Technical Note
Second Order Design of Geodetic Networks
by the Simulated Annealing Method
Sergio Baselga, M.ASCE1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on 03/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Abstract: The problem of determining the required precision in observations in order to obtain a desired precision in final parameters,
classically known as the second order design problem, is revisited in this paper and proposed to be solved by the simulated annealing method.
An example and a flexible implementation in MATLAB are given. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000053. © 2011 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Geodetic surveys; Design; Optimization; Networks.
Author keywords: Geodetic surveys; Design; Optimization.
Introduction
Determination of the required precision in observations in order to
obtain a desired precision in the final coordinates is one of the clas-
sic design problems in geodesy, namely, the second order design
(SOD) problem (Grafarend and Sanso 1985). There is also a zero
order design (ZOD) problem—aimed at selecting the optimum
reference for the network, a first order design (FOD) problem—
dedicated to network geometry optimization, and a third order de-
sign (TOD) problem—aimed to optimize network densification.
Traditionally, SOD has been referred to as the optimum weight
problem, because it is aimed at determining weights (or equiva-
lently, precision in every observation) in order to attain a desired
covariance matrix for the final parameters. Classical approaches
are not exempt from problems: There may be no consistent solu-
tions (Müller 1985), nonsensical negative weights appear (Schmitt
1985), or at least they may result in a proposed network where
many observations are assigned a zero weight, thus disappearing
from the observation plan and making network redundancy dras-
tically diminish (Grafarend 1975). More recent works have over-
come the problem of negative weights; they distinguish among
optimization in precision, cost, and reliability and even provide
a combined scheme for FOD and SOD optimization (Kuang
1991, 1993, 1996). In the context of reliability optimization, a
change in the SOD definition has even been proposed so as to
restate it as the problem of making reliability parameters as
uniform as possible (Amiri-Simkooei 2004; Amiri-Simkooei and
Sharifi 2004).
In the past, many new attempts and applications have been
derived for network design problems: Dare and Saleh (2000),
Chelouah and Saleh (2003), Berné and Baselga (2004), Eshagh
and Kiamehr (2007), Bagherbandi et al. (2009), Coulot et al.
(2010), and others. In particular, Berné and Baselga (2004) pro-
posed the use of the simulated annealing method for the classic
1
Dpto. Ingeniería Cartográfica, Geodesia y Fotogrametría, Univ.
Politécnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain.
E-mail: serbamo@cgf.upv.es
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 13, 2010; approved on
December 30, 2010; published online on January 3, 2011. Discussion per-
iod open until April 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Surveying
Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 4, November 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9453/2011/4-167–173/$25.00.
JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2011 / 167
J. Surv. Eng. 2011.137:167-173.
FOD problem. The successful performance of this global optimi-
zation method has made it applicable to many other problems in
geodesy and geodynamics, e.g., Sen and Stoffa (1991), Johnson
and Wyatt (1994), Cervelli et al. (2001), Saleh and Dare (2001),
Kai et al. (2004), Baselga (2007), and Baselga and García-Asenjo
(2008). In the present paper we propose applying the simulated
annealing method to the SOD problem, understood only as preci-
sion optimization. After a brief review of the method in the follow-
ing section, we will propose an algorithm for use in these SOD
problems and a corresponding application example including a
MATLAB implementation easily adaptable to the reader’s possible
applications.
Simulated Annealing Method
This method, developed originally by Metropolis et al. (1953), em-
ulates the process by which crystalline networks self-construct. The
particles of a body move freely in a range whose amplitude is de-
pendent on the temperature. When temperature decreases, so does
mobility and, provided the cooling is slow enough, the particles are
able to arrange themselves in states of increasingly lower energy,
leading eventually to the state of lowest energy, i.e., the global op-
timum, the crystalline state. Following this ability of nature to find
the minimum energy state of the system, it is possible to derive an
algorithm that implements the basic features of the process and is
adapted to the particular optimization problem.
Let us suppose a function f depending explicitly or implicitly on
some parameters x (possibly subject to some restrictions). The
global optimization problem, i.e., the determination of the optimum
x within the search domain D that makes the objective function f
reach the global minimum, is formulated as


