeter level precision attained.

Table 4. External assessment of gravimetric geoid with GNSS/levelling.

ID S/N Lat. dd Long. dd h (m) H (m) N GNSS (m) N GRAV (m) N GNSS -N GRAV (m)
A16 1. 10.1249 12.3759 786.6040 768.7680 17.8360 18.0830 0.2470
A39 2. 11.2889 10.4174 495.4990 474.7460 20.7530 21.3500 0.5970
C16 3. 6.1371 9.0267 628.4300 607.4730 20.9570 21.1740 0.2170
CFL56 4. 11.8532 13.1164 357.4050 340.6800 16.7250 17.1610 0.4360
CFH66 5. 6.1731 6.7501 57.3680 37.2140 20.1540 19.7030 −0.4510
CFA33A 6. 6.6269 3.3231 70.4120 47.0930 23.3190 23.7260 0.4070
H4 7. 7.4627 8.6032 362.9030 341.7780 21.1250 20.5410 −0.5840
L10 8. 7.2044 3.3449 197.8920 172.9870 24.9050 25.6210 0.7160
R43 9. 12.0212 5.8946 477.2400 456.4400 20.8000 20.9280 0.1280
U81 10. 6.7870 6.4857 215.8380 193.7200 22.1180 23.0190 0.9010
U78 11. 6.7764 7.2634 424.4120 402.0030 22.4090 23.2000 0.7910
ZVS3003 12. 4.8480 7.0478 35.3270 16.6140 18.7130 18.3650 −0.3480
L8 13. 7.9562 3.6267 464.8940 439.4110 25.4830 25.3410 −0.1420
L18 14. 8.5956 4.3915 458.4220 434.3450 24.0770 23.4510 −0.6260
D13 15. 10.2756 4.3907 290.6730 268.1180 22.5550 22.1010 −0.4540
K01 16. 12.0143 8.5664 504.2310 482.9880 21.2430 20.7170 −0.5260
C014 17. 6.2028 8.6243 148.3030 127.2320 21.0710 21.2820 0.2110
N123A 18. 11.4412 6.9920 769.7730 747.9120 21.8610 21.5390 −0.3220
N032 19. 9.1060 7.2016 708.8040 686.0680 22.7360 22.0860 −0.6500
A001 20. 9.1888 12.4961 217.9380 200.5570 17.3810 18.3160 0.9350
C036 21. 7.9988 10.9930 543.6250 524.4710 19.1540 19.3050 0.1510
A21 22. 10.4553 11.6280 758.9630 740.3310 18.6320 18.7310 0.0990
AP1 23. 4.8695 6.9779 33.7200 14.8081 18.9119 18.8199 −0.0920
HS8 24. 4.7651 7.0166 26.0280 6.9860 19.0420 19.0350 −0.0070
PT 4 Emma 25. 4.7984 7.0056 30.6930 11.6906 19.0024 18.9524 −0.0500
PT 8 Emma 26. 4.8338 7.0070 26.7890 7.8509 18.9381 18.8381 −0.1000
PT 5 Emma 27. 4.8069 7.0094 29.3740 10.3801 18.9939 18.9339 −0.0600
PT 9 Emma 28. 4.8366 7.0153 29.1410 10.1660 18.9750 18.8860 −0.0890
PT 2 Abdul 29. 4.8443 7.0395 32.6400 13.6539 18.5861 18.5161 −0.0700
PT 3 Abdul 30. 4.8408 7.0313 26.7500 7.7697 18.9803 18.9093 −0.0710
AP4 31. 4.8683 6.9899 35.8490 16.9261 18.9229 18.8349 −0.0880
PP5 32. 4.8703 7.1089 38.8020 19.7522 19.0498 19.0028 −0.0470
PT 4 Abdul 33. 4.8372 7.0229 32.8420 13.8392 19.0028 18.9558 −0.0470
PT 3 Emma 34. 4.7902 7.0023 25.1950 6.2283 18.9667 18.8907 −0.0760
PT 6 Emma 35. 4.8155 7.0098 34.5140 15.4366 19.0774 19.1044 0.0270
RMS 41 cm

