Thesis - Library Format

THE UNIVERSITY OF BAMENDA
HIGHER TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL

TEACHER TRAINING ENGINNERING AND
COLLEGE FORESTRY TECHNIQUES
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SOME TOPOGRAPHICAL

INSTRUMENTS CASE STUDY TOTAL STATION AND GOBAL
POSITIONING SYTSTEM
A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering and Forestry Techniques in

the Higher Technical Teacher Training College in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the award of a Postgraduate Diploma (DIPET II) in Topography.
By
TAKEM FOKOU STEPHANE
14T0164
(DIPET I in Topography)
Supervisor
Dr. JEAN CLAUDE TCHAMBA
JULY, 2019
i
© Copyright by TAKEM FOKOU STEPHANE, 2019
All Rights Reserved
ii
DECLARATION
I, TAKEM FOKOU STEPHANE, registration number 14T0164, Department of Civil

Engineering and Forestry Techniques in the Higher Technical Teacher Training College
of the University of Bamenda hereby declare that, this work titled: “Comparative Study
of Some Topographical Instruments Case Study Total Station and Global
Positioning System” is my original work. It has not been presented in any application
for a degree or any academic pursuit. I have sincerely acknowledged all borrowed ideas
nationally and internationally through citations.
Date Signature
i
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this research titled: “Comparative Study of Some Topographical
Instruments Case Study Total Station and Global Positioning System” is the original
work of TAKEM FOKOU STEPHANE. This work is submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the award of a Postgraduate Diploma (DIPET II) in Topography,
Higher Technical Teacher Training College of the University of Bamenda, Cameroon.
Dr. JEAN CLAUDE TCHAMBA
(Supervisor)
Dr. KATTE VALENTINE YATO Prof. Joseph Ngwain Yong
(Head of Department) (Director)
Having met the stipulated requirements, the Dissertation has been accepted by the
Postgraduate School.
Date:
The General Coordinator

Postgraduate School
ii
DEDICATION
To my beloved mother NGEUNA NGANFASSI MARCELINE
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was completed at the University of Bamenda and particularly at the Higher
Technical Teacher Training College (ENSET) Bambili. In a very difficult context and one
time limited, the result of this study was made possible by the contribution of several
people, who supported me throughout this test by their moral contribution, financial,
scientific and material. I address my sincere thanks:
To my supervisor, Dr. Jean Claude Tchamba (Ph.D.), for devoting enough time to
supervise my work.
To my co-supervisor, Mrs. Deuwa Kamga Godeline for devoting enough time to
supervise my work.
To God Almighty, through his wills, has given me good health, made things possible for
me to be where I am today.
To Doctor Katte Valentine (Ph.D.), Head of Department of civil engineering and
forestry techniques of HTTTC Bambili, for his academic guidance.
To all the lecturer of Civil Engineering Department of H.T.T.T.C-Bambili for the training
they gave me through their teachings.
The staff of NEXT Engineering service for their assistance.
To my beloved steep mother Mrs. NGEUPA Lilianne Clarisse Laure and my father
FOKOU Jacques for all your support, your sacrifices, your wishes to see me succeeding,
receive here all my recognition and my engagement to go until the end.
To my elder brothers DJIOGNOUA Romuald Dewey and NGUIMO Beaurel for their
moral, financial, material support.
I also want to appreciate the efforts of my remaining brothers and sisters for the
encouragement and affection they gave me; Tatiana, Juliette, Brinda and Ismael.
I would not end without appreciating the effort of some of my good friends; Alabeh
Helmine Dzesinyuy, Alontsie T. Israel, Wa‟bet Y. Kurt and Ghokeng D. Willy.
To All my class-mates for their constant collaboration.
Finally, we make a point of thanking all those who were not mentioned in this document
and who contributed to the realization of this work.
iv
ABSTRACT
Nowadays, the accuracy of positioning information is improving by using advanced GPS

receivers, but in critical locations such as urban areas, the satellite availability is limited
above all due to the signal blocking problem, which degrade the required accuracy. For
this reason, different methods of measurement should be used. The objective of this
thesis is to evaluate and compare precision, accuracy, cost and time expenditure of Total
Station (TS) and Global Positioning System (GPS). Comparing precision, accuracy, cost
and the required time of these two measurements will improve the knowledge about how
much precision and accuracy of measurements that can be achieved and at what time
expense and cost. To investigate this task, a reference network consisted of 11 points has
been measured five times with Leica 1203 TS and served as a reference value for
comparison with RTK measurements. The reference network points were also measured
five times with the GPS RTK method so as to compare accuracy, precision and time
expenditure with that of TS. The data were processed in Covadis 9.1 software and Leica
geo office combine software. From the result obtained, the reference network points
measured with TS were determined with 1 mm precision for both horizontal and vertical
coordinates. When using RTK measurements, which were measured five times,
determined with a maximum standard deviation of 8 mm (point C.1) and 1.93 cm (point
P.6) for horizontal and vertical coordinates respectively has been achieved. The precision
of the remaining points is below these levels. Accuracy of the horizontal coordinates
ranges between maximum 7.1 mm (point C.1) and minimum 0.4 mm (point P.5) and
accuracy of the vertical coordinates ranges between maximum 1.91 cm (point C.1) and
minimum 1.1 cm (point P.3). With regard to time expenditure and cost, it is proved that
total station is less expensive and consumed more time than the GPS which is more
expensive and consumed less time. TS consumed 67 min more time than GPS-RTK.
KEY WORDS: Accuracy, Precision, Cost, Time Expenditure, Total Station GPS, Total
Station
v
RESUME
De nos jours, la précision des informations de positionnement s'améliore grâce à

l'utilisation de récepteurs GPS avancés, mais dans des zones critiques telles que les zones
urbaines, la disponibilité des satellites est surtout limitée par le problème de blocage du
signal, qui dégrade la précision requise. Pour cette raison, différentes méthodes de
mesure doivent être utilisées. L'objectif de ce mémoire est d'évaluer et de comparer la
précision, l'exactitude, la dépense en coût et en temps de la Station Totale (TS) et du
Système de Positionnement Global (GPS). La comparaison de la précision, de la
précision, du coût et du temps requis pour ces deux mesures permettra de mieux
comprendre le degré de précision et d'exactitude des mesures pouvant être atteint, ainsi
que les coûts et les dépenses. Pour étudier cette tâche, un réseau de référence constitué de
11 points a été mesuré à cinq reprises avec le Leica 1203 TS et a servi de valeur de
référence pour la comparaison avec les mesures RTK. Les points du réseau de référence
ont également été mesurés cinq fois avec la méthode GPS RTK afin de comparer la
précision, l'exactitude et la dépense de temps avec celles de la TS. Les données ont été
traitées dans le logiciel Covadis 9.1 et le logiciel de Leica geo office combien. À partir
du résultat obtenu, les points de réseau de référence mesurés avec TS ont été déterminés
avec une précision de 1 mm pour les coordonnées horizontales et verticales. Lors de
l'utilisation de RTK, des mesures, mesurées cinq fois, déterminées avec un écart-type
maximal de 8 mm (point C.1) et 1,9 cm (point P.6) pour les coordonnées horizontales et
verticales, respectivement, ont été obtenues. La précision des points restants est
inférieure à ces niveaux l'exactitude des coordonnées horizontales est comprise entre 7,1
mm maximum (point C.1) et 0,4 mm minimum (point P.5) et l'exactitude des
coordonnées verticales est comprise entre 1,9 cm maximum (point C.1) et minimum 1,1
cm (point P.3). En ce qui concerne le temps et les coûts, il est prouvé que la station totale
est moins chère et consomme plus de temps que le GPS, qui est plus chère et consomme
moins de temps. La station totale a consommé 67 minutes de plus que GPS-RTK.
MOTS-CLES : Exactitude, Précision, Cout, Dépense De Temps, Station Totale GPS,

Station Totale
vi
TABLE OF CONTENT
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................. i
CERTIFICATION.......................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................v
RESUME ........................................................................................................................ vi
TABLE OF CONTENT ............................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................x
LIST OF ABBRAVIATION/ACRONYMS ............................................................... xii
CHAPTER 0NE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION ........................................................1
I.1. Background of the study .............................................................................................1
I.2. Justification of the choice of the topic ........................................................................2
I.3. Statement of Problem ..................................................................................................2
I.4. Research Questions .....................................................................................................3
I.5. Objectives of the Research ..........................................................................................3
I.5.1. General Objective .....................................................................................................3
I.5.2. Specific Objectives ...................................................................................................3
I.6. Formulating the Hypotheses........................................................................................3
I.7. Definition of Indicators and Variables ........................................................................4
I.8. Thesis Outline .............................................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................5
II.1. Related Literature of Others Work on Comparison of Total Station and GPS
Instruments ...............................................................................................................5
II.1.1. Accuracy Comparison of Total Station and GPS in Height Determination ...........5
II.1.2. Accuracy Test between GPS RTK and Total Station .............................................5
II.1.3. RTK Measurement Applied to Accuracy Test of Different GPS Instruments .......6
II.1.4. Checking the Compatibility of the RTK Method with that of Total Station Method 6
II.1.5. Evaluating and comparing the precision, accuracy and time expenditure of TS,
GPS and TLS............................................................................................................7
II.1.6. Comparative Analysis of DGPS and TS Accuracies for Deformation Monitoring
of Engineering Structures .........................................................................................7
vii
II.2. Overview of Total Station Instruments ......................................................................8
II.2.1. Types of Total Station .............................................................................................9
II.2.2. Measurement Precision, Accuracy, Time and Cost ..............................................10
I.2.3. Measurement Errors ...............................................................................................15
II.2.4. Mode of Distance Measurement ...........................................................................17
II.3. Overview of GPS Instruments .................................................................................19
II.3.1. Types of GPS ........................................................................................................20
II.3.2. Measurement precision, accuracy, time and cost ..................................................26
II.3.3. Measurement Errors ..............................................................................................30
II.3.4 Real Time Kinematics (RTK) .............................................................................32
II.4. Theoretical Comparison of Total Station and GPS Instruments ..............................32
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................34
III.1. Project Study Area ..................................................................................................34
III.2. Establishing Reference Network ............................................................................34
III.3. Choosing Suitable Control and Detail Survey Points .............................................35
III.4. Detail Survey ..........................................................................................................35
III.4.1. Survey of Detail with Total Station .....................................................................36
III.4.2. Survey of detail with GPS-RTK ..........................................................................36
III.5. Evaluation of Accuracy and Precision ....................................................................36
III.5.1. Checking Accuracy..............................................................................................37
III.5.2. Quality Control ....................................................................................................37
III.5.3. Data processing....................................................................................................37
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS...........41
IV.1. GPS Baseline and TS Processing ...........................................................................41
IV.2. Determination of precision and accuracy of RTK and TS coordinates ..................41
IV.2.1 Precision of GPS-RTK and TS measurements .....................................................42
IV.2.2 Accuracy of GPS-RTK measurements .................................................................42
IV.3. Comparison of Total Station and GPS Results ......................................................43
IV.3.1. Comparison of Total Station and GPS Instruments with Respect to Time .........48
IV.3.2. Comparison of Total Station and GPS Instruments with Respect to Cost ..........50
IV.4. Questionnaire Results .............................................................................................51
IV.5. Discussion of Results .............................................................................................58
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ..........................60
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................60
viii
Recommendations ...........................................................................................................61
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................63
APPENDICE ..................................................................................................................65
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table II.1: Angle Measurement Accuracy .....................................................................13

