Parameters of Common Relevance of

Astronomy, Geodesy, and Geodynamics

By E. Groten (President of IAG Sub-commission 3)



At present, systems of fundamental constants are in a state of transition. Even though the uncertainties of many constants have substantially decreased, the numerical values themselves did not substantially change. On the other hand, relativistic reductions and corrections underwent a variety of substantial revisions that, however, did not yet find final agreement within the scientific working groups of international committees in charge of evaluating relevant quantities and theories. Consequently, substantial changes and revisions still have to be expected in IAU, IERS, IUGG etc. within the next few years.

Therefore SC 3, after lengthy discussions and considerations, decided not to propose, at this time, any change of existing geodetic reference systems such as WGS 84 (in its recent form updated by NIMA, 1997) and GRS 80. This would only make sense in view of relatively small numerical changes which would not justify, at this moment, complete changes of systems and would rather produce more confusion within user communities – as soon as working groups within IAU, IERS etc. have made up their minds concerning the background of new systems and will be prepared to discuss new numerical values. This should be around the year 2001.

The present situation is also reflected by the fact that in view of substantial progress in evaluating temporal changes of fundamental „constants" and related accuracies, we should better speak about „fundamental parameters" instead of „fundamental constants"; however, the majority of members of SC 3 preferred to preserve the traditional name of SC 3.

In view of this situation and of the fact that IERS in its „conventions" which are edited at regular intervals SC 3 cannot and should not act independently in proposing changes of fundamental parameters, - there will consequently be relatively small changes in the following part on „current best estimates" and only minimal changes in the part on „official numerical values" within this report. It is, moreover, proposed to strengthen the interrelations between IERS and SC 3.

Interrelations between IERS, IAU, IAG etc. make it, however, more difficult to implement necessary changes in fundamental systems. This was particularly realized in discussing adoption of new fundamental constants. This fact may be explained by the discussion of small changes inherent in the adoption of particular tidal corrections which became relevant in view of higher accuracies of ± 10-8 or ± 10-9. It turns out to be almost impossible to explain to other scientific bodies the modern relevance of the dependence of the numerical value of the semi-major axis „a" of the Earth on specific tidal corrections. Other temporal variations imply similar difficulties.

From the view point of SC 3, i.e. in deriving fundamental parameters, it is, to some extent, confusing that a variety of global or/and regional systems exist; it would be best to use only one global terrestrial and one celestial system such as ITRF, referred to a specific epoch, and an associated celestial system, unless precise transition and transformation formulae are available such as those between ETRF, ITRF, EUREF, and perhaps WGS 84 (in updated form), IGS, GRS 80 etc. where IERS-systems, in general, could serve to maintain transformation accuracy and precision.

However, the consequent replacement of „a" by a quantity such as the geopotential at the geoid W0 (which is independent of tides) in a geodetic reference system (or a similar system) was not well understood and not supported by other working groups so that we finally gave up the idea of a reformation of systems of fundamental constants in this way even though quantities such as W0 are now very precisely determined by satellite altimetry etc. Whether seasonal variations (Bursa et al. 1998a) of W0 are significant or not is still an open question, when expressed in R0 = GM/W0 they amount to a few centimeters in global radius.

I Current (1999) best estimates of the parameters of common relevance to astronomy, geodesy, and geodynamics

SI units are used throughout (except for the TDB-value (value below (4))

(SI-value can be associated with TCB or TCG)

velocity of light in vacuum

c = 299 792 458 m s-1. (1)

Newtonian gravitational constant

G = (6 672.59 ± 0.30) ´ 10-14 m3 s-2 kg-1. (2)

Geocentric gravitational constant (including the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere); reconfirmed by J. Ries (1998, priv. comm.)

GM = (398 600 441.8 ± 0.8) ´ 106 m3 s-2. (3)

For the new EGM 96 global gravity model

GM = 398 600 441.5 ´ 106 m3 s-2 was adopted.