min f ðxÞ
ð1Þ
subject to x ∈ D
The simulated annealing method solves the global optimization
problem iteratively by means of the following scheme:
1. Initial solution. Take an arbitrary vector x (belonging to the
search domain) and compute the corresponding objective func-
tion value f ðxÞ. Define initial agitation amplitude σ0 .
2. Displacement (caused by thermal agitation). Gaussian beha-
vior is customarily selected for emulating the free movement
 of particles: For each component of x, generate a displacement As generally stated (Grafarend 1975; Müller 1985; Schmitt 1985),
according to SOD aims to find the weights in P (possibly only for some obser-
vations) that make the resulting cofactor matrix approach some
Δxi ∼Nð0; σÞ ð2Þ desired or expected cofactor matrix QxE . This cofactor matrix may
have any desired form. It can be, for instance, a Baarda’s criterion
where the corresponding probability density function is
matrix (Baarda 1981), which leads to absolute and relative confi-
1 dence regions of circular shape, or be simply an ideal (though not
pdfðΔxi Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi e
Δxi =ð2σ Þ ð3Þ
2 2

2πσ feasible in practice) diagonal matrix. It is also possible that one

with σ the displacement amplitude for the iteration (initially
σ0 ). Displacements are feasible only if the resulting vector
x belongs to the search domain D.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on 03/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
desires to specify only some elements of it, as we will propose
for our particular application. In any case, let us measure the degree
of approximation to the desired solution by the well-known
Frobenius norm—that provides the so-called Euclidean distance

3. Amplitude reduction in the thermal agitation following some
cooling scheme. With the decrease of temperature—the course
of iterations in our analogy—displacements (2) suffer a gra-
dual decrease in amplitude σ (geometrical decay is one of
the most common choices)
σ ¼ β j σ0 ð4Þ
with cooling factor β (the closer to unity the slower the cool-
ing) and iteration j.
4. Accept/reject new solution. The solution taken as the basis for
the next iteration is
x þ Δx if f ðx þ ΔxÞ < f ðxÞ
x þ Δx otherwise with probability p ð5Þ
x otherwise
Eq. (5) emulates acceptance criteria observed in nature. The
acceptance of states of lower energy (lower f ) is undoubtedly
reasonable; however, it has also been observed that in some
rare cases (i.e., with low probability p) the material occupies
temporarily a state of somewhat higher energy in the search for
still lower energy levels. This observed feature seems to be
important to prevent the algorithm from falling into local
optima.
5. Go to step 2 and consider again thermal agitation, cooling, and
acceptance criteria. Stop the algorithm when the finishing
criterion is verified: e.g., when the displacement amplitude
is below a desired value.
If the defined cooling process is slow enough, then the algorithm
output is the global minimum of function f within the search
domain D, i.e., the solution to the posed Eq. (1). A necessary
(though not sufficient) condition for global optimum is that succes-
sive executions of the algorithm provide the same result. For more
detailed information on the simulated annealing method, refer to
more specific sources in the literature, e.g., van Laaarhoven (1987)
and Pardalos and Romeijn (2002).
between matrices (Aja-Fernández et al. 2009)—so that the global
optimization problem is then stated as the problem of finding
weights included in P, Eq. (7), for which the following global mini-
mum is attained:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
XX
min kQx
QxE kF ¼ min ðQxij
QxEij Þ2 ð8Þ
i j
Some constraints can be put on the weights to be obtained, in-
cluding at least the need for all of them to be positive. The solution
to Eq. (8) always exists, but obviously the attained degree of
approximation to the desired matrix will depend on the particular
problem.
In the appendix, a MATLAB implementation of the algorithm
for the following example is provided along with the corresponding
data matrices. The code is easily adaptable to the reader’s particular
SOD applications.
Application
The preliminary design of a planimetric network for deformation
monitoring is displayed in Fig. 1. Distance and angle observations
are to be done among the designed eight points: three in a stable
area (with their coordinates held fixed) and five test points in the
possibly affected area. The coordinate system has been selected so