Table II.2: Distance Measurement Accuracy .................................................................13
Table II.3: The Specification of Leica 1203 Total Station on Distance Measurement ..14
Table II.4: Angle Errors and Their Adjustment .............................................................15
Table II.5: Range Limit Based on Atmospheric Condition ...........................................18
Table II.6: Accuracy of measurements to standard prism ..............................................18
Table II.7: Distance Accuracy in RL Mode ...................................................................18
Table II.8: Comparison of IR and RL Mode ..................................................................19
Table II.9: Summary Description of GRX1200+ Receivers ..........................................21
Table II.10: System Components of GRX1200+ Receivers ..........................................23
Table II.11: Code and Phase Measurement Precision ....................................................27
Table II.12: Accuracy (RMS) with Post Processing ......................................................27
Table II.13: Accuracy (RMS) with Real-Time/RTK .....................................................28
Table II.14: On-the-Fly (OTF) Initialisation ..................................................................30
Table II.15: Position Update and Latency ......................................................................30
Table II.16: Theoretical Comparison of GPS and Total Station ....................................33
Table IV.1: Computed Control Points Coordinate (m) ..................................................41
Table IV.2: RTK Measurement, its RMS and Standard Deviations ..............................43
Table IV.3: The Difference Between TS And RTK Mean .............................................45
Table IV.4: Comparison of Standard Deviations Between TS and RTK .......................46
Table IV.5: Confidence Interval Limits and Coordinates Difference Between TPS and
RTK ............................................................................................................48
Table IV.6: Time Expenditure for TS and RTK Measurements for the Reference
Network ......................................................................................................50
Table IV.7: Compares GPS and Total Station Prices in Cameroon ...............................50
Table IV.8: Different Topographical Instruments Used.................................................51
Table IV.9: How Total Station and GPS Works ............................................................51
Table IV.10: Instrumental Accuracy, Precision, Cost and Measuring Time when using
Leica Total Station .....................................................................................53
Leica Gps ....................................................................................................54
Table IV.12: Comparison of Total Station and GPS ......................................................56
LIST OF FIGURES
x
Figure II.1: Leica 1203 TPS .............................................................................................9
Figure II.2: Resolution ...................................................................................................10
Figure II.3: The Precision of a Single Measurement .....................................................11
Figure II.4: The Precision of Multiple Measurements ...................................................11
Figure II.5: Accuracy .....................................................................................................12
Figure II.6: Principle of Pulse Distance Meter ...............................................................14
Figure II.7: Systematic and Random Errors ...................................................................17
Figure II.8: Leica GX1230 +GNSS Receiver ................................................................20
Figure III.1: Reference control points............................................................................34
Figure IV.1: Survey instrument use ...............................................................................51
Figure IV.2: How Total Station and GPS Works ...........................................................52
Figure IV.3: Instrumental Accuracy, Precision, Cost and Measuring Time when using
Leica Total Station .....................................................................................54
Figure III.4: Instrumental Accuracy, Precision, Cost and Measuring Time when using
Leica GPS ...................................................................................................55
Figure IV. 5: Comparison of Total Station and GPS......................................................58
xi
LIST OF ABBRAVIATION/ACRONYMS
3D: Three Dimension

ATR: Automatic Target Recognition
EDM: Electronic Distance Measurement
GNSS: Global Navigation Satellite System
GPS: Global Positioning System
IR: Infrared Reflector
P: Point
QC: Quality Control
RL: Reflector-less
RMS: Root Mean Square
RTK: Real Time Kinematics
TPS: Terrestrial Positioning System
UTM: Universal Transverse Mercator
WGS 84: World Geodetic System 84
ND018: National Geodetic control point 18
TS: Total Station
PPM: Parts Per Million
TOF: Time of flight
OTF: On-the-Fly
DGPS: Differential Global Positioning System
UERE: User Equivalent Range Errors
DOP: Dilution of precision
xii
CHAPTER 0NE:
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
I.1. Background of the study

Surveying has been an essential element in the development of the human environment for
so many centuries. It is an imperative requirement in the planning and execution of nearly
every form of construction. Its principal modern uses are in the fields of transportation,
construction building, apportionment of land, and detail mapping.
In engineering surveying projects, more sophisticated instruments (total station and GPS) are
employed to improve the efficiency and accuracy. Individual surveying techniques has been
commonly used in the history of surveying area to collect data from field measurements for
various applications with different accuracy capabilities and requirements. The significant
development of surveying techniques enabled surveying professionals to evaluate precision
and accuracy of different surveying techniques. As a result of this evaluation, many
advantages has been gained; basically such as improving the efficiency and accuracy of the
results. The accuracy of surveying measurements can be improved almost indefinitely with
increased cost (time, effort and money).
Nowadays, the role of surveying got much attention to be used in many activities with better
accuracy. The term accuracy is commonly used in many applications (or activities) to
express the quality of observations, measurements or/and calculations.
The required accuracy depends on the needed deliverable output. Activities such as general
navigation tasks on the sea, research in oceanography, position and velocity in small scale
geophysical exploration require low accuracy, those such as hydrography, calibration of
transponder system, precise navigation and seismic survey, precise navigation in coastal
waters etc. are grouped as medium accuracy requirements and activities which require high
accuracy are; precise hydrography surveying, support of coastal engineering marine,
geodynamics, engineering construction projects and precise continuous height control.
Accuracy and precision for those in the surveying profession are defined in different way.
Accuracy refers to how closely a measurement or observation comes to measure a true or
established value, since measurements and observations are always subject to errors.
Meanwhile precision refers to how closely repeated measurements or observations come to
duplicate the measured or observed values.
Surveying accuracy using instruments (such as GPS and TS) are dependent on a number of
parameters that limit their measurement quality. For example: the inherent satellite signal
1
accuracy, signal transmission delay, receiver hardware and software limitations, satellite
signal obstruction are some of the problems associated with GPS measurement. On the other
hand, limitations stemming from total station are; computed coordinates are in local or target
coordinate system, the reference surface for measuring height is geoid. Because of earth‟s
curvature, the accuracy of TS measurement can also be affected by distance limit (the
accuracy will decrease when increasing the distance).
In addition to the above differences, the methods have also different time consumption to do
the required tasks. Therefore, each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. Thus,
the scope of the research is to evaluate and compare accuracy, precision and time
expenditure of the above two (02) methods.
This research deals with evaluation and comparison of two (02) surveying methods with
respect to precision, accuracy, cost and time expenditure. These methods are total station
(TS) and global positioning system (GPS).
I.2. Justification of the choice of the topic

Cameroon being a developing country requires infrastructures and basic utility services. The
country still contains vast building to be explored appropriately in order to emerge at the
2035 horizon. This task has to be done by the topographer of today and tomorrow. The
cadastral maps are always in continuous development and land conflicts are recurring and
Calling, urban planner, topographers and other sciences of the land system. Topography is
thus a capital vertebra with regard to setting out structures, boundary delimitation, and road
works within the country. Following that point, the topographer must be able to evaluate,
compare the functionality of the material to be exploited like total station and GPS, and the
potential accuracy, precision and time expenditure occurring when using each Instrument.
Public services, private companies and the missions of controls must seek the precision and
quality of produce services. It is from this context and this point of view that it became
relevant to study the topographical instrument: total station and theodolite base on their
accuracy, precision and time expenditure in carrying out measurement on the earth surface.
I.3. Statement of Problem
Various surveying methods (Total station, GPS, etc.) are used to determine accurately the
three-dimensional position of points and the distances and angles between them. In this
research, only these instruments have been used.
2
Total station can measure a single point coordinate precisely, but the computed coordinates
are in local or target coordinate system, which needs datum transformation. The accuracy is
affected with angle and distance of sight, weather condition, etc.
The latest geodetic GPS receivers are improving the accuracy of positioning information, but
in critical locations such as urban areas, the satellite availability is difficult due to the signal
blocking problem, multipath etc. which degrade the required accuracy.
Taking in to account those limitations, the research will evaluate and compare accuracy,
precision and time expenditure of these two surveying methods (total and station).
I.4. Research Questions

How can we compare in terms of accuracy, precision, cost and time expenditure total station
and GPS? This main research question intends to answer the following specific research
questions:
 Can the Total station and GPS perform the same job with the same accuracy and
precision?
 Can the Total station and GPS perform the same job within the same time interval?
 What is the accuracy, precision and time expenditure of Total station and GPS?
 What is the cost of total station and that of GPS?
I.5. Objectives of the Research

I.5.1. General Objective
The general objective of this research is meant to compare two surveying methods, i.e. GPS
and total station in order to know which instrument (or method) is appropriate for a
particular job.
I.5.2. Specific Objectives

In order to ensure this study and meet its purpose, the specific objectives are:
 To determine and evaluate accuracy and precision of TS and GPS surveying methods.
 To determine the time expenditure of the two methods.
 To compare results of the methods based on RMS and standard deviation analyses.
 To determine how costly is the two topographical instruments.
I.6. Formulating the Hypotheses

The null hypothesis tested at P < 0.05 was postulated to guide the study is
H0: A no significant difference exists between surveying with the TS and GPS.
3
The following alternatives hypotheses were used for verification:
H1: Significant difference in accuracy and precision when surveying with the TS and GPS.
H2: Significant difference in cost and time expenditure of the two methods.
I.7. Definition of Indicators and Variables

The variable and indicator here is:
Variable: Total Station, GPS
Indicator: Accuracy, Precision, Cost and Time Expenditure
I.8. Thesis Outline

In order to prove the hypothesis stated up, I will proceed as follow:
 Chapter two starts with literature review, which describes the overview and fundamentals
of GPS and total station. It also presents other‟s related work.
 Chapter three introduces methodology of the thesis and procedures.
 Chapters four presents the result and discuss the result in detail.
 Chapter five gives conclusion and recommendation that can improve the result.
4
CHAPTER TWO:
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review has been divided into four separate sections. The first part (exemplified
in Subheading II.1) has been to studies what others have done in order to give brief idea
about the overall concept of precision, accuracy and time expenditure of total station and
GPS, their approach and their results. The second part (subheading II.2) will quickly cover a
brief overview of Total Station instrument. The third part (covered in subheading II.3) has
been about the overview of GPS as a surveying instrument and the fourth part (subheading
II.4) will give a theoretical comparison between Total Station and GPS as different
topographical instruments.
II.1. Related Literature of Others Work on Comparison of Total Station and GPS
Instruments
Other investigations made on the subject of comparing Total station and GPS as surveying
instruments with respect to accuracy, precision, time could be exemplified in the following
six (06) studies. There has been no evaluation of the following reports; they are merely
examples of other issues that could be of interest to this thesis.
II.1.1. Accuracy Comparison of Total Station and GPS in Height Determination

According to an article published by Prof. Ismat M. Elhassan., (2019), accuracy comparison
of total station and global positioning system in determining height within an urban
environment, showed that GPS horizontal positioning accuracy compete well with Total
Station. The objective of this paper, however, is to evaluate and compare accuracy of Total
Station and Global Positioning System in height determination within an urban environment.
Network of height control points for accuracy comparison of these two techniques was
established using a digital level. Test results show that GPS is 5 times less accurate than TS
in elevation determination. Height accuracy obtained using TS was 0.004m, while height
accuracy obtained using GPS in Fast Static mode was 0.020m in an urban environment for
nine points traverse of total distance around 400m.
II.1.2. Accuracy Test between GPS RTK and Total Station

According to Lin L.S., (2004), accuracy test was made between GPS RTK and total station.
Specifically, the following issues was addressed in this project: (1) performance
comparisons between using RTK and using total station system on land use data capture and
updating in terms of accuracy, speed, etc., (2) land use change styles analysis on the
5
interested regions, (3) designing an effective land-use change spatial information collecting
procedure using GPS based on the land use change styles, and (4) converting collected land
use change data to GIS compatible files. The campus of NCCU was selected as a test region
to test the performances of RTK and total station system on land use change data collection.
The cadastral maps (on different times) of Mu-Za district of Taipei City were analysed to
find the possible land use change styles. Preliminary results indicate that: (1) the horizontal
accuracies of RTK and total station system are14 mm+/-4mm and 163mm+/-63mm
respectively (the coordinates of check points were determined using static GPS), (2) the time
required for one point determination using RTK or total station system are about 15 seconds
and 240 seconds respectively, (3) the land use change styles of Mu-Za district can be
classified into 3 main types of polygon (each main type may have 2-3 styles), and (4) the
field surveying works can be reduced significantly if the designed fielding surveying
procedures were followed. The main concepts of NCCU project, test procedures and test
results will be described and presented in this paper.
II.1.3. RTK Measurement Applied to Accuracy Test of Different GPS Instruments