In TT units (Terrestrial Time) the value is

GM = (398 600 441.5 ± 0.8) ´ 106 m3 s-2. (4)

Note that if expressed in old TDB units (solar system Barycentric Dynamical Time), the value is

GM = 398 600 435.6 ´ 106 m3 s-2.

Based on well known transformation formulas we may relate GM in SI-units to TT/TCG/TCB; see IERS-Convention 1996 p. 85. The well known secular term was not originally included in the GM(E)-analysis, therefore it was related to TT, neither to SI nor (TCG, TCB); as still satellite analysis occurs without the secular term, GM(E) in TT is still of geodetic interest; GM(E) = GM of the Earth.

Mean angular velocity of the Earth’s rotation

w = 7 292 115 ´ 10-11 rad s-1. (5)

Table 1. Mean angular velocity of the Earth’s rotation 1978-1994

Year w

[10-11 rad s-1]

Year w

[10-11 rad s-1]

DLOD [ms]

Min: 1978

7 292 114.903

max: 1986

292 115.043

  1. 7.292 114.964

  2. .952
  3. .992
  4. .991
  5. -






Long-term variation in w


This observed average value is based on two actual components:

  1. due to tidal dissipation
  2. (7)

    This value is commensurate with a tidal deceleration in the mean motion of the Moon n


  3. non-tidal in origin


- Second-degree zonal geopotential (Stokes) parameter (tide-free, conventional, not normalized, Love number k2 = 0.3 adopted)

J2 = (1082 626.7 ± 0.1) ´ 10-9. (10)

To be consistent with the I.A.G. General Assembly Resolution 16, 1983 (Hamburg), the indirect tidal effect on J2 should be included: then in the zero-frequency tide system

J2 = (1082 635.9 ± 0.1) ´ 10-9. (11)

Table 2. The Stokes second-degree zonal parameter; marked with a bar: fully normalized; k2 = 0.3 adopted for the tide-free system



Tial model

Zero-frequency tide system


[10-6] [10-6]



[10-6] [10-6]


EGM 96






Long-term variation in J2


second-degree sectorial geopotential (Stokes) parameters (conventional, not normalized, geopotential model JGM-3)




Table 3. The Stokes second-degree sectorial parameters; marked with a bar: fully normalized

Geopotential model




EGM 96





Only the last decimal is affected by the standard deviation.

For EGM 96 Marchenko and Abrikosov (1999) found more detailed values:

Table 3. Parameters of the linear model of the potential of 2nd degree

Harmonic coefficient

Value of coefficient

´ 106

Temporal variation

´ 1011[yr-1]


= -












Coefficient H associated with the precession constant


The geoidal potential W0 and the geopotential scale factor R0 = GM/W0 recently derived by Bursa et al. (1998) read

W0 = (62 636 855.611 ± 0.5) m2s-2, (17)

R0 = (6 363 672.58 ± 0.05) m.

W0 = (62636856.4 ± 0.5) m2s-2 J. Ries (priv. comm, 1998) found globally.

If W0 is preserved as a primary constant the discussion of the ellipsoidal parameters could become obsolete; as the Earth ellipsoid is basically an artefact. Modelling of the altimeter bias and various other error influences affect the validity of W0-determination. The variability of W0 and R0 was studied by Bursa (Bursa et al. 1998) recently; they detected interannual variations of W0 and R0 amounting to 2 cm.

The relativistic corrections to W0 were discussed by Kopejkin (1991); see his formulas (67) and (77) where tidal corrections were included. Whereas he proposes average time values, Grafarend insists in corrections related to specific epochs in order to illustrate the time-dependence of such parameters as W0, GM, Jn, which are usually, in view of present accuracies, still treated as constants in contemporary literature.

Based on recent GPS data, E. Grafarend and A. Ardalan (1997) found locally (in the Finnish Datum for Fennoscandia): W0 = (6 263 685.58 ± 0.36) kgal m.