Additionally, the data showed that the quasi-geoid had a tilt and/or slope, supporting the conclusions of earlier research conducted in the region by [16] and [17]. As seen in Figure 2(a) and Figure 2(b), this tilt and/or slope extends from the north central and southwestern regions to the research area’s edges. The degree of proximity between the two surfaces was revealed by the fitness between the gravimetric and geometric geoid. The central and southwest regions of the research area had the highest values of the undulations, and the geoid values throughout Nigeria show that the geoid is above the ellipsoid.

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.(a): Quasi-geoid over Nigeria; (b): Geoid over Nigeria.

The degree of agreement between the geometric and gravimetric geoids, that is, (NGNSS-NGRAV) is shown pictoriallyFigure 3. This clearly shows whether the geometric geoid is below and/or above the gravimetric geoid.

Figure 3. The residuals between the geometric and gravimetric geoid over Nigeria.

However, the recent GNSS/leveling dataset acquired from the office of the Surveyor’s General Rivers State was used exclusively to evaluate the geoid file, revealing a centimeter level of accuracy as shown in Table 5to demonstrate that the modelled geoid in this study and the level of accuracy achieved for the gravimetric geoid across Nigeria is at centimeter level.

Table 5. External assessment of gravimetric geoid with GNSS/levelling (Rivers state).

ID S/No Lat. dd Long. dd h (m) H (m) N GNSS (m) N GRAV (m) N GNSS -N GRAV (m)
AP1 1. 4.8695 6.9779 33.7200 14.8081 18.9119 18.8199 −0.0920
HS8 2. 4.7651 7.0166 26.0280 6.9860 19.0420 19.0350 −0.0070
PT 4 Emma 3. 4.7984 7.0056 30.6930 11.6906 19.0024 18.9524 −0.0500
PT 8 Emma 4. 4.8338 7.0070 26.7890 7.8509 18.9381 18.8381 −0.1000
PT 5 Emma 5. 4.8069 7.0094 29.3740 10.3801 18.9939 18.9339 −0.0600
PT 9 Emma 6. 4.8366 7.0153 29.1410 10.1660 18.9750 18.8860 −0.0890
PT 2 Abdul 7. 4.8443 7.0395 32.6400 13.6539 18.5861 18.5161 −0.0700
PT 3 Abdul 8. 4.8408 7.0313 26.7500 7.7697 18.9803 18.9093 −0.0710
AP4 9. 4.8683 6.9899 35.8490 16.9261 18.9229 18.8349 −0.0880
PP5 10. 4.8703 7.1089 38.8020 19.7522 19.0498 19.0028 −0.0470
PT 4 Abdul 11. 4.8372 7.0229 32.8420 13.8392 19.0028 18.9558 −0.0470
PT 3 Emma 12. 4.7902 7.0023 25.1950 6.2283 18.9667 18.8907 −0.0760
PT 6 Emma 13. 4.8155 7.0098 34.5140 15.4366 19.0774 19.1044 0.0270
RMS 7 cm
Results of the Cross Validation of the GNSS/Levelling Data

The disparity between the derived and observed orthometric heights nationwide was fitted or tailored using a seven-parameter empirical model as shown in Eqs. 16 to 18:

gravimetric geoid can be expressed as:

l i = h i − H i − N i = A i x − v i A x = ( N G P S / l e v e l i n g − N g r a v ) + v

where A is the design matrix, x is the vector of unknown parameters and v is the vector of the unknown random errors coming from GPS and levelling observations and geoid itself. Even though the choice of the appropriate parametric model, AX depends on the distribution, density and the quality of the data used, in this thesis, we used a simplified 7-parameter version of the usual 7-parmeter similarity datum shift transform model to derive the corrector surface model after [3]. It has also been used in previous studies by [18]. The 7-parameter model can be expressed mathematically as:

A i x = cos φ i cos λ i x 1 + cos φ i sin λ i x 2 + sin φ i x 3 + cos φ i sin φ i cos λ i W i x 4       + cos φ i sin φ i sin λ i W i x 5 + sin 2 φ i W i x 6 + x 7

where φ i , λ i , the geodetic coordinates of the GPS/leveling points, e is the eccentricity of the reference ellipsoid and W i = 1 − e 2 sin 2 φ 1 . The vector of the unknown parameters are x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , ⋯ and x 7 .