According to the studies conducted by Jonsson et al., (2003), RTK measurement was applied
to test accuracy of different GPS instruments (Leica, Topcon and Trimble). A network of
nine control points was established using total station. Then, the authors performed RTK
measurement on the same network and compared results with different instrument. Results
obtained from RTK measurement have shown a horizontal and vertical accuracy of 10 mm
and 2 cm respectively.
II.1.4. Checking the Compatibility of the RTK Method with that of Total Station
Method
In order to check the compatibility of the RTK method with that of total station method,
Ahmed., (2012) tested RTK and total station measurements on an existing network. The
objective of the test was to assess the RTK achievable accuracy, to check the repeatability of
the results under different satellite configurations and to evaluate RTK performance in urban
area. In the test, accuracy and repeatability assessment of the RTK was carried out by
comparing the coordinates of points with that of independently precisely determined using a
total station. According to the result, the difference between the coordinates of total station
and RTK was 2 cm for the horizontal and 3 cm for the vertical coordinates.
6
II.1.5. Evaluating and comparing the precision, accuracy and time expenditure of TS,
GPS and TLS
In another study by Chekole et al., (2014), the objective of this thesis was to evaluate and
compare precision, accuracy and time expenditure of total station (TS), Global Positioning
System (GPS) and terrestrial laser scanner (TLS). To investigate this task, a reference
network consisted of 14 control points has been measured five times with Leica 1201 TS and
served as a reference value for comparison with RTK and TLS measurements. The reference
network points were also measured five times with the GPS RTK method so as to compare
accuracy, precision and time expenditure with that of TS. According to the result obtained,
the reference network points measured with TS were determined with 1 mm precision for
both horizontal and vertical coordinates. When using RTK method on the same reference
network points, 9 mm in horizontal and 1.5 cm accuracy in vertical coordinates has been
achieved. The RTK measurements, which were measured five times, determined with a
maximum standard deviation of 8 mm and 1.5 cm for horizontal and vertical coordinates
respectively. The precision of the remaining control points was below these levels. The
coordinates of the six target points measured with TS on the L building façade were
determined with a standard deviation of 8 mm for horizontal and 4 mm for vertical
coordinates. When using TLS for the same target points, 2mm accuracy has been achieved
for both horizontal and vertical coordinates. The TLS measurements, which were measured
five times, determined with a maximum standard deviation of 1.6 cm and 1.2 cm for
horizontal and vertical coordinates respectively. The precision of the remaining control
points was below these levels. With regard to time expenditure, it was proved that total
station consumed more time than the other two methods (RTK and TLS). TS consumed 82
min more time than RTK but, almost similar time had been consumed by TS and TLS (38
min for TS and 32 min for TLS).
II.1.6. Comparative Analysis of DGPS and TS Accuracies for Deformation Monitoring

of Engineering Structures
According to Ono et al., (2018), Comparative Analysis of GPS and Total Station Accuracies
for Static Deformation Monitoring of Engineering Structures was studied. The objective of
this study was to monitor and model the deformation of Palm House in Benin City using
GPS and Total Station and compared the accuracy of the two horizontal methods. Four
reference stations and two sets of monitoring points were used. The DGPS observations
were used to determine the roof monitoring point‟s rectangular coordinates while the total
7
station was used to determine the 10th floor base monitoring point‟s rectangular coordinates
and their bearings and distances from the reference stations. The observations were carried
out at six epochs of three months interval and adjusted using least squares adjustment
technique to determine the reliability of the adjusted observations and that of the adjusted
parameters. The displacements magnitudes of the two sets of observations were computed
using the coordinates differences between the first and the subsequent epochs observations.
The evaluated displacements magnitudes were compared with their corresponding computed
95% confidence ellipses to determine the significance level. The results showed that neither
the 10th floor nor the entire building underwent any movement during the monitoring period
of eighteen months. The results of comparison using their a posteriori standard errors and
traces of the variance co-variance matrices to determine which of them is better in terms of
accuracy showed that the DGPS method is better. It was recommended that whenever more
suitable and accurate method of monitoring of engineering structures that DGPS method
should be selected.
II.2. Overview of Total Station Instruments

The Total station is designed for measuring of slant distances, horizontal and vertical angles
and elevations in topographic and geodetic works, tachometric surveys, as well as for
solution of application geodetic tasks. The measurement results can be recorded into the
internal memory and transferred to a personal computer interface. A total station or TST
(total station theodolite) is an electronic/optical instrument integrated with an electronic
distance measurement (EDM) used for surveying.
Coordinates of an unknown point relative to a known coordinate can be determined using the
total station as long as a direct line of sight can be established between the two points.
Angles and distances are measured from the total station to points under survey, and the
coordinates (X, Y, and Z or northing, easting and elevation) of surveyed points relative to
the total station position are calculated using trigonometry and triangulation. To determine
an absolute location, a total station requires line of sight observations and must be set up
over a known point or with line of sight to two or more points with known location.
Total stations can be manually adjusted or have motors that drive their telescopes very
accurately. The most sophisticated total stations can be operated remotely and continuously
at various levels of automation.
According to Leica geosystem recommendation, in order to get accurate and precise
measurements in the daily work, it is important:
8
 To check and adjust the instrument from time to time.
 To take high precision measurements during the check and adjust procedures.
 To measure targets in two faces. Some of the instrument errors are eliminated by
averaging the angles from both faces.
When measurements are being made using the laser EDM, the results may be influenced by
objects passing between the EDM and the target. For example, if the intended target is the
surface of a road, but a vehicle passes between the total station and the target surface, the
result is the distance to the vehicle, not to the road surface.
Instruments equipped with an ATR (Automatic Target Recognition) sensor permit automatic
angle and distance measurements to prisms. The prism is sighted with the optical sight. After
initiating a distance measurement, the instrument sights and centers the prism automatically.
Vertical and horizontal angles and slope distance are measured to the center of the prism and
coordinates of the target calculated automatically.
Using Leica 1200+ instruments, the operator does not have to look through the telescope to
align the prism or a target because of the ATR. This has a number of advantages over a
manually pointed system, since a motorized total station can aim and point quicker, and
achieve better precision (Leica 1200+ TS manual).
II.2.1. Types of Total Station

Total Stations are of various designs, ranging from manual to robots once. We distinguish
the followings types of total station: Nikon, Trimble, Sokkia, Ruide, Leica, etc. and amongst
each type, they are further being distinguished with type number (e.g. Leica 700, Leica 703,
Leica 1201, etc.). The Leica type is the most popular. In this thesis Leica 1203TPS (see
Fig.I.1) was used.
Figure II.1: Leica 1203 TPS (Source: Author)

9
II.2.2. Measurement Precision, Accuracy, Time and Cost
A) Precision or standard uncertainty
Precision refers to how closely repeated measurements or observations come to duplicate the
measured or observed values.
No matter what instrument, there is always a limit to how small a difference is detectable.
That limit is called resolution. Figure I.2, below, shows the same position (the point in the
centre of the bulls eye) measured by two surveying instruments. The two grid patterns
represent the smallest objects that can be detected by the instruments. The pattern at left
represents a higher-resolution instrument.
a. High Resolution b. Low Resolution

Figure II.2: Resolution (Source: Geospatial Education Program Office)
The resolution of an instrument affects the precision of measurements taken with it. In the
illustration below, the measurement at left, which was taken with the higher-resolution
instrument, is more precise than the measurement at right. In digital form, the more precise
measurement would be represented with additional decimal places. For example, a position
specified with the UTM coordinates 500,000 meters east and 5,000,000 meters North is
actually an area 1 meter square. A more precise specification would be 500,000.001 meters
East and 5,000,000.001 meters north, which locates the position within an area 1 millimetre
square. You can think of the area as a zone of uncertainty within which, somewhere, the
theoretically infinitesimal point location exists. Uncertainty is inherent in geospatial data.
10
a. High Precision b. Low Precision
Figure II.3: The Precision of a Single Measurement (Source: Geospatial Education Program
Office)
Precision takes on a slightly different meaning when it is used to refer to a number of
repeated measurements. In the Figure I.4, below, there is less variance among the nine
measurements at left than there is among the nine measurements at right. The set of
measurements at left is said to be more precise.
a. High Precision b. Low Precision

Figure II.4: The Precision of Multiple Measurements (Source: Geospatial Education
Program Office)
Results obtained when using Leica 1203 total station frequently showed that there were
larger standard uncertainties (or precision) during slope distance measurements towards
extreme angled prisms than to correctly directed prisms. Also, larger standard uncertainty
occurred in vertical angle measurements toward correctly directed prisms than slightly
angled prisms. The mean values of the horizontal angle measurement drifted sideways in the
measurements made towards one extreme angle to the opposite extreme so that a total shift
11
of around one centimetre (1cm) was detected at short distances as well as up to 100 m
distance.
B) Accuracy
Accuracy refers to how closely a measurement or observation comes to measure a true or
established value, since measurements and observations are always subject to errors. It is
noticed that resolution and precision are independent from accuracy.
a. High accuracy b. Low precision

Figure II.5: Accuracy (Source: Geospatial Education Program Office)
Total station measurements are affected by changes in temperature, pressure and relative
humidity, but it can be corrected for atmospheric effects by inputting changes in
temperature, pressure and relative humidity. Shock and stress result in deviations of the
correct measurement as a result decreases the measurement accuracy. Beam interruptions,
severe heat shimmer and moving objects within the beam path can also result in deviations
of the specified accuracy by the manufacture as specified in Table II.1. It is therefore
important to check and adjust the instrument before measurement.
The accuracy with which the position of a prism can be determined with Automatic Target
Recognition (ATR) depends on several factors such as internal ATR accuracy, instrument
angle accuracy, prism type, selected EDM measuring program and the external measuring
conditions. The ATR has a basic standard deviation level of ± 1 mm but above a certain
distance, the instrument angle accuracy predominates and takes over the standard deviation
of the ATR manual. Leica 1203 total station instruments have standard deviation of 1.0
mgon in both angles which affect the quality of measurement (Leica 1200+ TPS manual).
12
Typical Leica 1200+ instrument accuracy (horizontal and vertical angles) stated by the
manufacturer are given in the Table II.1.
Table II.1: Angle Measurement Accuracy
Type of Instrument Standard Deviation (Horizontal and Vertical Angles)
[arc second] [mgon]
1201+ 1 0.3
1202+ 2 0.6
1203+ 3 1.0
1205+ 5 1.5
Source: Leica 1200+ TPS user’s manual
Using different prisms other than the intended prism may cause also deviations and therefore
it is important to use a Leica circular prism as the intended target.
Table II.2: Distance Measurement Accuracy

Distance Measurement Accuracy
With prism (standard mode) 2mm+2ppm
Without prism (0-500m) 3 mm + 2 ppm
Laser dot size At 20m
Laser dot size 200m
Source: Leica 1200+ TPS user’s Manual
C) Time expenditure
Total station is amongst the fast measuring instruments in the surveying field. Modern total
stations have ability to measure inaccessible or hard to reach targets more than 1 km without
reflector with accuracy of 3 mm within a fraction minutes. Automatic or robotic Total station
obtained their measurement in a faster mode than the manual once when handled by experts.
Total Station measured angles and distance by emitting a pulse of light toward a prism.
Time of Flight (TOF) is the time for the pulse to be transmitted to a reflector target back
along a parallel path, to the receiver. The distance is computed from signal speed and of time
difference between the reference stations to the target. The round trip for each light pulse is
determined electronically, hence the time of flight is known. The velocity of light through
the medium can be accurately estimated, along with the travel time, giving the ability to
compute the distance between instrument and target. A short, intensive pulse of radiation is
transmitted to a reflector target, which immediately transmits it back, along a parallel path,
13
to the receiver. The measured distance (D) is computed from the velocity of the signal(c)
multiplied by the time (t) it took to complete its journey as shown in the equation:
(II.1)
Here t - the time taken for a single pulse to travel instrument-target instrument, c is the
velocity of light in the medium through which it travels and D is the distance between
instrument and target. If the time of departure of the pulse from entrance A is tA and the time
of its reception at entrance B is tB, then (tB- tA) = .
It can be seen from Equation I.1 that the distance is dependent on the velocity of light in the
medium and on its transit time. The transit time is measured using electronic signal
processing techniques. Although only a single pulse is necessary to obtain a distance, the
accuracy obtained would be poor. In (Höglund and Large, 2005) to improve this, a large
number of pulses (typically 20,000 every second) are analysed during each measurement to
give a more accurate distance.
The distance that can be measured is largely a function of the power of the pulse. Powerful
laser systems can obtain better distances when used with corner-cube prisms and even
medium distances when the pulse is bounced off natural or man-made features.
The pulse used for the TOF method can be many times more powerful than the energy used
for a phase shift EDM. The TOF method can therefore measure much longer distance with
or without a prism than the phase shift technique (Höglund and Large, 2005).
Figure II.6: Principle of Pulse Distance Meter (Source: Schofield and Breach, 2007)
The table below shows time of distance measurement when using a Leica 1203TPS.
Table II.3: The Specification of Leica 1203 Total Station on Distance Measurement
Distance measurement Measure time

With prism (standard mode) Typ.1, 5sec
Without prism (0-500m) Typ.3-6sec, max.12sec
14
Laser dot size 7mins x 14mins
Laser dot size 25mins x 80mins
D) Cost
Leica 1203 TPS Cost around Є 7,495.00, which is equivalent to 4,928,187.35 FCFA. In
Cameroon, the renting price of the Total station for a period of one day varies from 15 000
FCFA to 25 000 FCFA depending on locality.
I.2.3. Measurement Errors