The temporal variations were discussed by Wang and Kakkuri (1998), in general terms.

Mean equatorial gravity in the zero-frequency tide system

ge = (978 032.78 ± 0.2) ´ 10-5m s-2. (18)

Equatorial radius of the Reference Ellipsoid (mean equatorial radius of the Earth) in the zero-frequency tide system (Bursa et al. 1998)

a = (6 378 136.62 ± 0.10) m. (19)

The corresponding value in the mean tide system (the zero-frequency direct and indirect tidal distortion included) comes out as

a = (6 378 136.72 ± 0.10) m (20)

and the tide-free value

a = (6 378 136.59 ± 0.10) m. (21)

The tide free-value adopted for the new EGM-96 gravity model reads a = 6 378 136.3 m.

Polar flattening computed in the zero-frequency tide system, (adopted GM, w , and J2 in the zero-frequency tide system)

1/f = 298.25642 ± 0.00001 (22)

The corresponding value in the mean tide system comes out as

1/f = 298.25231 ± 0.00001 (23)

and the tide-free

1/f = 298.25765 ± 0.00001 (24)

Equatorial flattening (geopotential model JGM-3).

1/a 1 = 91 026 ± 10. (25)

Longitude of major axis of equatorial ellipse, geopotential model JGM-3

L a = (14.9291° ± 0.0010°) W. (26)

In view of the small changes (see Table 3) of the second degree tesserals it is close to the value of EGM 96. We may raise the question whether we should keep the reference ellipsoid in terms of GRS 80 (or an alternative) fixed and focus on W0 as a parameter to be essentially better determined by satellite altimetry, where however the underlying concept (inverted barometer, altimeter bias etc.) has to be clarified.

Table 4. Equatorial flattening a 1 and L a of major axis of equatorial ellipse



L a




14.9291 W

Coefficient in potential of centrifugal force


Computed by using values (3), (5) and a = 6 378 136.6

Principal moments of inertia (zero-frequency tide system), computed using values (11), (15), (3), (2) and (16)



(a0 = 6 378 137 m);

C- A = (2.6398 ± 0.0001) ´ 1035 kg m2, (30)

C- B = (2.6221 ± 0.0001) ´ 1035 kg m2,

B- A = (1.765 ± 0.001) ´ 1033 kg m2;



A = (8.0101 ± 0.0002) ´ 1037 kg m2,

B = (8.0103 ± 0.0002) ´ 1037 kg m2, (33)

C = (8.0365 ± 0.0002) ´ 1037 kg m2,



II Primary geodetic Parameters, discussion

It should be noted that parameters a, f, J2, ge, depend on the tidal system adopted. They have different values in tide-free, mean or zero-frequency tidal systems. However, W0 and/or R0 are independent of tidal system (Bursa 1995). The following relations can be used:

a (mean) = a (tide-free) + (34)

a (mean) = a (tide-free) +

a (zero-frequency) = a (tide-free) + (35)

a (zero-frequency) = a (tide-free) +

ks = 0.9383 is the secular Love number, d J2 is the zero-frequency tidal distortion in J2. First, the internal consistency of parameters a, W0, (R0) and ge should be examined:

(i) If

a = 6 378 136.7 m

is adopted as primary, the derived values are

W0 = 62 636 856.88 m2 s-2, (36)

(R0 = 6 363 672.46 m), (37)

ge = 978 032.714 ´ 10-5 m s-2. (38)

(ii) If

W0 = (62 636 855.8 ± 0.5) m2 s-2,

R0 = (6 363 672.6 ± 0.05) m,

is adopted as primary, the derived values are (mean system)

a = 6 378 136.62 m, (39)

ge = 978 032.705 ´ 10-5 m s-2. (40)

(iii) If (18)

ge = (978 032.78 ± 0.2) ´ 10-5 m s-2,

is adopted as primary, the derived values are

a = 6 378 136.38 m, (41)

W0 = 62 636 858.8 m2 s-2 (42)

(R0 = 6 363 672.26 m). (43)

There are no significant discrepancies, the differences are about the standard errors.

