J. King Saud Univ..Not. 13, Eng. Sci. (1), pp. 39-55 (A.H. 1421/2001) Stadia Tacheometry with Electronic Theodolites Abdalla El Sadig Ali Civil Engineering Department, King Saud University P.O. Box 800, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia ( Received 1/5/ 1999; accepted for publication 25/3/2000 ) Abstract, Six simple electronic digital theodolites, three Sokkia instruments, a DT6, a DTS anda DT2, a Topon DT20, a Zeiss ETh4 and a Leica T1600, were used to test measurement accuracy of horizontal distance and difference in elevation using stadia hairs etched on the telescope reticule of these new types of theadolite. A geodetic test line was remeasured using these theodolites and_ standard deviations in horizontal distance and differences in elevation were then computed using first, the nominal values of scale factor K and additive constant C (namely 100 and 0 respectively) and secondly, the least squares-computed counterparts of these (wo parameters. In_ the first case, horizontal distance accuracy obtained ranged from LOmm in 100m with the Leica theodolite to £ 16mm in 100m with the Sokkiu DTS instrument. The vertical distance accuracy ranged from + 9mm (in 100m) with the Leica T1600 tot 15mm (in 100m) with the Topcon DT-20 theodolite, The corresponding values in the second case were + 8mm to + 13mm in the horizontal direction and + Tmm to £ [4mm in height. This means that in both cases, “semi-electronic tacheometry” gives accuracy figures much better (two to three times) than conventional optical stadia techniques. These high accuracy figures are believed to be attributed partially to repeated measurements and partially to the improved design of modern electronic theodolites used in the test. This range of accuracy figures is commensurate with the requirements of a her of surveying, civil engineering, agricultural, environmental and other localized-type surveys where only modest to moderate positional accuracy figures are sought. Introduction Tacheometry is known in surveying as the technique by which horizontal distances and differences in heights are obtained by making use of some optical characteristics of the instrument being used for the survey. The method had long enjoyed decades of popularity as an inexpensive tool for rapid and precise mapping of small areas. Depending on the instrument used, attainable accuracy figures in 100m distance are generally believed to range from 1/3000 using modern optical theodolites and levels [1] to 1/10,000 using subtense bar tacheometry. The expected accuracy figures in height difference determination over 100m, range from + 20mm to + 30mm. 2526 Abdalla El Sadig Ali For the last twenty years or so, conventional optical tacheometry has in many occasions been superceded by electronic digital techniques. In this respect, electronic tacheometry excels in many ways, namely increased range of opcration (up to 3 kms instead of a maximum of 150m — 170m for optical tacheometry), increased accuracy (15-20 times better), ease and speed of the surveying process, user-friendliness of the hardware and software used and amenability to automatic data recording for on- or off-line data processing in a computer. Unfortunately, modular electronic tacheometers and total stations are expensive devices (typically SR 50,000 - SR 100,000). This made many individual practicing surveyors, civil engineers and other field measurement scientists, and some small surveying/civil engineering firms decide to make use of this new digital electronic surveying technology by purchase and use of the relatively inexpensive electronic digital theodolites, often less expensive than even some of their conventional optical counterparts. For example, an instrument such as the small and simple Sokkia DT6 reading to 20” (or 5 mgon) is less expensive than any of the equivalent Sokkia T'S6 or the Leica T16 optical scale-reading theodolites [2,3], yet offering most of the main privileges of accurate clectronic angle measurement and data recording for the purpose of subsequent downloading to a computer. Most of these "cheap" electronic thcodolites (called basic electronic theodolites) [4] have stadia hairs marked on the reticule of the telescope just as the case with optical theodolites. If, for some reasons, it is mandatory to use. these simple electronic systems for stadia tacheometry, then the inverse of the old mount-on system exists, namely, angles are measured electronically while computations of horizontal distances and differences in elevation are computed later using cither a computer programme or an electronic calculator. Such a system may be termed “semi-electronic tacheometry”. Indeed, the case may arise, even in this era of automation and high tech mensuration procedures, in which an engineer or a surveyor finds himself obliged to use this method, for example, in the case where a fully electronic tacheometer or total station is not available or in the case of a breakdown of the distance measuring component of the system, “Semi-electronic”” tacheometry can, therefore, be a viable technique in some special circumstances and could well make the only directly available alternative to fully electronic methods. Aim of the Test Having said that, one needs to know the accuracy with which horizontal and vertical distances can be derived using these relatively simple electronic theodolites. In the last five to eight years, the present author carried out several similar tests on a number of modern optical theodolites, levels and special-purpose tacheometers, the aim being to have an insight into the level of accuracies with which horizontal distances and differences in elevation are measured with these instruments {1, 5-8]. In general, the results of these various tests showed that (depending on the type of instrument used and observation range), optical tacheometry with modern improved optical theodolites and levels can yield horizontal distance accuracy values in the range 1/3000 — 1/4200 (in 100m); and a range of + 20mm to + 30 mm for differences in elevation. Both