Positions are the products of measurements. All measurements contain some degree of error.
Errors are introduced in the original act of measuring locations on the Earth surface. Errors
are also introduced when second- and third-generation data is produced, say, by scanning or
digitizing a paper map.
In general, there are three sources of error in measurement: human beings, the environment
in which they work, and the measurement instruments they use.
 Human Errors
These include mistakes, such as reading an instrument incorrectly, and judgments. Judgment
becomes a factor when the phenomenon that is being measured is not directly observable
(like an aquifer), or has ambiguous boundaries (like a soil unit).
 Environmental Characteristics
Environmental characteristics such as variations in temperature, gravity, and magnetic
declination, also result in measurement errors.
 Instrument errors
Instruments errors follow from the fact that space is continuous. There is no limit to how
precisely a position can be specified. Measurements, however, can be only so precise. Some
errors, those associated with the instrument, can be eliminated or at least reduced with two
face measurement. Table II.4 shows instrumental errors which influence both horizontal and
vertical angles, and their adjustment method.
Table II.4: Angle Errors and Their Adjustment
Instrument error Affects Affects Eliminated with Corrected with

Hz angle V angle two face instrument
measurement calibration
15
Line of sight error Yes No Yes Yes
Tilting axis error Yes Yes Yes Yes
Compensator errors Yes Yes No Yes
V-index error Yes Yes Yes Yes
Collimation axis error (line of sight error) affects the horizontal angle to be deviated and
resulting in poor accuracy measurement. This axial error is caused when the line of sight
(Figure II.6) is not perpendicular to the tilting axis. It affects all horizontal circle readings
and increases with steep sightings, but this effect can be corrected by taking average of two
face measurement in two rounds. For single face measurements, an on-board calibration
function is used to determine collimation errors, the deviation between the actual line of
sight and a line perpendicular to the tilting axis.
Vertical axis error (tilting axis error) errors occur when the titling axis of the total station
is not perpendicular to its vertical axis. This has no effect on sightings taken when the
telescope is horizontal, but introduces errors into horizontal circle readings when the
telescope is tilted, especially for steep sightings. As with horizontal collimation error, this
error is eliminated by two face measurements.
Figure II.6: Collimation Errors (Source: Leica 1200+ TPS user‟s Manual)
Compensator index errors are caused by not levelling a theodolite or total station carefully
and then cannot be eliminated by taking two face measurements. If the total station is fitted
with a compensator it will measure residual tilts of the instrument and will apply corrections
to the horizontal and vertical angles for these.
16
Vertical Collimation (vertical index) error occurs if the 00 and 1800 line in the vertical
circle does not coincide with the vertical axis. This zero point error is present in all vertical
circle readings and like the horizontal collimation error it is eliminated by taking two face
measurements.
The diagram below illustrates the distinction between systematic and random errors.
Systematic errors tend to be consistent in magnitude and/or direction. If the magnitude and
direction of the error is known, accuracy can be improved by additive or proportional
corrections. Additive correction involves adding or subtracting a constant adjustment factor
to each measurement; proportional correction involves multiplying the measurement(s) by a
constant. Unlike systematic errors, random errors vary in magnitude and direction. It is
possible to calculate the average of a set of measured positions, however, and that average is
likely to be more accurate than most of the measurements.
a. Systematic error b. Random error
Figure II.7: Systematic and Random Errors (Source: Geospatial Education Program Office)
II.2.4. Mode of Distance Measurement

There are two methods of measuring distance the prism method, which uses a reflective
prism at the target measurement point, and the non-prism or reflector less method that does
not use a reflective prism.
 Measuring with Reflector (IR Mode)
EDM instruments send a light wave to a reflector and by measuring the phase difference
required in returning the reflected light wave to its source, it computes the distance. Using
TS 1201 the shortest measuring distance is 1.5 m. but, below this limit, there is no possibility
to measure. The specified ranges of different prisms presented in Table II.5.
17
Table II.5: Range Limit Based on Atmospheric Condition
Reflector Range A [m] Range B [m] Range C [m]
Standard prism 1800 3000 3500
3600 prism (GRZ4, GRZ 800 1500 2000
122)
3600 Mini prism (GRZ 101) 450 800 1000
Mini prism (GMP101) 800 2600 3300
Three sets of atmospheric conditions:

A: Strong haze, visibility 5 km; or strong sunlight, severe heat shimmer
B: Light haze, visibility about 20 km; or moderate sunlight, slight heat shimmer
C: Overcast, no haze, visibility about 40 km; no heat shimmer
Accuracy of standard prism distance measurement depends on the type of reflector and the
measuring mode used as indicated in Table II.6.
Table II.6: Accuracy of measurements to standard prism

EDM measuring mode Std dev. Standard prism Measurement time [s]
Standard 1 mm + 1.5 ppm 2.4
Fast 3 mm + 1.5 ppm 0.8
 Reflector less EDM
Distance measurement without reflector (RL mode) is applicable in inaccessible locations
such as building corners, busy highways, top of light pole, etc. Table II.6 shows distance
accuracy in RL mode. The accuracy depends on the distance between total station and the
target to be measured. The shorter distance the better accuracy.
Table II.7: Distance Accuracy in RL Mode

Distance Standard deviation Measuring time [s]
< 500 m 2 mm + 2 ppm 3–6
> 500 m 4 mm + 2 ppm 3- 6
18
Table II.8: Comparison of IR and RL Mode
IR Advantages IR Disadvantages
Can be measured longer distances A person needed for the reflector
Faster than reflector less Inaccurate for inside corner measurements
Better precision than reflector less Measurements are difficult in busy
highways,
top of buildings, sites under construction
RL Advantages RL Disadvantages
No need person for reflector Good accuracy only for shorter distances
Can measure inaccessible Less accurate and slower
locations
II.3. Overview of GPS Instruments

A GPS receiver (see Figure II.8) measures the incoming phase of the satellite signals to
millimetre precision. However, as the satellite signals propagate from satellites to receivers
they pass and are affected by the atmosphere. The atmosphere that influences the incoming
signal consists of the ionosphere and troposphere. Disturbance in the atmosphere cause
degradation in the accuracy of the observations.
GPS surveying is a differential method; a baseline is observed and computed between two
receivers. When the two receivers observe the same set of satellites simultaneously, most of
the atmospheric effects are cancelled out. The shorter the baseline is the more these effects
will be reduced, as more likely it is that the atmosphere through which the signal passes to
the two receivers will be identical. Baseline precision depends on various factors including
the number of satellites tracked, satellite geometry, observation time, ephemeris accuracy,
ionospheric disturbance, multi path, resolved ambiguities, etc.
19
Figure II.8: Leica GX1230 +GNSS Receiver (Source: Author)
II.3.1. Types of GPS

Commercially available GPS receivers are classified based on the capability of receiving
signals. We distinguish the following types:
 Single – Frequency Code Receivers
 Single – Frequency Carrier – Smoothed Code Receivers
 Single – Frequency Code & Carrier Receivers
 Dual – Frequency Receivers
 Triple – Frequency Receivers
20
Table II.9: Summary Description of GRX1200+ Receivers
GX1230+GNS GX1220+GNS GX1230+ GX1220+ GX1210+

S/ S
ATX1230+GN
SS
Receiv Triple- Triple- Dual-frequency, Dual- Single-
er type frequency, frequency, GPS only, frequency, frequency,
GPS/GLONAS GPS/GLONAS geodetic, GPS only, GPS only,
S/ S/ real-time RTK geodetic survey
Galileo/Compa Galileo/Compa receiver,upgrada receiver, receiver
ss1, ss1, geodetic ble to GNSS upgradable to
geodetic,real- receiver version GNSS
timeRTK version
receiver
Static, rapid Static, rapid Static, rapid Static,
static, static, static,kinema kinematic
kinematic, On kinematic, On tic, On the fly L1, code,
the fly the fly L1 + L2, L1 + L2, phase
L1/L2/L5 code, phase code, phase DGPS/RTC
E1/E5a/E5b/Al Real-time RTK Post M optional
t-BOC, Post processing processing Survey and
Compass1,code DGPS/RTCM DGPS/RTC GIS
, standard Survey, M optional application
Phase Post geodetic and Survey and s
processing real-time RTK geodetic
DGPS/RTCM applications applications
optional
Survey and
geodetic
applications
21
Table II.9 (Continued)
Measuring Static, rapid Measuring Static, rapid Measuring Static, rapid
modes and static, modes and static, modes and static,
application kinematic, On application kinematic, On application kinematic, On
s the fly s the fly s the fly
L1/L2/L5 L1/L2/L5 L1/L2/L5
E1/E5a/E5b/Al E1/E5a/E5b/Al E1/E5a/E5b/Al
t-BOC, t-BOC, t-BOC,
Compass1, Compass1, Compass1,
code, code, code,
phase Real- phase Real- phase Real-
time RTK time RTK time RTK
Post processing Post processing Post processing
DGPS/RTCM DGPS/RTCM DGPS/RTCM
standard standard standard
Survey, Survey, Survey,
geodetic and geodetic and geodetic and
real-time RTK real-time RTK real-time RTK
applications applications applications
Upgrade to Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
GX1230+
GNSS
Source: Leica GPS 1200+ series manual
1
The Compass signal is not finalized, although, test signals have been tracked with
GPS1200+ receivers in a test environment. As changes in the signal structure may still
occur, Leica Geosystems cannot guarantee full Compass compatibility.
22
Table II.10: System Components of GRX1200+ Receivers
GX1230+GNSS/ GX1230+ GX1220+ GX1210+

GX1220+GNSS
ATX1230+GNSS
Receiver SmartTrack+ is built SmartTrack – patented. Discrete elliptical
technology on SmartTrack filters. Fast acquisition. Strong signal. Low
technology and noise. Excellent tracking, even to low
enhanced for all satellites and in adverse conditions.
GNSS signals. Interference resistant.
L5 enabled Yes No No No
Galileo Yes No No No
enabled
L5 and Yes No No No
Galileo ready
No. of 120 channels, 16 L1 + 16 L2 16 L1 + 16 16 L1
channels L1/L2/L5 GPS, GPS4 SBAS L2 GPS 4
L1/L2 GLONASS, 4 SBAS SBAS(wit
E1/E5a/E5b/Alt- (with h DGPS
BOC, DGPS option)
Galileo Compass, 4 option)
SBAS
Ô GX1220+ GNSS
(with DGPS option)
23
Table II.10. (Continued)
L1 Carrier phase Carrier phase Carrier phase Carrier phase
measurements full wave full wave full wave length, full wave
(GPS) length, C/A length, C/A C/A narrow length, C/A
narrow code narrow code code narrow code
L2 Carrier phase Carrier phase Carrier phase No
measurements full wave full wave full wave length
(GPS) length with length with with C-code and
C-code and C-code and P-code (AS off)
P-code (AS P-code (AS or P-code aided
off) or P- off) or P- under AS, Equal
code aided code aided performancewith
under AS, under AS, AS off or on
Equal Equal
performance performance
with AS off with AS off
or on or on
L5 Carrier phase No No No
measurements full wave
(GPS length, Code
L1 Carrier phase No No No
measurements full wave
(GLONASS) length, C/A
narrow code
24
Table II.10. (Continued)
L2 Carrier phase No No
measurements(GLONASS full wave
) length, P
narrow code
E1/E5a/E5b Carrier phase No No No
measurements (Galileo) full wave
length, Code
Alt-BOC measurements Carrier phase No No No
(Galileo) full
wavelength
and code
using Alt-
BOC
Independent Fully Fully Fully Fully
measurements independent independen independen independen
code and t L1 and L2 t L1 and L2 t L1 code
phase code and code and and phase
measurement phase phase measure-
s of all measure- measure- ments
frequences ments ments
Time to first phase Typically 30 Typically Typically Typically
measurement after secs 30 secs 30 secs 30 secs
switching ON
25
For the purpose of this study, a dual-frequency GPS receiver (Leica GX1230+GNSS
receiver) was used since seeking for a high accuracy and precision was our aim.
II.3.2. Measurement precision, accuracy, time and cost
 Measurement Precision and Position Accuracies

Measurement precision, time requires and accuracy in position are dependent upon various
factors including number of satellites, geometry, observation time, ephemeris accuracy,
ionospheric conditions, multipath etc. Figures quoted assume normal to favourable
conditions. GPS and GNSS can increase performance and accuracy by up to 30% relative to
GPS only. A full Galileo and GPS L5 constellation will further increase measurement
performance and accuracy. The following accuracies, given as root mean square, are based
on measurements processed using LGO and on real-time measurements.
26
Table II.11: Code and Phase Measurement Precision
ATX1230+ GNSS GX1220+ GX1210+

GX1230+ GNSS / GX1230+ GNSS /
GX1220+
Carrier phase on L1 0.2mm rms 0.2mm rms 0.2mm
rms
Carrier phase on L2 0.2mm rms 0.2mm rms
Carrier phase on L5 *
Carrier phase on *
E1/E5a/E5b
Carrier phase on Alt- *
BOC
Code (pseudorange) on 2cm rms 2cm rms 2cm rms
L1
Code (pseudorange) on 2cm rms 2cm rms
L2
Code (pseudorange) on *
L5
Code (pseudorange) on *
E1/E5a/E5b
Code (pseudorange) Alt- *
BOC
* Values to be expected similar to L1. Final values will be determined after initial
operational capability (IOC) has been reached.
Table II.12: Accuracy (RMS) with Post Processing