However, the inaccuracy in (iii) is much higher than in (i) and/or (ii). That is why solution (iii) is irrelevant at present.

If the rounded value

W0 = (62 636 856.0 ± 0.5) m2 s-2 (44)

R0 = (6 363 672.6 ± 0.1) [m] (45)

is adopted as primary, then the derived length of the semimajor axis in the mean tide system comes out as

a = (6 378 136.7 ± 0.1) m, (for zero-tide: 6 378 136.6) (46)

which is just the rounded value (20), and (in the zero frequency tide system)

ge = (978 032.7 ± 0.1) ´ 10-5 m s-2. (47)

However, SC 3 recommends that, at present, GRS 1980 should be retained as the standard.

III Consistent set of fundamental constants (1997)

Geocentric gravitational constant (including the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere)

GM = (398 600 441.8 ± 0.8) ´ 106 m3 s-2,

[value (3)]

Mean angular velocity of the Earth’s rotation

w = 7 292 115 ´ 10-11 rad s-1 [value (5)]

Second-degree zonal geopotential (Stokes) parameter (in the zero-frequency tide system, Epoch 1994)

J2 = (1 082 635.9 ± 0.1) ´ 10-9 [value (11)]

Geoidal potential

W0 = (62 636 856.0 ± 0.5) m2 s-2, [value (44)]

Geopotential scale factor

R0 = GM/W0 = (6 363 672.6 ± 0.05) m

[value (45)]

Mean equatorial radius (mean tide system)

a = (6 378 136.7 ± 0.1) m [value (46)]

Mean polar flattening (mean tide system)

1/f = 298.25231 ± 0.00001 [value (23)]

Mean equatorial gravity

ge = (978 032.78 ± 0.1) ´ 10-5 m s-2,

[value (18)].

Grafarend and Ardalan (1999) have evaluated a (consistent) normal field based on a unique set of current best values of four parameters (W°, w , J2 and GM) as a preliminary "follow-up" to the Geodetic Reference System GRS 80. It can lead to a level-ellipsoidal normal gravity field with a spheroidal external field in the Somigliana-Pizetti sense. By comparing the consequent values for the semimajor and semi-minor axes of the related equipotential ellipsoid with the corresponding GRS-80 axes (based on the same theory) the authors end up with axes which deviate by - 40 and - 45 cm, respectively from GRS 80 axes and within standard deviations from the current values such as in (21); but no g-values are given until now.


IV Appendix

A1. Zero-frequency tidal distortion in J2

(J2 = -C20)

GML = 4 902.799 ´ 109 m3s-2

(selenocentric grav. Const.),

GMS = 13 271 244.0 ´ 1013 m3s-2,

D Ĺ L = 384 400 km

(mean geocentric distance to the Moon),

D Ĺ S = 1 AU = 1.4959787 ´ 1011 m,

a0 = 6 378 137 m

(scaling parameter associated with J2),

e 0 = 23°26’21.4" (obliquity of the ecliptic),

eL = 0.05490

(eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon),

iL = 5°0.9’

(inclination of Moon’s orbit to the ecliptic),

eS = 0.01671

(eccentricity of the heliocentric orbit of the Earth-Moon barycenter),

n = a0/R0 = 1.0022729;

ks = 0.9383

(secular-fluid Love number associated with the zero-frequency second zonal tidal term);

d J2 = - d C20 = (3.07531 ´ 10-8) ks (conventional);

(fully normalized).

L = Lunar

S = Solar

A2. Definition

Because of tidal effects on various quantities, the tide-free, zero-frequency and mean values should be distinguished as follows:

A tide-free value is the quantity from which all tidal effects have been removed.
A zero-frequency value includes the indirect tidal distortion, but not the direct distortion.
A mean tide value included both direct and indirect permanent tidal distortions.

