Nutation of the non-rigid Earth: Effect of the mass redistribution

¹ Dept. of Sciences and Informatics, University Centre of Defence at the Spanish Air Force Academy, 30720 Santiago de la Ribera, Spain
e-mail: tomas.baenas@cud.upct.es
² Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, University of León, 24071 León, Spain
³ Dept. of Applied Mathematics, University of Alicante, PO Box 99, 03080 Alicante, Spain

Received: 16 July 2020
Accepted: 14 September 2020

Abstract

In this research, we computed the nutation of the figure axis for a non-rigid Earth model due to the mass redistribution resulting from the lunisolar attraction on the deformable Earth, thus extending our previous work on the precessional motion. The basic Earth model is a two-layer structure composed of a fluid core and an anelastic mantle. We used the Hamiltonian approach, leading to closed-form analytical formulae that describe the nutations in longitude and obliquity of the figure axis as a sum of Poisson and Oppolzer terms. Those formulae were evaluated assuming different Earth rheologies by means of the Love number formalism. In particular, we first computed the effect using the standard model of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service Conventions (2010) solid tides, and then the Love numbers computed by Williams and Boggs, accounting for the complete oceanic tide contribution, which should provide more consistent and updated values for the nutations. The main amplitudes correspond to the 18.6 yr nutation component and reach 201 μas and −96 μas in the in-phase components in longitude and obliquity, respectively. The obtained values differ greatly from those considered in the current nutation model, IAU2000, of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) – and later similar studies – which includes this effect under the denomination of non-linear terms and derives its numerical contribution on the basis of the Sasao, Okubo, and Saito framework. The differences are significant and reach more than 30 μas for some nutation amplitudes. They can be likely attributed to several factors: an incomplete modelling of the redistribution potential; a different treatment of the permanent tide; and the use of different oceanic tide models.