accuracy ranges reported in those investigations, therefore, were generally much better than what was commonly believed to be possible with optical tacheometry (a maximum tange of 1/500-1/1000) [9-11]Stadia Tacheometry with Electronic Theodolites 27 This paper reports results of an experiment carried out as a continuation to those tests. Simple design electronic theodolites with stadia hairs etched on their cross-hair reticules, were, however, used instead of conventional optical theodolites and tacheometers. It is to be pointed out, however, that mention of any type of instrument in this test does not bear the meaning of any sort of endorsement (or otherwise) from the part of the present author or his affiliation nor to set any kind of standards for its use or performance. Rather, the main goal ‘= is to evaluate, in a limited manner, the instruments used in the test by presenting comparisons of field measurements and results as related to the particulars of the test. The Electronic Theodolite and Electronic Tacheometer Electronic theodolites operate similarly to their optical counterparts; one major difference is that angles are turned electronically. Thus, an electronic theodolite provides a visual electronic digital display of horizontal and vertical circle reading ona combined liquid crystal display (LCD) or light-emitting diode (LED), thus eliminating the need for an optical system. The incremental angle-measuring system is usually identical for both horizontal and vertical circles. Each circle carries a reflecting grating and is scanned by two sensors positioned diametrically opposite to each other to eliminate eccentricity. Usually, a sensor of an electronic theodolite comprises an infra-red light source, a lens, an analyser grating and a detector (Figs. 1a, 1b). The light passes through the lens and analyser grating to the circle grating from where it is reflected back to the detector, As the telescope is rotated, interference fringes move in the plane of the detector. By counting the fringes and interpolating within them, angle measurement is achieved. Fig. 1a. Incremental encoding electronic angle measuring system (after (10)).28 Abdalla Bl Sadig Ali Fig. 1b. Leica TCI - a typical electronic tacheometer.Stadia Tacheometry with Electronic Theodolites 29 ‘As the angle measuring system is incremental, the circles have neither codes nor numbers. On switching on the instrament, the horizontal circle reading is set automatically to zero. By means of the keyboard, it can be set to any other required value. For the vertical circle, for many models, a pendulum defines the plamb line and compensates for residual crrors in levelling up. As the microprocessor combines the circle and pendulum readings, the displayed vertical angle readings are therefore referenced to the plumb line. The read-outs of both circles can be recorded in a conventional field-book or else can be stored in an electronic cquivalent for subsequent print-out or computations. Digital electronic theodolites, therefore, provide several worthwhile advantages to the surveyor and engineer e.g. the circles can be readily zeroed by a simple press of a button ‘or they can be initialized to any desired values through entry with the keyboard; angles can be observed either left or right; and angles measured by repetition can be added to provide the sum. Extra merits include minimizing mistakes in reading angles; increased speed of operation and possibly reduced cost. Also, some of these instruments have various built-in functions that can enable the operator (0 determine remote object clevation (the so-called remote object measurement (ROM)) and distance between remote points (often referred to as missing linc measurement capability). Electronic tacheometers, on the other hand, constitute further development to these simple electronic theodolites. In addition to the basic features of electronic theodolites mentioned earlier, a tachcometer has extra capabilities including the ability to be extended to total station status with the inclusion of modular components such as electronic distance measurement (EDM) and data collection. Typical electronic tacheometer specifications include: Telescope magnification : 25x ~ 30x. Field of view : S° Shortest focussing distance 1.0m Least count 1" to 20" (1 mgon to 5 mgon) ‘Angle turn electronic and incremental Level sensitivity plate 40"/2mm; circular — 10/2mm. Basic electronic theodolites possess most of these essential features, yet they arc much cheaper compared to full capacity electronic tacheometers. Procedure of the Test Essentially, the procedure is to measure lines of known lengths and elevation differences using each of the test instruments. This allows computation of discrepancies (residuals) between the known quantities (distances and elevations) and their measured equivalents. These will allow computation of standard deviations in distance and height. Comparison of the derived standard deviation values with accuracy figures generally30 Abdalla El Sadig Ali believed to be possible with tacheometric surveys is then made. Finally, a comparison of the results obtained in the present test with those obtained by a number of researchers is presented; and a general conclusion regarding the use of "semi-electronic" tacheometry in survey practice is then drawn. ‘A 100m long, 10-section part of a well-protected and regularly-maintained geodetic test_line (being used for surveying instrument calibration) was used for the purpose. The actual distances and differences in elevation between the one end of the line and each of the ten points constituting the various sections were originally established using geodetic means; and are, in fact, being regularly checked. Literature about the test line mentions that its Iength is known to better than + 1mm in 100m (i.e. better than 1/100,000), and the accuracy of the derived heights satisfy the requirements for first order class | levelling standards as set out by the U.S.A.