A cross-validation of the GNSS/leveling data subset was performed. This is to guarantee that, following the interpolation and transformation process, the customized or hybrid geoid may produce orthometric heights that are dependable to a specific degree of precision. In order to determine the associated orthometric heights, the corresponding geoid values were interpolated from the hybrid geoid file and then deducted from the ellipsoidal heights of these points. As indicated in Table 6, the hybrid geoid (post-fit) is accurate to 3 cm root mean square (r.m.s.) when the derived or transform orthometric height is compared with the observed orthometric height.

Table 6. Results of the cross-validation.

Station’s Attribute Lat. (dd) Long (dd) h(m) Observed H (m) Observed H* (m) Derived (H-H*) (m) Source
C21 6.9687 9.2468 344.6080 324.6000 324.5950 0.005 OSGOF
A24 10.6038 11.3397 624.6253 605.6290 605.6293 −0.003 OSGOF
D29 11.3880 5.2173 526.7924 505.5490 505.5474 0.002 OSGOF
N25 8.9988 8.0874 591.9590 570.1200 570.1160 0.004 OSGOF
CBL10 5.5393 5.7379 25.8125 4.7930 4.8005 −0.008 OSGOF
L03 7.4173 3.5209 290.3270 264.2840 264.2980 −0.014 OSGOF
PT 7 Emma 4.8239 7.006 33.3790 14.3716 14.4470 −0.075 SG’s Rivers
Uniport 4.8937 6.9144 29.7120 10.8670 10.8654 0.002 SG’s Rivers
PP9 4.8883 7.1445 33.5700 14.4602 14.5040 −0.044 SG’s Rivers
RMS 3 cm
4. Conclusions

Distortions or residuals are always present in any normal geoid derivation, fitting, and transformation process from 3D GNSS-derived ellipsoidal height to gravity-related 1D orthometric height. The transformation process through interpolation, systematic mistakes caused by the various contributors to the geoid, and inconsistent datums could all be to blame for this. For example, it was found that the gravity and gravity anomaly datasets acquired from BGI were calculated using the GRS67 reference ellipsoid, but the global ellipsoid, such as WGS84 or GRS80, is now used for gravimetric geoid computation. Long wavelength inaccuracy would have resulted from ignoring this. Over Nigeria, the effect is roughly 0.87 mGal. Thus, conversion was carried out from GRS67 to GRS80 prior to computation.

Additionally, it is anticipated that any gravity reduction procedure for gravimetric geoid modeling will result in residual gravity anomalies that are smooth, have negligible indirect effects, and have geophysical significance. It should be noted that the defects present in the Nigerian vertical network have not been eliminated by the fitting and transformation procedure outlined in this work (Table 6). However, it has only harmonized the corresponding points on the two surfaces (NGNSS and NGRAV), producing results that are compatible throughout the research region and repeatable and consistent. Using Spherical Harmonic Coefficients (EGM08) as a reference field, the standard remove-restore method was used to generate the geoid. Spherical Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and Residual Terrain Modelling (RTM) by prism integration were applied. The FFT’s use is based on the idea that it is quick and effective, especially when performing calculations across wide areas where the traditional integration of the Stokes/Molodenskii integral in the space domain takes a long time.