Acknowledgement: This report is basically an updated version of M. Bursa’s SC 3 report presented in 1995 with some new material added.


Bursa M (1992) The four primary geodetic

parameters. Studia geoph. et geod. 36, 199-206

Bursa M (1995) Special Commission 3, Fundamental Constants (SCFC), Report submitted to IAG, IUGG Gen. Ass., Boulder, Travaux IAG, Tome 30, 370-384, Paris 1995

Bursa M, J Kouba, K Radej, SA True, V Vatrt, M Vojtiskova (1997) Monitoring geoidal potential on the basis of Topex/Poseidon altimeter data and EGM 96. Geodesy on the Move, IAG Sci. Ass. Rio de Janeiro, Sept. 3-9, 1997, Springer Verlag 1998, 352-358

Bursa M, K Radej, Z Sima, SA True, V Vatrt (1997) Tests for accuracy of recent Geopotential models. Intern. Geoid Service, Bulletin 6, 167-188, Milano

Bursa M, J Kouba, K Radej, SA True, V Vatrt, M Vojtisková (1998a) Monitoring Geoidal Potential on the Basis of Topex/Poseidon Altimeter Data. Aviso Altimetry Newsletters 6, 130-131

Bursa M, J Kouba, A Muller, K Radej, SA True, V Vatrt, M Vojtiskova (1998b) Determination of Geopotential Differences between local vertical Datums and realization of a world height system. Pres. Symp. IAG, München

Bursa M, GV Demianov, MI Yurkina (1998c) On the determination of the earth’s model – the mean equipotential surface. Studia geoph. et geod. 42, 467-471

Bursa M, J Kouba, K Radej, SA True, V Vatrt, M Vojtiskova (1998d) Mean earth’s equipotential surface from Topex/Poseidon altimetry. Studia geoph. et geod. 42, 459-466

Bursa M, J Kouba, K Radej, SA True, V Vatrt, M Vojtiskova (1998e) Final Report on testing accuracy of geopotential models EGMX05. EGM 96. Intern. Geoid Service, Bulletin N. 7

Cheng MK, RJ Eanes, BD Tapley (1992) Tidal deceleration of the Moon’s mean motion. Geophys. J. Int. 108, 401-409

Defraigne P, V Dehant (1996) Toward new non-rigid Earth nutations. Proc. Journ. de Reference 1995, ed. N. Capitaine, Warsaw, 45-52

Dehant V, M Capitaine (1997) On the luni-solar precession, the tilt-over-mode, and the oppolzer terms. Celest. Mech. (Manuscript in press)

Dehant V, P Defraigne (1997) New nutation for a non-rigid Earth. Proc. Journ. Syst. de Reference, Sept. 1996 Paris, ed. N. Capitaine (Manuscript in press)

Dehant V, N Capitaine, P Defraigne (1997) Comparison between values of the dynamical flattening of the Earth derived from various kinds of observations. Precession J2 Seismology, Proc. Journ. Syst. de Reference, Sept. 1996 Paris, ed. N. Capitaine (Manuscript in press)

Dickey JO, PL Bender, JE Faller, XX Newhall, RL Ricklefs, JG Ries, PJ Shelus, C Veillet, AL Whipple, JR Wiant, JG Williams, CF Yoder (1994) Lunar laser ranging: a continual legacy of the Apollo program. Science 265, 482-490

Fukushima T (1993) IAU Standards – What’s it? Pres. IAG. Gen. Ass. Beijing

Fukushima T (1994) Time ephemeris. Proc. of 26th Symp. on "Cel. Mechanics", Tokyo, Japan, Jan 12-13, eds. H. Kinoshita and H. Nakai, 149-159

Grafarend E, F Sanso (1984) The multibody space-time geodetic boundary value problem and the Honkasalo term. Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc. 78, 255-275

Grafarend E, AA Ardalan (1997) W0: an estimate in the Finnish Height Datum N60, epoch 1993.4, from twenty-five GPS points of the Baltic Sea Level Project. Journal of Geodesy, 71: 673-679