27
ATX1230+ GNSS GX1220+ GNSS / GX1210+
GX1230+ GNSS / GX1220+
GX1230+
With Leica Geo Office With Leica Geo With Leica
L1/L2 processing Office L1/L2 Geo Office
software. GLONASS processing software L1 processing
processing option also GLONASS software
needed to process processing option
GLONASS data also needed to
process GLONASS
data
Static (phase), long Horizontal: 3mm + Horizontal: 3mm + Not applicable
lines, long 0.5ppm 0.5ppm
observations, choke Vertical: 6mm + 0.5ppm Vertical: 6mm +
ring antenna 0.5ppm
Static and rapid static Horizontal: 5mm + Horizontal: 5mm + Horizontal:
(phase) with standard 0.5ppm 0.5ppm 5mm +0.5ppm
antenna) Vertical: 10mm + Vertical: 10mm + Vertical:10mm
0.5ppm 0.5ppm + 0.5ppm
Kinematic (phase), in Horizontal: 10mm + Horizontal: 10mm +
moving mode after 1ppm 1ppm
initialization Vertical: 20mm + 1ppm Vertical: 20mm +
1ppm
Code only Typically 25cm Typically 25cm Typically 25cm
Table II.13: Accuracy (RMS) with Real-Time/RTK
28
ATX1230+ GNSS GX1220+ GX1210+
GX1230+ GNSS / GNSS /
GX1230+ GX1220+
RTK capability Yes, standard No No
Rapid static (phase), Horizontal: 5mm + 0.5ppm
Static mode after initialization Vertical: 10mm + 0.5ppm
(compliance with ISO17123-
8)
Kinematic (phase), Horizontal: 10mm + 1ppm
moving mode after Vertical: 20mm + 1ppm
initialization
Code only Typically 25cm
 Measuring Time
Times required for GPS measurements also dependent upon the following factors: number of
satellites, geometry, ionospheric conditions, multipath etc.
29
Table II.14: On-the-Fly (OTF) Initialisation
ATX1230+ GNSS GX1230+ GX1220+ GX1210+

GNSS / GX1230+ GNSS /
GX1220+
OTF Capability Real time and post processing Post processing No OTF
only
Reliability of OTF Better than 99.99% Not applicable Not
applicable
initialisation
Time for OTF Typically 8secs, with 5 or more Not applicable Not
applicable
initialisation satellites on L1 and L2
OTF Range* Typically up to 40km in normal Not applicable Not
applicable
conditions
*Assuming reliable Up to 50km in favorable
data-link is available in Conditions
RTK case
Table II.15: Position Update and Latency
ATX1230+ GNSS GX1220+ GNSS / GX1210+

GX1230+ GNSS / GX1220+
GX1230+
RTK and DGPS DGPS optiona DGPS optional
standard
Position update rate Selectable: 0.05 sec Selectable: 0.05 sec Selectable: 0.05 sec
(20Hz) to 60 secs (20Hz) to 60 secs (20Hz) to 60 secs
Position latency 0.03 sec or less 0.03 sec or less 0.03 sec or less
Source: Leica 1200+ series manual
 Cost
Leica GX1230+GNSS receiver Cost around US$ 20486.91 which is equivalent to 12 000
000 FCFA. In Cameroon, the renting price of the Leica GX1230+GNSS receiver for a
period of one day varies from 35 000 FCFA to 50 000 FCFA depending on the number of
points to observe.
II.3.3. Measurement Errors

Using a very low cost GPS receiver, increases the source of errors while If a slightly more
expensive one is used the errors reduces. To understand this clearly, it is essential to study
the sources of GPS error.
30
 User Equivalent Range Errors: User Equivalent Range Errors (UERE) are those that
relate to the timing and path readings of the satellites due to anomalies in the hardware or
interference from the atmosphere. A complete list of the sources of User Equivalent Range
Errors, in descending order of their contributions to the total error budget, is below:
1. Satellite clock: GPS position calculations, as discussed above, depend on measuring
signal transmission time from satellite to receiver; this, in turn, depends on knowing the time
on both ends. NAVSTAR satellites use atomic clocks, which are very accurate but can drift
up to a millisecond (enough to make an accuracy difference). These errors are minimized by
calculating clock corrections (at monitoring stations) and transmitting the corrections along
with the GPS signal to appropriately outfitted GPS receivers.
2. Upper atmosphere (ionosphere): As GPS signals pass through the upper atmosphere
(the ionosphere 50-1000km above the surface), signals are delayed and deflected. The
ionosphere density varies; thus, signals are delayed more in some places than others. The
delay also depends on how close the satellite is to being overhead (where distance that the
signal travels through the ionosphere is least). By modelling ionosphere characteristics, GPS
monitoring stations can calculate and transmit corrections to the satellites, which in turn pass
these corrections along to receivers. Only about three-quarters of the bias can be removed,
however, leaving the ionosphere as the second largest contributor to the GPS error budget.
3. Receiver clock: GPS receivers are equipped with quartz crystal clocks that are less stable
than the atomic clocks used in NAVSTAR satellites. Receiver clock error can be eliminated,
however, by comparing times of arrival of signals from two satellites (whose transmission
times are known exactly).
4. Satellite orbit: GPS receivers calculate coordinates relative to the known locations of
satellites in space, a complex task that involves knowing the shapes of satellite orbits as well
as their velocities, neither of which is constant. The GPS Control Segment monitors satellite
locations at all times, calculates orbit eccentricities, and compiles these deviations in
documents called ephemerides. An ephemeris is compiled for each satellite and broadcast
with the satellite signal. GPS receivers that are able to process ephemerides can compensate
for some orbital errors.
5. Lower atmosphere: The three lower layers of atmosphere (troposphere, tropopause, and
stratosphere) extend from the Earth‟s surface to an altitude of about 50 km. The lower
atmosphere delays GPS signals, adding slightly to the calculated distances between satellites
and receivers. Signals from satellites close to the horizon are delayed the most, since they
pass through the most atmospheres.
31
6. Multipath: Ideally, GPS signals travel from satellites through the atmosphere directly to
GPS receivers. In reality, GPS receivers must discriminate between signals received directly
from satellites and other signals that have been reflected from surrounding objects, such as
buildings, trees, and even the ground. Antennas are designed to minimize interference from
signals reflected from below, but signals reflected from above are more difficult to eliminate.
One technique for minimizing multipath errors is to track only those satellites that are at
least 15° above the horizon, a threshold called the "mask angle."
 Dilution of Precision: The arrangement of satellites in the sky also affects the accuracy
of GPS positioning. The ideal arrangement (of the minimum four satellites) is one satellite
directly overhead, three others equally spaced nearer the horizon (but above the mask angle).
GPS coordinates calculated when satellites are clustered close together in the sky suffer
from dilution of precision(DOP), a factor that multiplies the uncertainty associated with User
Equivalent Range Errors (UERE - errors associated with satellite and receiver clocks, the
atmosphere, satellite orbits, and the environmental conditions that lead to multipath errors).
II.3.4 Real Time Kinematics (RTK)

Real time kinematics data collection uses differential GPS corrections broadcast by a base
receiver to solve for coordinates at a rover receiver in real time. There are several ways to
transmit a correction signal from the base station to mobile station. The most popular way to
achieve real-time transmission is radio communication. The accuracy of the resulting range
measurement depends on the number of satellites in view, resolved ambiguities, satellite
geometry, etc.
RTK mode for geodetic measurements is very fast method for surveying and results are
available immediately, no need for additional data processing afterwards since correction are
made from the base station during the measurement through radio communication (Kostov,
2011).
II.4. Theoretical Comparison of Total Station and GPS Instruments

Despite many advantages, surveying using total stations or GPS has disadvantages.
Surveying with a total station, unlike GPS, is not disadvantaged by overhead obstructions
but, it is restricted to measurements between inter-visible points. Often control points are
located distant to the survey area, and traversing with a total station to propagate the control
is a time consuming task. For this reason, GPS is used to bring control to the survey site
through before continuing the survey with a total station in areas that limit the use of GPS.
Table I.15 shows their advantage and disadvantages.
32
GPS can measure points without any line of sight requirement. Since total stations work on
the principle of signal reflection, line of sight must be there between total station and prism
reflector. This makes GPS more effective tool for control point establishment. However,
GPS cannot be used in areas with lot of trees, high rise buildings because of satellite signal
interference.
Table II.16: Theoretical Comparison of GPS and Total Station
Total station GPS

Indirect acquisition of 3D coordinates Direct acquisition of 3D coordinates
Both horizontal and vertical accuracies are The horizontal accuracy is better than the
comparable vertical accuracy
The accuracy depends on the distance, angle The accuracy depends on the satellite
and availability, atmospheric effect, satellite
the used prism geometry, multipath
More precise than GPS Less precise than total station
Satellite independent Satellite dependent
Needed inter-visibility between the Visibility is not needed
instrument and the prism
Day time data collection Day or night time data collection
Source: Leica 1200+ TPS user’s manual and Real Time GNSS
33
CHAPTER THREE:
METHODOLOGY
For a suitable evaluation of the performances of the two (02) topographic instruments, it
would be useful to make the establishment and survey by the conventional method using a
total station and realize the same operations using the GPS RTK. Such a procedure will
permit us to perform a comparison (accuracy, precision, time and cost) between the two
methods in order to compare efficiently the two surveying instruments.
The methodology adopted in this experimental study is composed of the following steps:
 Studying the project area
 Establishment of the reference network
 Choosing suitable control and detail survey points
 Detail survey with Total station follow by GPS
 Perform analysis on accuracy, precision, cost and time of execution
III.1. Project Study Area

We have taken the Tonga-Bafoussam road (National 4) as sample from the study area
(Figure III.1). The road is 81km in length. It is one of the national roads in Cameroon and
located in the west region. The study area lies between latitudes 504'3.51"N and
504'29.038"N, and longitudes 10040'21.93"E and 10040'54.846"E. See appendix A for the
geographical map of west Region.
Figure III.1: Reference control points (Source: Author)
III.2. ESTABLISHING REFERENCE NETWORK

In order to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the surveyed data, primary it has been
established a network of control points which can serve as a reference for comparison with
34
RTK-GPS and TS measurement. The reference network was established eleven (11) points
using a Leica 1203 total station. To determine the network with high precision,
measurements have been taken in two faces with two rounds. Four points of the reference
network were also measured with static GPS in order to transform the datum (ND018) from
the local coordinate system to the required coordinate system, WGS 1984 UTM Zone 32N.
Thus, this network served as a reference value. The precision of the remaining RTK and TS
measurements were evaluated depending on this reference value.
Therefore, to accomplish the objectives of this project, data were collected from field
measurement. The field measurements were taken using two different surveying instruments:
Global Positioning System (GPS) and total station (TS). To eliminate instrumental errors
such as line of sight errors, tilting axis errors and vertical index errors (see Table II.4), two
face measurements were taken. Since the coordinates determined with total station are
provided in local coordinate system, static GPS measurement was needed to transform the
datum to WGS 1984 UTM Zone 32N. Then, precision of the network has been obtained
from network adjustment and verified for if there have been gross errors were occurred.
Detail measurements (RTK and TS on the network) were taken five times to evaluate the
precision of the measurement. Finally, accuracy and precision of the detail measurements
were tested by RMS and standard deviation analysis respectively.
III.3. Choosing Suitable Control and Detail Survey Points

Reconnaissance of the project area was the first step in the establishment of reference
network and followed by marking eleven (10) points; amongst which four (04) are controls
points and they were visible to each other. Those points were also suitable for satellite
visibility, because RTK method was needed to compare with the TS control points. The
points are marked with nails for sustainability reason. The project area was the Tonga-
Bafoussam road (see Fig III.1).
III.4. Detail Survey

Once the reference network for detail measurement was established, the next step was taking
the detail survey. RTK measurement was taken on the reference network to compare the
result with total station measurement. In order to evaluate the precision of the measurements,
all control points were measured five (05) times (see appendix D). During all measurements
the time required was recorded for comparison.
35
III.4.1. Survey of Detail with Total Station
In order to determine and compare accuracy, precision and time expenditure of this method,
the points of the reference network were surveyed five times with the total station. The data
was immediately processed within the total station as we were surveying in saving mode. By
the way, we still processed data in Geo and then, the obtained coordinates of the control
points were used as constraint during the registration and georeferencing processes. And
time expenditure was also recorded both for field measurement and processing.
III.4.2. Survey of detail with GPS-RTK

The RTK method was performed to compare accuracy of the network with total station
measurements. This method gives the coordinates of the survey points at real time on the
field. Using one known coordinate point (ND018) from the reference network, RTK was
used to measure the remaining 10 points five times with 3D quality reported by the receiver
of less than 9mm. This 3D quality describes the accuracy of the GPS measurement.
Depending on the satellite availability and other sources of errors that affect the GPS
measurement, the magnitude of the 3D quality might be small or large. If there is good
satellite geometry (i.e. satellites scattered around the four quadrants), good satellite visibility
and other GPS errors are small, the 3D quality will be small otherwise it will be large. The
3D quality (Qxyz) can be computed using the formula below (Eq. III.1).
(III.1)
Where is standard deviation of X, Y and Z coordinates.