After a thorough evaluation as a quasi-geoid, the gravimetric geoid model over Nigeria was transformed into a classical geoid by applying the 𝑁−𝜁 adjustment. The gravimetric geoid’s strength and details are reflected in the geoid model at short range, while the leveling networks’ trends are reflected at long range. It is crucial to remember that the GNSS/leveling data throughout Nigeria, not the geoid model, is what makes it difficult to utilize GNSS to determine suitable gravity-related (Orthometric) height. It should be noted that systematic mistakes and land uplifts are likely to cause tilts in the final geoid model. Therefore, the geoid surface from fitting is a corrective surface rather than an equipotential surface. A graphic user interface (GUI) using the interpolation program Height Transformation Model, which enables height users to interpolate geoid values and then convert ellipsoidal heights to orthometric heights or vice versa, provides access to the geoid surface and the underlying gravimetric geoid file.

 Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Bureau Gravimetrique International (BGI) for the release of terrestrial gravity for this research and acknowledge the producers of the GRAVSOFT software that was used in the computation.

 References Sansò, F. and Sideris, M.G. (2013) Geoid Determination: Theory and Methods. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74700-0 10.1007/978-3-540-74700-0https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74700-0 Sideris, M.G. 2013 Geoid Determination: Theory and Methods 10.1007/978-3-540-74700-0 Adams, R., IIiffe, J., Ziebart, M., Turner, J. and Oliveira, J.F. (2006) Joining up Land and Sea: UKHO/UCL Vertical Offshore Reference Frame. Hydro International, 10, 7-9. Adams, R. IIiffe, J. Ziebart, M. Turner, J. Oliveira, J.F. 2006 Joining up Land and Sea: UKHO/UCL Vertical Offshore Reference Frame Hydro International 10 Hofmann-Wellenhof, B. and Moritz, H. (2006) Physical Geodesy. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-33545-1 10.1007/978-3-211-33545-1https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-33545-1 Hofmann-Wellenhof, B. Moritz, H. 2006 Physical Geodesy 10.1007/978-3-211-33545-1 Sjoberg, L.E. and Bagherbandi, M. (2017) Gravity Inversion and Integration: Theory and Applications in Geodesy and Geophysics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50298-4 10.1007/978-3-319-50298-4https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50298-4 Sjoberg, L.E. Bagherbandi, M. 2017 Gravity Inversion and Integration: Theory and Applications in Geodesy and Geophysics 10.1007/978-3-319-50298-4 Bureau Gravimetrique International (2015) Land and Marine Gravity Data. 2015 Land and Marine Gravity Data Ince, E.S., Barthelmes, F., Reißland, S., Elger, K., Förste, C., Flechtner, F., et al. (2019) ICGEM—15 Years of Successful Collection and Distribution of Global Gravitational Models, Associated Services, and Future Plans. Earth System Science Data, 11, 647-674. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-647-2019 10.5194/essd-11-647-2019https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-647-2019 Ince, E.S. Barthelmes, F. Elger, K. Flechtner, F. Models, A 2019 ICGEM—15 Years of Successful Collection and Distribution of Global Gravitational Models, Associated Services, and Future Plans Earth System Science Data 11 10.5194/essd-11-647-2019 Alaska Satellite Facility (2020) ALOS PALSAR—Digital Elevation Model (12.5 m Spatial Resolution. https://asf.alaska.edu/data-sets/derived-data-sets/alos-palsar-rtc/alos-palsar-radiometric-terrain-correction 2020 ALOS PALSAR—Digital Elevation Model (12 Wichiencharoen, C. (1982) The Indirect Effects on the Computation of Geoid Undulations. Report No. 336, Dept. of Geodetic Science and Surveying, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Wichiencharoen, C. Surveying, T University, C 1982 The Indirect Effects on the Computation of Geoid Undulations Report No. 336 Barthmeles, F. (2013) Definition