Proposed Algorithm

Let us focus now on the precision-approach SOD problem and

implement the preceding method to find its solution. The initial
system of observing equations can be expressed as
Ax
l ¼ ε ð6Þ

along with weighting matrix P; where A = design matrix; x =

solution vector; l = vector of observed minus computed observa-
tions; and ε = residuals vector. Only A and P are known at the
design stage. They are used to compute the prior covariance matrix
or cofactor matrix

Qx ¼ ðAT PAÞ
1 ð7Þ Fig. 1. Network plot

168 / JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2011

J. Surv. Eng. 2011.137:167-173.

 that its y-axis roughly coincides with the expected deformation Table 2. Observation Weights
direction for these test points. As a first guess at this preliminary Initial Final Initial Final
stage, instrumentation and methodology are assumed to provide Observation weight weight Observation weight weight
angular precision of about 14 cc and distance precision of 0.007 m.
If a unit prior reference variance is selected, weights are the inverse Angle 1 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 1 20,000 33,917
of the corresponding variances, that is 0.005 for angles and 20,000 Angle 2 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 2 20,000 21,151
for distances. Angle 3 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 3 20,000 14,794
The network reference (ZOD problem) is assumed to be clear Angle 4 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 4 20,000 68,621
and unquestioned. The coordinates of the three fixed points define Angle 5 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 5 20,000 48,852
it. The same applies to the network geometry (FOD problem). The Angle 6 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 6 20,000 66,931
location of approximate points is definitive. Both design problems Angle 7 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 7 20,000 51,368
have already been solved in design stages previous to the SOD Angle 8 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 8 20,000 77,344
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on 03/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

problem. Therefore, the only remaining question is the needed pre- Angle 9 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 9 20,000 75,014
cision in observables (or equivalently, their weights) so as to attain
Angle 10 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 10 20,000 44,926
some desired degree of precision in the final parameters, which
Angle 11 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 11 20,000 72,095
constitutes the SOD.
As the deformation direction is parallel to the y-axis, let us as- Angle 12 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 12 20,000 66,137
sume a desired final precision of 0.003 m in y-coordinates (preci- Angle 13 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 13 20,000 62,353
sion requirements for x-coordinates are not important in this Angle 14 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 14 20,000 66,453
application). Because of the geometry of the problem, it may seem Angle 15 0.0050 0.0050 Distance 15 20,000 88,064
reasonable to try to attain the desired degree of precision by modi-
fying only distance weights, since angles have less controllability
than distances in the y-direction. The available MATLAB imple- Table 1 displays y-coordinate uncertainties for both the initial
mentation permits one to select both the particular weights to be design and the solution after the SOD as compared to the desired
modified and the particular elements of the covariance matrix that values. Corresponding weights are shown in Table 2.
are desired to be obtained. In this example the objective is to attain Surprisingly at first sight, it can be observed that by repeated
σ2y1 ≈ σ2y2 ≈ σ2y3 ≈ σ2y4 ≈ σ2y5 ≈ ð0:003Þ2 m2 by computing the execution of the SOD MATLAB code one obtains different sets
necessary weights of the 15 distance observations. The correspond-
of weights that differ substantially among them (and from those
ing objective function [Eq. (8)] reads now
displayed in Table 2). They all provide, however, very similar
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X
min ðσ2yi
0:0032 Þ2 ð9Þ
i

