Abstract:Abstract. Several alternative gravity forward modelling methodologies and associated numerical codes with their own advantages and limitations are available for the Solid Earth community. With the upcoming state-of-the-art lithosphere density models and accurate global gravity field data sets it is vital to understand the opportunities and limitations of the various approaches. In this paper, we discuss the four widely used techniques: global spherical harmonics (GSH), tesseroid integration (TESS), triangle integration (TRI), and hexahedral integration (HEX). A constant density shell benchmark shows that all four codes can produce similar precise gravitational potential fields. Two additional shell tests were conducted with more complicated density structures: lateral varying density structures and a Moho density interface between crust and mantle. The differences between the four codes were all below 1.5 percent of the modeled gravity signal suitable for reproducing satellite-acquired gravity data. TESS and GSH produced the most similar potential fields (< 0.3 percent). To examine the usability of the forward modelling codes for realistic geological structures, we use the global lithosphere model WINTERC-G, that was constrained, among other data, by satellite gravity field data computed using a spectral forward modeling approach. This spectral code was benchmarked against the GSH and it was confirmed that both approaches produce similar gravity solution with negligible differences between them. In the comparison of the different WINTERC-G-based gravity solutions, again GSH and TESS performed best. Only short-wavelength noise is present between the spectral and tesseroid forward modelling approaches, likely related to the different way in which the spherical harmonic analysis of the varying boundaries of the mass layer is performed. The Spherical harmonic basis functions produces small differences compared to the tesseroid elements especially at sharp interfaces, which introduces mostly short-wavelength differences. Nevertheless, both approaches (GSH and TESS) result in accurate solutions of the potential field with reasonable computational resources. Differences below 0.5 percent are obtained, resulting in residuals of 0.076 mGal standard deviation at 250 km height. The biggest issue for TRI is the characteristic pattern in the residuals that is related to the grid layout. Increasing the resolution and filtering allows for the removal of most of this erroneous pattern, but at the expense of higher computational loads with respect to the other codes. The other spatial forward modelling scheme HEX has more difficulty in reproducing similar gravity field solutions compared to GSH and TESS. These particular approaches need to go to higher resolutions, resulting in enormous computation efforts. The hexahedron-based code performs less than optimal in the forward modelling of the gravity signature, especially of a lateral varying density interface. Care must be taken with any forward modelling software as the approximation of the geometry of the WINTERC-G model may deteriorate the gravity field solution.

Divergence-free spherical harmonic gravity field modelling based on the Runge–Krarup theorem: a case study for the Moon

High-Efficiency Forward Modeling of Gravitational Fields in Spherical Harmonic Domain with Application to Lunar Topography Correction

Cap integration in spectral gravity forward modelling: near- and far-zone gravity effects via Molodensky’s truncation coefficients

Divergence beneath the Brillouin sphere and the phenomenology of prediction error in spherical harmonic series approximations of the gravitational field

SURF Report: High Accuracy Methods for Computing Gravitational Potential and Gravitational Force Fields Near the Surface of Irregularly Shaped 3-Dimensional Bodies

Cap integration in spectral gravity forward modelling up to the full gravity tensor

Elliptical harmonic method for gravity forward modelling of 2D bodies

Gravity field forward modeling using tesseroids accelerated by Taylor series expansion and symmetry relations

Global Lunar Gravity Field Using Local Mascon Models

Spectral-Element Simulations of Gravity Anomalies for 3-D Topography Model

Orbiting below the Brillouin sphere using shifted spherical harmonics

Benchmark forward gravity schemes: the gravity field of a realistic lithosphere model WINTERC-G

A spectral-domain approach for gravity forward modelling of 2D bodies

Numerical convergence of model Cauchy-characteristic extraction and matching

3D gravity inversion based on mixed-norm regularization in spherical coordinates with application to the lunar Moscoviense Basin

Improved Fourier Modeling of Gravity Fields Caused by Polyhedral Bodies: with Applications to Asteroid Bennu and Comet 67P/churyumov–gerasimenko

The Method to Determine Spherical Harmonic Model of Asteroid based on Polyhedron

Propagation and Estimation of the Dynamical Behaviour of Gravitationally Interacting Rigid Bodies

An accurate and lightweight calculation for the high degree truncation coefficient via asymptotic expansion with applications to spectral gravity forward modeling

Self-consistent dynamical models with a finite extent -- III. Truncated power-law spheres

Equivalence principle violation in nonminimally coupled gravity and constraints from Lunar Laser Ranging