of Functionals of the Geopotential and Their Calculation from Spherical Harmonic Models: Theory and Formulas Used by the Calculation Service of the International Centre for Global Earth Models (ICGEM). Deutsches GeoForschungZentrum GFZ: Scientific Technical Report STR09/02. https://doi.org/10.2312/GFZ.b103-0902-26 10.2312/GFZ.b103-0902-26https://doi.org/10.2312/GFZ.b103-0902-26 Barthmeles, F. 2013 Definition of Functionals of the Geopotential and Their Calculation from Spherical Harmonic Models: Theory and Formulas Used by the Calculation Service of the International Centre for Global Earth Models (ICGEM) 10.2312/GFZ.b103-0902-26 Stelios, P.M. (2010) Gravity, Geoid and Earth Observation. Springer. Stelios, P.M. Gravity, G 2010 Gravity, Geoid and Earth Observation Forsberg, R. (2010) Terrain Effects in Geoid Computations. Lectures Note, International School for the Determination and Use of the Geoid, Saint Petersburg, 28 June-2 July 2010, 159-181. Forsberg, R. Note, I Geoid, S 2010 Terrain Effects in Geoid Computations Lectures Note 28 Tscherning, C.C. (2012) Geoid Determination by 3D Least-Squares Collocation. In: Sansò, F. and Sideris, M., Eds., Geoid Determination, Springer, 311-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74700-0_7 10.1007/978-3-540-74700-0_7https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74700-0_7 Tscherning, C.C. Sideris, M. Determination, S 2012 Geoid Determination by 3D Least-Squares Collocation In: Sansò 311 10.1007/978-3-540-74700-0_7 Forsberg, R. (1984) A Study of Terrain Reductions, Density Anomalies and Geo-physical Inversion Methods in Gravity Field Modelling. Department of Geodetic Science and Surveying, The Ohio State University, No. 355. Forsberg, R. Reductions, D Surveying, T University, N 1984 A Study of Terrain Reductions, Density Anomalies and Geo-physical Inversion Methods in Gravity Field Modelling Department of Geodetic Science and Surveying Wong, L. and Gore, R. (1969) Accuracy of Geoid Heights from Modified Stokes Kernels. GeophysicalJournalInternational, 18, 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.1969.tb00264.x 10.1111/j.1365-246x.1969.tb00264.xhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.1969.tb00264.x Wong, L. Gore, R. 1969 Accuracy of Geoid Heights from Modified Stokes Kernels Geophysical Journal International 18 10.1111/j.1365-246x.1969.tb00264.x Yahaya, S.I. and Azzab, D.E. (2018) High-Resolution Residual Terrain Model and Terrain Corrections for Gravity Field Modelling and Geoid Computation in Niger Republic. Geodesyandcartography, 44, 89-99. https://doi.org/10.3846/gac.2018.3787 10.3846/gac.2018.3787https://doi.org/10.3846/gac.2018.3787 Yahaya, S.I. Azzab, D.E. 2018 High-Resolution Residual Terrain Model and Terrain Corrections for Gravity Field Modelling and Geoid Computation in Niger Republic Geodesy and cartography 44 10.3846/gac.2018.3787 Ezeigbo, C.U. (1991) Estimation Models of Geoid in Nigeria Using Doppler Satellite Observations. In: Rapp, R.H. and Sansò, F., Eds., International Association of Geodesy Symposia, Springer New York, 230-240. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3104-2_28 10.1007/978-1-4612-3104-2_28https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3104-2_28 Ezeigbo, C.U. Rapp, R.H. Symposia, S 1991 Estimation Models of Geoid in Nigeria Using Doppler Satellite Observations In: Rapp 230 10.1007/978-1-4612-3104-2_28 Ezeanaka, E.E. (1987) A Study of the Local Geoid Using Integral Equivalents of Stokes and Vening Meinesz Equivalents. Master’s Thesis, University of Nigeria. Ezeanaka, E.E. Thesis, U 1987 A Study of the Local Geoid Using Integral Equivalents of Stokes and Vening Meinesz Equivalents Master’s Thesis Fotopoulos, G. (2003) An Analysis on the Optimal Combination of Geoid, Ortho-metric and Ellipsoidal Height Data. PhD Thesis, University of Calgary. Fotopoulos, G. Geoid, O Thesis, U 2003 An Analysis on the Optimal Combination of Geoid, Ortho-metric and Ellipsoidal Height Data PhD Thesis