The GRACE (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment) monthly gravity models have been independently produced and published by several research institutions, such as Center for Space Research (CSR), GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES) and Delft Institute of Earth Observation and Space Systems (DEOS). According to their processing standards, above institutions use the traditional variational approach except that the DEOS exploits the acceleration approach. The background force models employed are rather similar. The produced gravity field models generally agree with one another in the spatial pattern. However, there are some discrepancies in the gravity signal amplitude between solutions produced by different institutions. In particular, 10%–30% signal amplitude differences in some river basins can be observed. In this paper, we implemented a variant of the traditional variational approach and computed two sets of monthly gravity field solutions using the data from January 2005 to December 2006. The input data are K-band range-rates (KBRR) and kinematic orbits of GRACE satellites. The main difference in the production of our two types of models is how to deal with nuisance parameters. This type of parameters is necessary to absorb low-frequency errors in the data, which are mainly the aliasing and instrument errors. One way is to remove the nuisance parameters before estimating the geopotential coefficients, called NPARB approach in the paper. The other way is to estimate the nuisance parameters and geopotential coefficients simultaneously, called NPESS approach. These two types of solutions mainly differ in geopotential coefficients from degree 2 to 5. This can be explained by the fact that the nuisance parameters and the gravity field coefficients are highly correlated, particularly at low degrees. We compare these solutions with the official and published ones by means of spectral analysis. It is found that our solutions are, in general, consistent with others in the spatial pattern. The water storage variations of the Amazon, Chari and Ganges river basins have also been computed. The variations computed with the NPARB approach are closer to those produced by JPL and DEOS solutions, while the variations produced with the NPESS approach are in good agreement with those produced by the CSR and GFZ solutions. A simulation study is implemented with considering realistic noise and low-frequency error. The two approaches are used to recover the true model. The NPESS solution appears closer to the true one. Therefore we are inclined to estimate the nuisance parameters simultaneously with the geopential coefficients. 相似文献