-based Federal Geodetic Control Committee (FGCC) (see [5,7]. These accuracy figures were viewed as satisfactory for the purpose of the present test (recall it is semi-electronic tacheometry that is being tested and not fully electronic tachcometcy where the accuracy of distance measurement generally falls in the range (+ 2mm +2 ppm) to+(10 mm + 10 ppm)). These known distances and elevation differences were assumed to be the "known" or “true” entities of the experiment with which the computed equivalents derived from the test were to be compared. ‘The distances and differences of clevation between the first point and each of the ten points on the line were then established by stadia surveying using cach of the onic theodolites uscd in the test. Building on the experience gained in previous investigations carried out by the author [1, 5-9], a standard Wild GNLE12 imperial levelling staff (graduated in feet) was used with all test theodolites, the aim being to increase staff reading accuracy [13}. Also, all obscrvations were carried out in carly mornings (06-08 hr) or late afternoons (14-18 hrs) in order to minimize the adverse effects of heat shimmer and refraction on the observations. Further precautions taken when measuring include, careful centering of the theodolite, use of bond level with the staff to help hold it plumb and observing portions of the staff well above ground evel (in order to escape grazing rays which increase the effects of refraction). For each of the ten points on the test line, staff intercepts and zenith angles were measured 10 times in each of the five consecutive days of the test. The mean values of these observations were then used to compute distances and differences in elevation between the reference point and cach of the test points on the line. The weather conditions during the time-span of the test were almost the same; thus minimizing adverse cffects on the measuring process caused by variations in parameters such as temperature. wind, humidity, etc. All observations (staff intercepts and zenith angles) were manually recorded on a conventional field-book (i.e. no attempt was made to record these entities electronically) and subsequent computations were carried out using a computer program. Also, for the Sokkia DT2 and the Leica Ti600 (which are more advanced than the rest of the testStadia Tacheometry with Electronic Theodolites 31 instruments) no attempt was made to measure the distances electronically using the built-in microprocessor of these instruments. This was believed to reduce possible observer bias, Instruments Used, Computations and Results of the Test Electronic theodolites used in the test were one each of the following brands; a Sokkia DT6, a Sokkia DTS, a Sokkia DT2, a Topcon DT-20, a Zeiss ETh4 and a Leica T1600. All of these instruments have stadia hairs marked on their diaphragms, which facilitates their use for semi-electronic tachometric surveys. The test instruments were subjected (o the usual adjustment procedures before being used in the experiment. All instruments are supplicd with automatic vertical circle indexing mechanism, an important feature for the circumstances of this test. Table { presents some of the charactcristics of the test instruments helieved to be of some reference to the particulars of the present test. Table 1. Some characteristics of the test instruments, Telescope “Angle reading, ‘Stadia constants Enstrument magnification, ‘system resolution K& Sokkia D6 26x Incremental rotary 20" (5 mgon) 1000 encoder Sokkia DTS 30x Incremental rotary 5" (1 mgon) 1000 encoder Sokkia DT2 32x Incremental rotary 1° (0.2 mgon) 100.0 encoder Topcon DT-20 25x Incremental rotary 20" (5 mgon) 1000 encoder Zeiss Fah 30x Incremental rotary 10” @ mgon) 100.0 encoder Leica T1600 30x Absolute encoder 1" (0.2 mgon) 1000 ‘The basic and general tacheometric equation was used, ie D = KS sin’ z+Csinz ay where D = horizontal distance lo be derived from stadia technique S = staff intercept K = multiplication constant (scale factor) C = additive constant; and % = measured zenith angle32 ‘Abdalla El Sadig Ali In the vertical direction differences in elevation between the first point (treated as error-free benchmark) and each of the points on the line occupied by the staff were derived using the equation: H, = Ho+hjtv-m (2) elevation of staff position held at point P; elevation of instrument station (known); height of trunnion axis of theodolite (measured by tape or otherwise); vertical component of slope distance; and middle hair reading (made equal to h; during observation). The vertical component of the slope distance is given by the equation: V = % KScos 22+ cosz 3) where K, S, C and z are as before. As was the case in the similar tests carried out by the author in previous investigations, e.g. [1, 6-9], the procedure was to place the middle hair on the staff at a height cqual to that of the trunnion axis of the theodolite (rounded to the next 0.02 ft line). The upper and lower hairs are read to one tenth of a graduation (in this case 0.61 mm) so as to increase the reading accuracy of the levelling rod [12]. Of course, the index error of the vertical circle may contribute significantly to the overall accuracy of the test. Hence, for each instrument, this error was checked and adjusted (when necessary) following the description given in the respective manufacturer manuals. The initial part of the computer program calculates horizontal distances and differences in elevation using nominal values of K and C as given in instrument manuals (typically K = 100 and C=0). The program then proceeds to compute the discrepancies (residual errors) between calculated distances (and elevations) and their known values (as given in the literature of the geodetic test line). The program then uses these discrepancics to compute root-mean-square errors as standard deviations (6) using the formula: De 5; @) where Vi = residual error between known and computed values of distance (or elevation) iiusing theodolite j; n= number of measured distances (elevations); and Ww; = a weighting function = 100/D, (D; is in meters).