The starting point for the global optimization process is the ini-
tial coarse weight design (which is not critical), i.e., 0.005 as the
weight for all angles and 20,000 as the weight for all distances. The
algorithm starts with an initial amplitude that is two times the initial
weight (σ0 ¼ 2 × 20;000 ¼ 40;000 for distances) so that it can
comfortably explore a wide range of weights. No limitations are
set for the weight search other than the requirement for weights
to be positive. The β cooling factor in Eq. (4) is taken as
0.9999, which provides a sufficient slow cooling process, and
the low probability p in Eq. (5) is taken as 0.001. The algorithm
stops when the displacement amplitude σ computed in Eq. (4) is
below 0.2 times the initial weight, which for the present cases im-
plies some 23,000 iterations. The optimum obtained has an objec-
tive function value [Eq. (9)] of 2:6493 × 10
6 , a number that serves
for quantifying the attained degree of approximation to the desired
solution and comparing different solutions obtained in different
trials, always bearing in mind that for the present problem (i.e., Fig. 2. Symbolic representation of Pareto frontier for an assumed
at the network design stage) uncertainties of some 2.8 mm are two-variable function
formally equivalent to an uncertainty of 3.0 mm so that the search
for a higher degree of approximation is virtually of no use.

Table 3. Results for Variables to Optimize with 60,000 as the Weight for
Table 1. Results for Variables to Optimize All Distances
Variable to Initial value Value after SOD Objective value Variable to Initial value Value after SOD Objective value
optimize (m) (m) (m) optimize (m) (m) (m)
σy1 0.0048 0.0027 0.0030 σy1 0.0048 0.0029 0.0030
σy2 0.0047 0.0029 0.0030 σy2 0.0047 0.0029 0.0030
σy3 0.0048 0.0029 0.0030 σy3 0.0048 0.0030 0.0030
σy4 0.0048 0.0028 0.0030 σy4 0.0048 0.0029 0.0030
σy5 0.0048 0.0028 0.0030 σy5 0.0048 0.0031 0.0030

JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2011 / 169

J. Surv. Eng. 2011.137:167-173.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on 03/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 4. Example Design Matrix and Corresponding Observation Weights

dX 1 dY 1 dX 2 dY 2 dX 3 dY 3 dX 4 dY 4 dX 5 dY 5 Observation weight

602:685319 525.813986 575.784336
538:197335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.005
0 0
575:784336 538.197335 536.81429
550:353625 0 0 0 0 0.005
0 0 0 0
536:81429 550.353625 550.101654
581:536552 0 0 0.005
0 0 0 0 0 0
550:101654 581.536552 499.490696
576:663777 0.005
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
499:490696 576.663777 0.005

583:209648 188.646002 577.576395
205:375108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.005
0 0
577:576395 205.375108 566.754581
228:168135 0 0 0 0 0.005
0 0 0 0
566:754581 228.168135 586.945614
234:866765 0 0 0.005
0 0 0 0 0 0
586:945614 234.866765 563.424056
257:444887 0.005
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
563:424056 257.444887 0.005

1004:710905
238:72383 1039.892506 201.270654 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.005
0 0
1039:892506
201:270654 1083.770191 136.84287 0 0 0 0 0.005
0 0 0 0
1083:770191
136:84287 1135.406474 182.900006 0 0 0.005
0 0 0 0 0 0
1135:406474
182:900006 1160.47885 74.418127 0.005
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1160:47885
74:418127 0.005
0.657416 0.753527 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000
0 0 0.68286 0.73055 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000
0 0 0 0 0.715857 0.698246 0 0 0 0 20,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.726469 0.6872 0 0 20,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.755874 0.654717 20,000
0.307762 0.951463 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000

170 / JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2011

0 0 0.335031 0.942207 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000
0 0 0 0 0.373459 0.927647 0 0 0 0 20,000

J. Surv. Eng. 2011.137:167-173.

0 0
0 0

0:231169 0.972914
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0.371511 0.928428 0 0 20,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.415599 0.909548 20,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000