Grafarend E, AA Ardalan (1999) The form parameters of the Somigliana-Pizetti level ellipsoid from current best estimates of fundamental geodetic parameters based on a functional analytical review of the Somigliana-Pizetti gravitational field. Submitted to J. Geodesy

Groten E (1994) A comment on fundamental geodetic constants. IAG-SCFC 1991-1995, pres. at IAU General Ass. The Hague

Groten E (1994) Global tidal parameters. Studia geoph. et geod. 38, 221-234

Kinoshita H (1994) Is the equatorial radius of the Earth a primary constant, or a defining constant? Studia geoph. et geod. 38, 2, 109-116

Kopejkin SM (1991) Relativistic manifestations of gravitational fields in gravimetry and Geodesy. Manuscripta Geodaetica, 16, 5, 301-312

Lemoine et al. (1996) The development of the NASA GSFC and NIMA joint geopotential model. Paper presented at IAG Symposium, Tokyo, Sept. 1996, McCarthy DD ed. (1992) IERS Standards. Technical Note 13, Observatoire de Paris

Marchenko AN and OA Abrikosov (1999) Evolution of the Earth principal axes and moments of inertia. J. Geodesy, (in press )

McCarthy DD (1996) IERS Conventions

Nerem RS, BF Chao, AY Au, JC Chan, SM Klosko, NK Pavlis, RG Williamson (1993) Temporal variations of the Earth’s gravitational field from satellite laser ranging to LAGEOS. Geophys. Res. Let. 20, 7, 595-598

Nerem RS, FJ Lerch, RG Williamson, SM Klosko, JW Robbins, GB Patel (1994) Gravity model improvement using the DORIS tracking system on the SPOT 2 satellite. JGR 99, B2

Nerem RS ET AL (1994) Gravity model development for TOPEX/POSEIDON: Joint gravity models 1 and 2. JGR 99, C12, 24, 421-24, 447

Nesvorný D, Z Sima (1994) Refinement of the geopotential scale factor R0 on the satellite altimetry basis. Earth, Moon, and Planets 65, 79-88

NIMA, National Imagery and Mapping Agency (1997) Technical Report TR 8350.2, Third Edition, Department of Defense, World Geodetic System, 1984, Its Definition and Relationships with Local Geodetic Systems

Rapp RH (1987) An estimate of equatorial gravity from terrestrial and satellite data. GRL 14, 7, 730-732

Rapp RH (1993) Geoid undulation accuracy. IEEE Transaction on geoscience and remote sensing 31, 2, 365-370

Rapp RH, Y Yi, YM Wang (1994) Mean sea surface and geoid gradient comparison with Topex altimeter data. JGR 99, C12, 24, 657-24, 667

Ries JC, RJ Eanes, CK Shum, MM Watkins (1992) Progress in the determination of the gravitational coefficient of the Earth, GRL 19, 6, 529-31

Ries JC (1998) Personal communications

Stephenson FR, LV Morrison (1994) Long-term fluctuations in the Earth’s rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. (London) Ser. A

Wang Z, J Kakkuri (1998) The time dependency of gravity potential on the geoid. (Submitted to J. Geodesy)

Williams JG, XX Newhall, JO Dickey (1993) In contributions of space geodesy to geodynamics: Earth Dynamics, eds. DE Smith, DL Turcotte. Geodynamics series 24, AGU, Washington, 83

Williams JG (1994) Contributions to the Earth’s obliquity rate, precession and nutation. Astron. J. 108, 2, 711-724

Yan HJ, E Groten (1994) The celestial and terrestrial departure points and their various aspects in geodesy and astrometry. Studia geoph. et geod. 38, 2, 117-130

Yurkina MI (1993) Determination of Stokes’ constants respecting zero-frequency tidal term due to the Moon and the Sun. Studia geoph. et geod. 37, 4, 317-325