Results of each method were analysed and compared in order to evaluate the accuracy,
precision and time expenditure.
III.5. Evaluation of Accuracy and Precision

To evaluate the accuracy and precision of the measurement, RMS and standard deviation of
the individual measurements were computed. RMS (root mean square error) is a measure of
accuracy of the individual measurement. It can be computed from the deviations between
true and measured values. True value of the measured quantity is the value which was
determined with significantly higher precision. In this project the coordinates of the
reference network were considered as „true‟ which is determined in 1mm level. RMS was
computed using the following formula:
(III.2)
36
Where: is the established value, is individual measurement and is the number of
measurements.
Standard deviation is a measure of variations of the repeated measurement, i.e. of the
precision of each individual observation. It can be computed from the mean values of the
individual measurement and the individual measurement. Standard deviation is computed
using the following formula:
, (III.3)
Where: is individual measurement, is mean value of the measurements and is number

of measurements.
III.5.1. Checking Accuracy

It is true that any measurement would not be free from errors. In most cases gross errors may
happen in a measurement and therefore the accuracy of the measurement needs to be
checked in order to avoid the gross errors. There are lot of accuracy checking mechanisms,
for instance, through two face measurement, adjustment, etc. Using these mechanisms,
gross errors can be detected. As Csanyi et al., (2007) stated out, small magnitude errors of
each individual measurement may affect the quality of the final result by considerable large
amount. Therefore, the final result may depend on the quality achieved from each individual
measurement.
III.5.2. Quality Control
The term quality control (QC) refers to the efforts and procedures that researchers put in
place to ensure the quality and accuracy of data being collected using the methodologies
chosen for a particular study (Roe, D., 2008).
Quality control measure verifies the accuracy of the surveyed data by checking its
compatibility with an independently surveyed data.
III.5.3. Data processing

The instruments have the capacity of treating data and software used to download. Data were
processed in the respective software of the instruments. Data from the total station processed
in Covadis 9.1 and data from GPS processed in Leica geo office combined. Geo-referencing
of the point cloud was performed in Google Earth Pro (see fig.III.1 above) to the Cameroon
local coordinate system WGS 1984 UTM Zone 32N.
37
Taking into consideration human limitations, imperfect instruments, unfavourable physical
conditions and improper measurement routines, which together define the measurement
condition, all measurement results most likely contain errors. To reduce the measurement
errors on the final results one need to improve the overall condition of the measurement
using least square adjustment (Fan, 1997).
Adjustment of the network was performed in Star*net v8 software which uses method of
least square adjustment. Least square adjustment is a method of estimating values from a set
of observations by minimizing the sum of the squares of the differences between the
observations and the values to be found.
Least Squares Adjustments by Observation Equation Method

The functional relationship between adjusted observations and the adjusted parameters is
given as (Ono et al., 2014).
(III.4)
Where, La= adjusted vector of observations and Xa= adjusted station coordinates. Equation
(III.4) is linear function and the general observation equation model was obtained.
To make the matrix expression for performing least squares adjustment, analogy will be
made with the systematic procedures. The system of observation equations is presented by
matrix notation as (Mishima and Endo 2002):
V = AX – L (III.5)
Where,
A = Design Matrix, X = Vector of Unknowns, L = Calculated Values (lo) Minus Observed
Values (l), V = Residual Matrix.
That is,
V = A X – L
(III.6)
Estimated parameter
(III.7)
Where, =Normal matrice, , =
X= = Estimate, W = Weight Matrix.

38
The models for the computation of the a posteriori variance and a posteriori standard error as
given in Ameh (2013) are:
A Posteriori Variance (III.8)
A Posteriori Standard Error (III.9)
Where, m - n = r = Degree of freedom

The model for the computation of the standard error of the adjusted parameters is given as:
(Ameh, 2013):
(III.10)
Where, is a diagonal element of the inverse of the normal matrix (
The semi-major axis , semi-minor axis and the orientation of the error ellipse θ as
given in Mikhail and Gracie (1981) are:
, (III.11)
(III.12)
The trace of a square matrix A is the sum of the diagonal elements of A, written as tr A or
sometimes tr (A), that is,
(III.13)
If A is a covariance matrix, then tr A is the sum of all variances and can be interpreted as a
measure of the overall accuracy of the associated vector of random variates (Caspary, 1988).
The redundancy number of each adjusted observation ( and average redundancy number
of a group of adjusted observations ( are respectively given in (Leick, 1990) as:
(III.14)
(III.15)
39
Where, = Diagonal element of the estimated residual cofactor matrix, Qv, = Weight of
the i-th observation. = Degree of freedom or redundant observation, A(R) =
Number of unknown parameter, n = Number of observation.
40
CHAPTER FOUR:
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
IV.1. GPS Baseline and TS Processing

Four control points of the reference network were observed with static measurement for
three hours. In order to transform the observed points from WGS 84 to UTM Zone 32N, a
baseline was processed from these four control points to ND018 station which is one of the
closest National geographical control points in the west region. These data are consisting of
carrier phase and code range measurements in support of three dimensional positioning.
After processing the baselines, the coordinate system was changed in to UTM Zone 32N.
Leica Geo office combine software was used for the processing of the GPS data (see
appendix C). Meanwhile Covadis 9.1 software was used to process Total station data (see
appendix B). The two survey methods were done in saving mode for total station and Real
time kinematic mode for GPS. Thus the result extracted from the instruments could be
exploited immediately without any further processing, but we processed in the mentioned
software in order to reduce errors.
The computed coordinates and their standard deviations of the control points of the reference
network are presented in the Table IV.1. (See appendix E).
Table IV.1: Computed Control Points Coordinate (m)
Pts. X(m) Y(m) Z(m) σX σY σZ

C.1 685517.058 561122.5074 1102.2279 0.0014 0.0006 0.0001
C.2 686013.4438 560996.1967 1083.22822 0.0006 0.0012 0.0001
C.3 686187.8282 560798.9648 1065.86916 0.0010 0.0020 0.0002
C.4 686393.3346 560423.0223 1043.59458 0.0011 0.0010 0.0005
Source: Author
IV.2. Determination of precision and accuracy of RTK and TS coordinates

RTK measurements were taken on the reference network in order to compare with the total
station measurements. Using RTK method, all control points were surveyed five times so as
to evaluate the precision of the measurements. To compute the precision of the repeated
measurement of the reference network, standard deviation formula Eq. (III.3) has been used.
Then, RMS of the RTK measurements were also computed using Eq. (III.2) in order to
evaluate how much the measurements were close to the established value.
41
IV.2.1 Precision of GPS-RTK and TS measurements
The standard deviations as shown in Table III.2 are less than 8 mm in horizontal and they
reach 1.9 cm in vertical coordinate, which indicates that the repeated measurements were
quite close to each other. According to the results obtained by Jonsson et al., (2003), the
standard deviations for the horizontal and vertical coordinate are 9 mm and 2 cm
respectively. So, by comparing the author‟s result with this thesis result, the precisions of the
horizontal and vertical coordinate are in mm and cm level respectively.
IV.2.2 Accuracy of GPS-RTK measurements

To evaluate how much RTK measurements were close to the established value, RMS of the
RTK measurements were computed (see Table IV.2). This RMS indicates the accuracy of
the RTK measurements of the reference network. Accuracy of the horizontal coordinates
ranges between maximum 7.1 mm (point C.1) and minimum 0.4 mm (point P.5) and
accuracy of the vertical coordinates ranges between maximum 1.9 cm (point P.6) and
minimum 1.1 cm (point C.1). This result can be compared with the work of Ehsani et al.,
(2004), in which, a horizontal accuracy of 1 cm achieved by compensating for atmospheric
delay, orbital errors and other variables in GPS geometry and that of Prof. Ismat M.
Elhassan., (2019), height accuracy obtained using GPS in Fast Static mode was 2.0 cm in an
urban environment for a nine points traverse of total distance around 400m.The thesis results
are quite reasonable considering the errors attributed from satellite blocking, centering error
and so on. By comparing the accuracy of horizontal and vertical coordinates, they are close
to each other.
42
Table IV.2: RTK Measurement, its RMS and Standard Deviation
RTK-GPS Mean RMS St.D

Pts
X Y Z X Y Z σX σY σZ
P.1 685440.1 561156. 1107.5 0.0039 0.0068 0.0142 0.00 0.0072 0.0011
158 0570 604 45
C.1 685517.0 561122. 1102.2 0.0010 0.0071 0.0191 0.00 0.0079 0.0012
576 5078 419 13
P.2 685851.4 561047. 1089.5 0.0004 0.0005 0.0123 0.00 0.0005 0.0179
323 1007 212 05
C.2 686013.4 560996. 1083.2 0.0005 0.0044 0.0161 0.00 0.0049 0.0031
436 1954 496 05
P.3 686113.6 560899. 1073.5 0.0033 0.0063 0.0105 0.00 0.0055 0.0091
894 4678 996 31
C.3 686187.8 560798. 1065.8 0.0059 0.0048 0.0155 0.00 0.0044 0.0010
284 9678 935 57
P.4 686224.1 560773. 1062.7 0.0023 0.0021 0.0148 0.00 0.0020 0.0006
364 0586 771 26
P.5 686279.0 560628. 1054.4 0.0004 0.0049 0.0116 0.00 0.0032 0.0003
547 4889 775 05
C.4 686393.3 560423. 1043.6 0.0044 0.0033 0.0170 0.00 0.0033 0.0071
374 0237 066 41
P.6 686452.2 560350. 1042.2 0.0021 0.0007 0.0129 0.00 0.0007 0.0193
843 7143 348 32
Source: Author
IV.3. Comparison of Total Station and GPS Results

The difference between the total station and RTK measurements were computed in order to
check if there were significant differences between total station and RTK results (See
appendix J). The difference was computed using the mean values of the measurements.
According to the obtained result, it has been proved that there were no significant differences
between the two measurements. As indicated in Table IV.3, the maximum difference
between TS and RTK is 4.4 mm in horizontal and 1.1 cm in vertical coordinates. The
remaining coordinates are below this level Thus, by comparing the mean coordinates of the
43
RTK measurements with that of total station, their measurement quality has been verified.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the measurements were precise and accurate.
44
Table IV.3: The Difference Between TS And RTK Mean
Pts TS Mean RTK Mean TS-RTK
X Y Z X Y X ∆X ∆Y ∆Z
P.1 685440. 561156. 1107 68544 561156. 1107.6 0.00 0.0008 -0.0019
1 1 .6 0.1 1 22
C.1 685517. 561122. 1102 68551 561122. 1102.2 0.00 - -0.0003
1 5 .2 7.1 5 06 0.0003
P.2 685851. 561047. 1089 68585 561047. 1089.6 0.00 0.0002 -0.0033
4 1 .6 1.4 1 03
C.2 686013. 560996. 1083 68601 560996. 1083.2 - 0.0017 -0.0027
4 2 .2 3.4 2 0.00
01
P.3 686113. 560899. 1073 68611 560899. 1073.6 - - -0.0082
7 5 .6 3.7 5 0.00 0.0044
18
C.3 686187. 560799. 1065 68618 560799. 1065.9 - - -0.0003
8 0 .9 7.8 0 0.00 0.0018
05
P.4 686224. 560773. 1062 68622 560773. 1062.8 - 0.0005 0.0044
1 1 .8 4.1 1 0.00
05
P.5 686279. 560628. 1054 68627 560628. 1054.5 - - -0.0029
1 5 .5 9.1 5 0.00 0.0037
03
C.4 686393. 560423. 1043 68639 560423. 1043.6 - - -0.0041
3 0 .6 3.3 0 0.00 0.0019
28
P.6 686452. 560350.7 1042. 686452 560350.7 1042.2 - 0.0001 -0.0105
3 2 .3 0.000
7
Source: Author
Furthermore, the standard deviation of the difference between total station and RTK
measurements were calculated using (Eq. III.3) and compared the result with their coordinate
differences. Table IV.4 presents the standard deviation of the difference between total station
45
and RTK. The result shows maximum standard deviation difference of 8 mm horizontally
and 1.9 cm vertically. Here the RMS of the total station was not computed because there was
no reference value for it.
Table IV.4: Comparison of Standard Deviations Between TS and RTK
Pts TS RTK-GPS Diff