0:190023 0.98178 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000
0 0
0:125271 0.992123 0 0 0 0 20,000
0 0 0 0
0:159037 0.987273 0 0 20,000
0 0 0 0 0 0
0:063996 0.99795 20,000
 values for the variables to optimize, all considerably close to the
objective values, as shown in Table 1. In other words, it is observed
that many sets of different weights produce almost the same
solution in coordinate uncertainties space. It has to be taken into
account that for the problem at hand there is a limit where it is
impossible to approximate one more variable to its objective with-
out detriment of the others, which will move away from their
objectives, a fact known as the Pareto optimality. All of these sol-
utions of extremely similar quality confirm what is known as the
Pareto frontier. This outcome—symbolically depicted in Fig. 2—is
well known in general optimization theory and is not alien to some
geodetic optimization problems, e.g., Coulot et al. (2010). Addi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on 03/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Conclusions
The present paper proposed solving the SOD problem by the simu-
lated annealing method. After describing the algorithm, it was
applied to solve an example (an appendix contains the correspond-
ing MATLAB source code and data matrices). In contrast with
some classic methods, the present approach may not yield nonsen-
sical negative weights. Furthermore, it can be assured that a solu-
tion always exists. However, the possibility of obtaining many
different solutions of comparable quality persists, something that
is explained in the context of Pareto optimality.

tional external criteria are then needed for the user to characterize
their desired final solution.
In this case, let us resign ourselves to computing only a single,
unique weight for all distances (note that the code could easily be
adapted to compute this simplified problem). The results in Table 2,
as well as repeated executions, seem to suggest a possible mean
value of 60,000. With this value for all distance weights one obtains
the results for the variables to optimize displayed in Table 3. They
agree comparably well in terms of the objective values with those
obtained before (e.g., Table 1).
Appendix. MATLAB Source Code
A MATLAB source code implementing the proposed algorithm for
the SOD problem is provided. It starts with a call to A.txt and p.txt
files, containing, respectively, the design matrix and an initial
coarse estimation of observation weights, which are listed in Table 4
(files A.txt and p.txt may not contain headings but only numeric
data separated by blanks).
The MATLAB code is listed below.

% ’SOD.m’ file
% SECOND ORDER DESIGN PROBLEM implementation
% Author: Sergio Baselga, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain
% December, 2010

A=load(’A.txt’); % design matrix

p=load(’p.txt’); % column vector containing diagonal elements of P

initialsigma=2; % factor relative to the initial weight: i.e., if p=200; initialsigma

(in weight units)=2*p=2*200
finalsigma=0.2; % factor relative to the initial weight (stop criterion)
coolingfactor=0.9999; % sigma (i)=sigma(i-1)*coolingfactor;
smallprob=0.001; % probab. of accepting worse solutions (prevents the algorithm
from falling into local optima)

GoalElement_Values= [2 2 9e-6; % [row column desiredValueforQxx]

4 4 9e-6;
6 6 9e-6;
8 8 9e-6;
10 10 9e-6 ];

WeightsToOptimize =[16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30]; % 1st option

%WeightsToOptimize =’all’; % 2nd Option

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

clc
disp(’Computation started…’);
[m,n]=size(A);
if ischar(WeightsToOptimize), % reason: WeightsToOptimize ==’all’
WeightsToOptimize=[];
for j=1:m, WeightsToOptimize(j)=j;end;
end;
[mWTO,nWTO]=size(WeightsToOptimize);
for i=1:m,
P(i,i)=p(i,1); % m x m weight matrix
end;
P0=P; % we store the initial weight matrix as P0
Qx=inv(A’*P*A);

JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2011 / 171

J. Surv. Eng. 2011.137:167-173.

 Qx0=Qx;
[NoValues,col]=size(GoalElement_Values);
dis2=0;
for j=1:NoValues,
dis2=dis2+(Qx(GoalElement_Values(j,1),GoalElement_Values(j,2))-GoalElement_Values(j,3))^2;
end;
fbest=dis2; % “distance” to the desired solution as measured by the square of Frobenius norm
fprev=fbest;
bestQx=Qx;
previousP=P;

sigma=initialsigma;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on 03/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

iter=0;

while sigma>finalsigma,
P2=previousP;
iter=iter+1; % No. of iterations counter
%% Generation of every new random weight increment
for i=1:m
for jj=1:nWTO,
if WeightsToOptimize(jj)==i,
rightvalue = 0;
while rightvalue == 0
NewP = normrnd(P(i,i),sigma*P0(i,i)); %% Generates a random number from the normal
distrib.: N(mu,sigma)
if NewP>=0,
rightvalue=1;
P2(i,i)=NewP;
end;
end;
end;
end;
end;

%%Computation of objective function

Qx=inv(A’*P2*A);
dis2=0;
for j=1:NoValues,
dis2=dis2+(Qx(GoalElement_Values(j,1),GoalElement_Values(j,2))-GoalElement_Values
(j,3))^2;
end;
fcomputed=dis2;
%% Acceptance criterion
if fcomputed<fprev
previousP=P2;
fprev=fcomputed;
if fcomputed<fbest
bestP = P2;
fbest = fcomputed;
bestQx=Qx;
end;
else
randomnumber = rand(1); %% This draws out a random number in the range [0,1]
if randomnumber<smallprob
previousP=P2;
fprev=fcomputed;
end;
end;

sigma=sigma*coolingfactor;
if rem(iter,1000)==0,
fprintf(’%6.0f iterations, sigma=%6.4f (to reach finalsigma=%6.4f)\n’,
iter,sigma,finalsigma);
end;