σX σY σZ σX σY Z σdX σdY σdZ
P.1 0.0011 0.0013 0.0006 0.0045 0.0072 0.0011 0.0046 0.0074 0.0013
C.1 0.0014 0.0006 0.0001 0.0013 0.0079 0.0012 0.0019 0.0079 0.0012
P.2 0.0005 0.0007 0.0007 0.0005 0.0005 0.0179 0.0007 0.0009 0.0179
C.2 0.0006 0.0012 0.0001 0.0005 0.0049 0.0031 0.0008 0.0051 0.0031
P.3 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0031 0.0055 0.0091 0.0031 0.0056 0.0091
C.3 0.0010 0.0020 0.0002 0.0057 0.0044 0.0010 0.0058 0.0048 0.0010
P.4 0.0005 0.0005 0.0011 0.0026 0.0020 0.0006 0.0027 0.0021 0.0012
P.5 0.0006 0.0011 0.0012 0.0005 0.0032 0.0003 0.0008 0.0034 0.0012
C.4 0.0012 0.0010 0.0005 0.0041 0.0033 0.0071 0.0043 0.0034 0.0071
P.6 0.0007 0.0007 0.0003 0.0032 0.0007 0.0193 0.0033 0.0010 0.0193
Source: Author
Reliability of the measurements was tested through confidence level. Since the number of
measurement is small (n=5), t-distribution was used to compute the confidence interval. t-
distribution is a type of probability distribution that resembles normal distribution but for
smaller sample size. t-distribution is a bell shaped probability distribution with heavier tail
producing values that fall far from the mean. Using 95% confidence level, reliability of the
measurements has been verified.
The range of values within which the true value should lie for a given probability is required.
This range is called the confidence interval, its bounds called the confidence limits.
Confidence limits can be established for that stated probability from the standard
deviation for a set of observations. Statistical tables are available for this purpose. A figure
of 95% frequently chosen implies that nineteen times out of twenty the true value will lie
within the computed limits. The presence of a very large error in a set of normally
distributed errors, suggests an occurrence to the contrary and such an observation can be
rejected if the residual error is larger than three times the standard deviation.
The confidence interval for the difference between total station (TS) and real time
kinematics (RTK) has been calculated as:
46
(IV.1)
(IV.2)
(IV.3)
So, the confidence interval is:

(IV.4)
Where; is the difference between TPS and RTK coordinates, i = (N, E, H)
coordinates
is the standard deviation of P = coordinate point and k is t-
score value calculated from confidence level and degree of freedom.

Table IV.5 presents the confidence interval for the difference between coordinates of RTK
and TPS. Since the theoretical difference between their coordinates is zero, the confidence
interval is [- ], where k is t-score value calculated from confidence level, 95% and
degree of freedom (k=2.776). Depending on this requirement, 95% of the points should be
inside this confidence interval limit.
47
Table IV. 5: Confidence Interval Limits and Coordinates Difference Between TPS and RTK
Confidence interval limit and errors difference between

TPS and RTK
Pts kσdi Abs[d(RTK-TPS)i]
X Y Z X Y Z
P.1 0.0129 0.0204 0.0036 0.0022 0.0008 0.0020
C.1 0.0054 0.0220 0.0033 0.0006 0.0003 0.0003
P.2 0.0021 0.0024 0.0496 0.0004 0.0002 0.0033
C.2 0.0022 0.0141 0.0085 0.0002 0.0017 0.0028
P.3 0.0088 0.0154 0.0252 0.0018 0.0044 0.0082
C.3 0.0160 0.0134 0.0028 0.0006 0.0018 0.0004
P.4 0.0075 0.0057 0.0034 0.0005 0.0005 0.0044
P.5 0.0021 0.0094 0.0033 0.0004 0.0037 0.0030
C.4 0.0119 0.0095 0.0197 0.0027 0.0019 0.0041
Source: Author
From the results calculated, only one point (P.4) exceeds the confidence interval limit.
Therefore, point P.4 should be rejected. The rest points have lied within the confidence
interval limit, which accounts 90%.
IV.3.1. Comparison of Total Station and GPS Instruments with Respect to Time
Effective time has been recorded throughout the measurements in order to compare the time
expenditure of the methods applied. Effective time refers to the time needed to measure the
required tasks without considering the delayed time due to some problems. The specified
time is specific to this measurement because it depends on the operator engaged. The
required time does not include the time for transportation of instruments from store to the
field and vice versa, and delayed time due to some problems such as: battery problem,
incorrect reading, etc.
As it is described in chapter two, the reference network consists of 11 points, which were
measured from 7 stations towards all 11 points. This was done using two faces with two
rounds of measurements. The overall tasks were classified as field work and office lab work.
But, here the time consumed was recorded and compared only for the field measurement
between TPS and detail RTK on the reference network. Time allocated for every step of the
measurement is presented in Table IV.6. Time needed to setup the tripod of the instrument
48
(total station) on one station was recorded and then multiplied by the number of instrument
stations to determine the time expended on all instrument setups. In this project, the
reference network has consisted of seven instrument stations. The time expended for one
setup of a tripod on one target is multiplied by11 to calculate the expended time on tripod
setup, since 11 is the number of points in the reference network. The same is true for the rest
of measurement steps to determine the expended time for total station measurement. Thus,
the required total time with the total station was 135 min (2 hours and 15 min). Time
expended for GPS RTK was recorded as time required for the reference base and for the
rover. For the reference station, time was calculated as: time required for tripod setup plus to
centre it which was 8 min. For the rover measurement, time has been recorded as: time
needed to centre the rover plus time to record and to change to the next station and then
multiplied by the number of control points (10), totally it was 68 min (1 hour and 06 min).
The overall expended time on the reference network using total station and GPS RTK
measurement has been recorded and compared. The time needed for the total station
measurement was 2 hours and 15 min and that of GPS RTK measurement was 1 hour and 06
min. When comparing required time of the two methods, total station consumed more time
than RTK.
49
Table IV.6: Time Expenditure for TS and RTK Measurements for the Reference Network
Total station GPS-RTK
Time expenditure in (min)
Measurement steps Instrument Prism Reference Rover
Tripod Setup 4 4 5 ---
Centering 5 3 3 2
Aiming 3 --- --- ---
Recording 2 --- --- 2
Changing station --- 4 --- 2
Sum 14 11*11 8 6*10
135 68
Source: Author
IV.3.2. Comparison of Total Station and GPS Instruments with Respect to Cost
We see now a day a rapid increase in surveying instruments from basic to modern. These
instruments range from tape, chain, EDM, theodolite, total station, laser scanner, GPS etc. The
advantage that the moderns technologies has over the basic once is that they are fast and less
accurate, meanwhile the basic ones are slow and more accurate. Another disadvantage of basic
survey instruments like a Total station over the modern one (GPS-RTK) is that the GPS is
more expensive to purchase that the Total station. The comparison of the two instruments can
be seen in Table IV.7 below.
For the purpose of this thesis we rent the Total station and the GPS for one day each but not
on the same day. The Total station was rent for the first day at 25 000 FCFA as mentioned in
Table IV.7 below in order to establish the reference network and carry out the 5
measurements on each reference point. The next day we rent a GPS-RTK at 50 000FCFA to
measure points 5 times on the same reference network.
Table IV.7: Compares GPS and Total Station Prices in Cameroon

50
Total station GPS-RTK
Cost in (FCFA)
Purchase price 4,928,187.35 12 000 000
Rent price 25 000 50 000

Source: Author
Thus, we can conclude that based on the table above, the total station is less expensive to the
GPS for the same task.
IV.4. Questionnaire Results

The results below present the outcomes of the questionnaire selectively assign to respondent.
On the 150 question papers design and submitted to respondent, 123 papers given a
percentage of 82% was collected back and use for analyse.
Table IV.8: Different Topographical Instruments Used
Total Station GPS % of Total Station % GPS
Q1 109 14 88.62% 11.38%

Source: Author
Figure IV.1: Survey instrument use (Source: Author)

The graph above shows that all the respondent use total station or GPS for their work. Where
88.62 % use total station and 11.38% use GPS. Thus, it is seen that total station is the most
used.
Table IV.9: How Total Station and GPS Works
51
Yes No %Yes %No
A Total station is an angles and distance measuring 123 0 100 0
instruments in order to compute coordinates in
horizontal and vertical planes.
B GPS is an instrument for measuring horizontal and 120 3 97.56 2.44

vertical coordinates
C A total station works by combining optical (or laser) 122 1 99.19 0.81
plummets, a spirit (bubble level), and graduated circles
to find vertical and horizontal angles in surveying
D The GPS is a network of about 30 satellites orbiting the 121 2 98.37 1.63
Earth at an altitude of 20,000 km. Once it has
information on how far away at least three satellites are,
your GPS receiver can pinpoint your location using a
Process called trilateration.
Source: Author
Figure IV.2: How Total Station and GPS Works (Source: Author)
More than 98% accepted GPS is an instrument for measuring horizontal and vertical
coordinates. 99, 19% accepted that a total station works by combining optical (or laser)
plummets, a spirit (bubble level), and graduated circles to find vertical and horizontal angles
52
in surveying. 98.37% accepted that the GPS is a network of about 30 satellites orbiting the
Earth at an altitude of 20,000 km. Once it has information on how far away at least three
satellites are, your GPS receiver can pinpoint your location using a process called
trilateration, 100% accepted that total station is an angles and distance measuring
instruments in order to compute coordinates in horizontal and vertical planes. It is seen that
total station and GPS have different functions, but both are instruments used to measure
vertical and horizontal coordinates in engineering works.
Leica Total Station
A) Instrument Accuracy Yes No %Yes %No

2mm + 2ppm(with prism) and 3mm + 2ppm (without prism) 90 33 73.17 26.83
B) Instrument Precision
3mm for both horizontal and vertical coordinates 22 101 17.89 82.11
C) Instrument Cost
It cost around Є 7,495.00, which is equivalent to 120 3 97.56 2.44
4,928,187.35 FCFA
D) Instrument Measuring time(s)
5sec (with prism) and 3-6sec, max. 12sec (without prism) 100 23 81.30 18.70
Source: Author
53
Figure IV. 3: Instrumental Accuracy, Precision, Cost and Measuring Time when using
Leica Total Station (Source: Author)
The table and the graphs above shows that more than 98% of respondent accepted that the
proposed cost of total station, 73.17% agree with the proposed accuracy,81.30% also agreed
with stated measuring time and 82.11% disagreed with the stated precision encounter when
using a total station.
Table IV.11: Instrumental Accuracy, Precision, Cost and Measuring Time when using Leica
Gps
A) Instrument Accuracy Yes No %Yes %No

Horizontal: 5mm+0.5 ppm and 110 13 91.67 8.33
Vertical: 10mm +0.5 ppm(for RTK)
B) Instrument Precision
0.2mm rms(carrier phases) and 20mm rms (code - 115 8 93.50 6.50
pseudorange)
C) Instrument Cost
It cost around US $ 20,486.91 which is equivalent to 12 000 121 2 98.37 1.63
000 FCFA.
D) Instrument Measuring time(s)
54
0.05(20Hz) to 60 sec( for RTK) 105 18 85.37 14.63
Source: Author
Figure III.4: Instrumental Accuracy, Precision, Cost and Measuring Time when using Leica
GPS (Source: Author).
The table and the graphs above shows that more than 98% of respondent accepted that the
proposed cost of GPS, 91.67% agree with the proposed accuracy, 85.37% also agreed with
stated measuring time and 93.50% agreed with the stated precision encounter when using a
GPS.
55
Table IV.12: Comparison of Total Station and GPS
Total station GPS Yes No %Yes %No

A Direct acquisition of Indirect acquisition of 3D 8 115 6.50 93.50
3D coordinates coordinates
B Both horizontal and The horizontal accuracy is 118 5 95.93 4.07
vertical accuracies are better than the vertical
comparable accuracy
C The accuracy depends The accuracy depends on the 122 1 99.19 0.81
on the distance, angle satellite availability,
and the used prism atmospheric effect, satellite
geometry, multipath
D Less precise than GPS More precise than total station 10 113 8.13 91.87
E Satellite dependent Satellite independent 0 123 0 100
F Needed inter-visibility Visibility is not needed 117 6 95.12 4.88
between the instrument
and the prism
G Day time data Day or night time data 121 2 98.37 1.63
collection collection
H Total station and GPS can perform the same work 80 43 65.04 34.96
with the same accuracy and precision
I Works with total station is more time consuming than 101 22 82.11 17.89
work with GPS?
J As far as cost factor is concerned, GPS are more 120 3 97.56 2.44
expensive than total stations and also require surveying
training as well as software training according to the
specific product and models.
Source: Author
56
57
Figure IV. 5: Comparison of Total Station and GPS (Source: Author)
The table and the diagram above shows that 65.04% of respondent assume that the total
station cannot do the same work than the GPS with the reason that the total station and
GPS have different accuracies and precisions. 82.11% accepted that work with total station
is more time-consuming contrary to GPS, since the expended time of the instrument is much
compared to that of the GPS. 97.56% accepted that, GPS are more expensive than total
stations and also require surveying training as well as software training according to the
specific product and models.
IV.5. Discussion of Results