172 / JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2011

J. Surv. Eng. 2011.137:167-173.

 end;
fprintf(’\nIterations completed! The final value for the objective function is%6.4e\n’,
sqrt(fbest));
for i=1:NoValues,
message=[’The final value for the Qx element ’,num2str(GoalElement_Values(i,1)),’,
’,num2str(GoalElement_Values(i,2)),’
’,num2str(bestQx(GoalElement_Values(i,1),GoalElement_Values(i,2))),’
’,num2str(Qx0(GoalElement_Values(i,1),GoalElement_Values(i,2))),’) as compared
the expected value ’,num2str(GoalElement_Values(i,3))];
disp(message);
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on 03/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
end;
initialweights=diag(P0);
newweights=diag(bestP);
fprintf(1,’Obs# Initial Weight Final Weight\n’);
for i=1:m
fprintf(’%4.0f%14.4f%14.4f\n’,i,initialweights(i,1),newweights(i,1));
end;
Acknowledgments
The writer is grateful to the editor and three anonymous reviewers
for their valuable suggestions, corrections, and constructive com-
ments that helped improve the original manuscript.
References
Aja-Fernández, S., de Luis García, R., Tao, D., and Li, X. (2009). Tensors
in Image Processing and Computer Vision, Springer, Dordrecht,
Heidelberg, London, New York.
Amiri-Simkooei, A. R. (2004). “A new method for second order design of
geodetic networks: Aiming at high reliability.” Surv. Rev., 37(293),
552–560.
Amiri-Simkooei, A. R., and Sharifi, M. A. (2004). “Approach for equiv-
alent accuracy design of different types of observations.” J. Surv. Eng.,
130(1), 1–5.
Baarda, W. (1981). S-Transformations and Criterion Matrices. Neth. Geod.
Comm., Pub. on Geodesy, New Series, 2nd Ed., Vol. 5, Delft, The
Netherlands.
Bagherbandi, M., Eshagh, M., and Sjöberg, L. E. (2009). “Multi-objective
versus single-objective models in geodetic network optimization.”
Nordic J. Surv. Real Estate Res., 6(1), 7–20.
Baselga, S. (2007). “Global optimization solution of robust estimation.”
J. Surv. Eng., 133(3), 123–128.
Baselga, S., and García-Asenjo, L. (2008). “GNSS differential positioning
by robust estimation.” J. Surv. Eng., 134(1), 21–25.
Berné, J. L., and Baselga, S. (2004). “First-order design of geodetic
networks using the simulated annealing method.” J. Geodes., 78(1–2),
47–54.
Cervelli, P., Murray, M. H., and Segall, P. (2001). “Estimating source
parameters from deformation data, with an application to the March
1997 earthquake swarm off the Izu Peninsula, Japan.” J. Geophys.
Res., 106(B6), 11217–11237.
Chelouah, R., and Saleh, H. (2003). “Genetic algorithms for designing the
global positioning system (GPS) networks.” Proc., 7th World Multi-
conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Orlando, Inter-
national Institute of Informatics and Systemics, Caracas, Venezuela.
Coulot, D., Pollet, A., Collilieux, X., and Berio, P. (2010). “Global opti-
mization of core station networks for space geodesy: Application to the
referencing of the SLR EOP with respect to ITRF.” J. Geodes., 84(1),
31–50.
JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2011 / 173
J. Surv. Eng. 2011.137:167-173.
is
(initially
to
Dare, P., and Saleh, H. (2000). “GPS network design: Logistics
solution using optimal and near-optimal methods.” J. Geodes., 74(6),
467–478.
Eshagh, M., and Kiamehr, R. (2007). “A strategy for optimum designing of
the geodetic networks from the cost, reliability and precision views.”
Acta Geod. Geophys. Montan. Hung., 42(3), 297–308.
Grafarend, E. W. (1975). “Second order design of geodetic nets.”
Z. Vermessungswes., 100(4), 158–168.
Grafarend, E. W., and Sanso, F., eds. (1985). Optimization and Design of
Geodetic Networks, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York,
Tokyo.
Johnson, H. O., and Wyatt, F. K. (1994). “Geodetic network design for
fault-mechanics studies.” Manuscr. Geod., 19(5), 309–323.
Kai, T., Qi, W., and Chongyang, S. (2004). “Using geodetic data to inverse
co-seismic dislocation of 2001 Kunlun earthquake.” J. Geod. Geodyn.,
24(3), 47–50.
Kuang, S. L. (1991). “Optimization and design of deformation monitoring
scheme.” Ph.D. dissertation.” Tech. Rep. No. 157, Dept. of Surveying
Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada.
Kuang, S. L. (1993). “Second-order design: Shooting for maximum
reliability.” J. Surv. Eng., 119(3), 102–110.
Kuang, S. L. (1996). Geodetic network analysis and optimal design:
Concepts and applications, Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.
Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, M., Rosenbluth, A., Teller, A., and Teller, E.
(1953). “Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines.”
J. Chem. Phys., 21(6), 1087–1092.
Müller, H. (1985). “Second-order design of combined linear-angular
geodetic networks.” Bull. Gqéod., 59(4), 316–331.
Pardalos, P. M., and Romeijn, H. E., eds. (2002). Handbook of
Global Optimization, Vols. 1&2, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands.
Saleh, H. A., and Dare, P. (2001). “Effective heuristics for the GPS survey
network of Malta: Simulated annealing and tabu search techniques.”
J. Heuristics, 7(6), 533–549.
Schmitt, G. (1985). “Second order design.” Optimization and Design
of Geodetic Networks, E. W. Grafarend, and F. Sanso, eds., Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo.
Sen, M. K., and Stoffa, P. L. (1991). “Nonlinear one-dimensional seismic
waveform inversion using simulated annealing.” Geophysics, 56(10),
1624–1638.
van Laarhoven, P. J. M., and Aarts, E. H. L. (1987). Simulated annealing:
Theory and applications, Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.