At the end of this research, we have to accomplish the main objective which meant to
evaluate and compare the accuracy, precision, and cost and time expenditure of two
surveying methods, i.e. GPS and total station. And subjected to the research question: how
can we compare in terms of accuracy, precision, cost and time expenditure total station and
GPS?
It appears that these instruments are both effective, and that using GPS is faster than total
station, but accuracy varies depending on the type of GPS receiver used, the climate and
atmosphere and the objectives of survey. Nevertheless, TS is more accurate for surveys
relative to hand GPS. This confirms the study done by Ehsani et al., (2004) which state that
a horizontal coordinate accuracy of 1cm has been achieved by compensating for atmospheric
delay, orbital errors and other variables in GPS geometry. This implies that hand GPS is
recommended to be used for preliminary studies. The time required for surveying with GPS
58
is very small compare to that of total Station which is 68mins and 2hours and 15mins
respectively. This confirms the study carried out by Borgelt et al., (1996), that the GPS and
its use in topography has significantly reduce the time used for topographic surveys over
conventional survey method.
Nevertheless, there are numerous limits between GPS and Total Station. GPS depends on the
satellite coverage, making its use limited inside the buildings, tunnels, forest. Its use is
therefore reducing to areas of good satellite coverage. Due to its imprecision and the facts
that the results it gives does not have decimal point, GPS overestimates surface leading it to
be utilize for precise survey only in large area. It goes in accordance with Alain Bouvet et
al., (2004) which highlighted that the inaccuracy of the GPS decreases with the parcel size.
In addition, GPS requires a great vigilance on each point because the number of satellite is
not computed in a standard principle but in an arbitral manner. A survey may well begin
with millimeter precision and ends with an accuracy of one meter. On the other hand, TS
work in an arbitrary system and is not effective during darkness due to the inability of
telescope to sight prism. It necessarily requires an inter visibility between points which
makes the measurement distance limit compared to GPS and it use requires significant
labour and know point coordinate to georeference the work. GPS accuracy is dependent on
sources of error introduced in to the position solution, the number of satellites in view, the
position of the satellites in relation to one another (satellite geometry), and the strength of
the satellite signals. Hence, the following results will help to better choose the appropriate
instrument for implementation of works, to know in what condition to use a specific tool in
order to get a better performance in terms of quality, accuracy and time. In knowing this,
errors can be reduced. It also to draw the attention of users on the fact that these instruments
used in topography have limitations and that potential errors of the operator can influence
the result of certain service offering if the level of vigilance of the responsible services for
monitoring alight a large margin. A bad survey causes a total deviation of the field which led
to land conflicts. And how to use GPS and Total Station, one can differentiate which
instrument should be used for which specific application depending on the presented results.
59
CHAPTER FIVE:
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The aim of this section is to assess the relevance, validity of results in relation to research
questions and research hypotheses.
Conclusion
Total station (TS) and Global Positioning System (GPS) are used for many tasks (or works)
within different applications, for example, geodesy, engineering, architectural and mining
surveys and documentation of cultural heritage with different accuracy level depending on
the needed requirements.
The aim of this thesis was to evaluate and compare accuracy, precision, cost and time
expenditure of two topographical instruments (or surveying methods), total station and GPS.
The comparison was made an established reference network on the Bafoussam-Tonga
highway (National 4). To accomplish the objectives of the thesis, two (02) major tasks have
been performed. 1. A network of 11 points was established with high precision (l mm) with
total station and served as a reference or established value. 2. On the same network, GPS-
RTK method was performed to compare the result with that of total station.
During the task of the measurement, time expended was recorded and compared (see Table
IV.6) and the cost of the used of the two instruments was also compared (see Table IV.7).
Then, in order to evaluate the precision and accuracy of the RTK on the reference network,
measurements were taken five times.
Based on the results obtained, precision of the reference network determined with 1 mm
standard deviation both for horizontal and vertical coordinates for all points. This result has
been achieved because of the two face measurements with the total station. On the same
control points of the network, RTK method was performed and according to the result
obtained, the standard deviations are less than 8 mm in horizontal and they reach 1.93 cm in
vertical coordinate, which indicates that the repeated measurements were quite close to each
other. The accuracy of the RTK measurements on the network, which is expressed by RMS,
are less than 8 mm in horizontal and they reach 1.91 cm in vertical coordinates.
Finally, the time expenditure summarized as more time (67 mins) was consumed for TS
measurement than GPS method. The GPS is more expensive than the total station when
rented for the same period of one day.
In order to evaluate the quality of the measurement, absolute value of each coordinate
difference between each method should not be exceed kσdi, which limits the errors not to be
60
beyond certain limit by multiplying their sigma differences with constant k (2.776). Based
on this quality control measure, more than 90% of the total result has achieved the
requirement. This can be interpreted as values which lied within the allowable limit (interval
limit), considered as accepted values. But values out of the interval limit considered as risk
values, which might contain gross errors. There was one point which was out of the interval
limit and was rejected. Thus, there is no significant difference in surveying with the total
station and GPS. The null hypothesis was retained, and the alternatives rejected.
Hence, it can be concluded that there were no gross errors in the measurement; because the
measurements were made precisely and accurately. For instance: when measuring using total
station, two face measurements was taken to eliminate some errors such as collimation axis
errors, tilting axis errors, etc. When using GPS RTK method, small tripod was used to erect
the rover vertical. Initially, I expected to achieve accuracy in mm level. But, due to some
errors (like centering error, instrumental error, satellite signal obstruction), some results have
been deviated in to cm level.
From the questionnaire analysis, it is seen that most entrepreneurs use total Station more
than GPS. We got an 88.62% and 11.3% use of total station and GPS respectively. Thus,
from this result we can conclude by saying that entrepreneurs should complement the two
surveying methods if they are seeking for high precision.
Recommendations
The summary of our analysis on comparative study of some topographical instruments case
study total station and GPS, reveal that total station and GPS are the instruments mostly used
in survey and they have different accuracy, precision and time of measurement. The obtained
results from this thesis will hopefully improve the knowledge about accuracy, precision and
time consumption of the two methods used (TS and GPS). One can differentiate which
instrument should be used for which specific application depending on the presented results.
For further improvement of accuracy, the following recommendations are forwarded:
 Surveyor must work on the field on both face of instrument so to improve on the
accuracy and precision of the instruments.
 The lack of qualify surveyor, the limited number of equipment available in service makes
that various equipment are not given appropriate care and maintenance, therefore
regular checks and maintenance must be given to the equipment like total station and
GPS.
61
 Total station (Leica 1203) should be calibrated at some regular intervals. Since there was
problem in the level bubbles; one on the tribrach and the other on the total station
couldn‟t be levelled at the same time. So, once calibrated the instrument, it will improve
the level of accuracy.
 It can be achieved better accuracy by calibrating those instruments before the
measurement campaign.
 It was very difficult to manage the field measurement alone, specially establishing the
reference network has been a big problem. There will be a possibility of occurring gross
errors and therefore, I recommend working in group.
 Applications which require high precision so as to serve as reference value, such as
control point establishments, I recommend using total station instead of GPS.
62
REFERENCES
Ahmed, E.M. (2012). Performance Analysis of the RTK Technique in an Urban

Environment, Australian Surveyor, 45:1, 47-54.
Ameh, B. M. (2013): Determination of Components of Deflection of the Vertical of Lobi
Area of Makurdi, Benue State, Using GPS (GNSS) and Precise Levelling
Observations.
Borgelt S C., Harrison J D., Harrison, K. A. Sudduth, and S. J. Birrell (1996).
Evaluation of GPS for Applications in Precision Agriculture; Appl. Eng. Agric. 12(6)
633–638.
Chekole, S. D. Surveying with GPS, total station and terrestrial laser scanner a
comparative study. Master of Science Thesis in Geodesy No. 3131, TRITA-GIT EX
14001, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Royal Institute of
Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden, 2014.
Clark R.L. and Lee R. (1998). Development of Topographical Maps for Precision Farming
with Kinematic GPS; Trans. ASAE. Vol. 41(4) 909–916.
Ehsani, M. R., Upadhyaya, S. K. and Mattson, M. L. (2004). Seed Location Mapping
Using RTK GPS; Trans. ASAE. Vol. 47(3): 909-914.
Fan H. (1997) Theory of Error and Least Square Adjustment, Royal Institute of Technology
(KTH) Division of Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Stockholm, Sweden.
Höglund R. and Large P. (2005), Direct reflex EDM technology for the surveyor and civil
engineer, Trimble survey, Westminster, Colorado,USA.
Ismat M. Elhassan., (2019). Accuracy comparison of total station (TS) and global
positioning system (GPS) in determining height within an urban environment. Civil
Engineering Department, College of Engineering, KSU, Riyadh Saudi Arabia.
Jonsson K.O., Andersson A., Jacobsson S.O., Vandevoorde S., Lambert D.M., Fowler
C.J. (2003), SWEPOS Network-RTK Services, status, applications and experiences.
Presented at ION GPS/GNSS 2003, 9-12 September, 2003, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
Kostov, G., (2011). Using of both Fast Static and RTK Modes for GNSS Determinations to
Obtain Required high Accuracy and Productivity, According to the Current
Possibilities of the IT. Marrakech, Morocco.
63
Leica 1200+ total station manual.
Leica GPS 1200+ series manual.
Lin, L.S. (2004). Application of GPS RTK and total station systems on dynamic monitoring
land use. Proceedings of the ISPRS Congress Istanbul, Turkey 2004.
Mikhail, E. M. and Gracie, G. (1981): Analysis and Adjustment of Survey Measurements.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Ono, M. N., Eteje, S. O. and Oduyebo, F. O., (2018). Comparative analysis of DGPS and
total station accuracies for static deformation monitoring of engineering structures.
Department of Surveying and Geoinformatics, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka.
Penn State's Online Geospatial Education online degree and certificate programs from
http://www.Geospatial Education Program Office.
Satalich, J. and Ricketson, R., (1998). Field test of Trimble 4000 Real-Time Kinematic
GPS Survey System; Journal of Surveying Engineering. Vol. 124(1) 40–48.
Schofield W. and Breach M. (2007), Engineering Surveying, Sixth Edition, Elsevier,
Oxford, UK. Total Station. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved on March 18,
2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_station.
64
APPENDICE
Appendix A:
West Region Road Network
65
Appendix B:
Results of Total Station Coordinates Generated by COVADIS 9.1.
66
Appendix B (Continued)
67
68
Appendix C:
Results of GPS Coordinates Generated by Leica Geo Office Combine
69
70
71
72
Appendix D:
Total Station Coordinates for the Five (05) Observations and their Mean
73
Appendix E:
Calculation of Standard Deviation of TS Observations
74
Appendix F:
GPS Coordinates for the Five (05) Observations and their Mean
75
Appendix G:
Calculation of Standard Deviation of GPS Observations
76
Appendix H:
Calculation of RMS of GPS Observations
77
Appendix H (Continued)
78
Appendix I:
The Difference between TS and RTK Mean
79
Appendix J:
Comparison of Standard Deviations between TS and RTK
80
Appendix K:
Confidence Interval Limit and Errors difference between TPS and RTK
81
Appendix L:
Questionnaire for Surveyors
Dear respondent, I am called TAKEM FOKOU STEPHANE, a student of HTTTC Bambili
caring out a DIPET II research work on the comparative study of some topographical
instruments: case of total station and GPS. There is no wrong answer and we would keep
your responses confidential and use them strictly for academic purposes. Your collaboration
will be appreciated.
Instruction: place a tick (√) in the appropriate box
General information of the respondent
Age of respondent 15-20 2 0-25 25-30 above 30
Number of year of using topographical instruments 0-5 5-10 1 0-15 above
15
Part I: To Find How the Global Positioning System (GPS) and Total Station Work
1-1) Which among this instruments you use to carry out survey?
GPS Total station
1-2) Are total station and GPS topographical instruments?
Yes No
1-3) Total station use a system of prisms and lasers to develop digital readings of all the
measurements during your job?
Yes No
1-4) Total station is an Angle and distance measurement equipment in order to compute
coordinates in horizontal and vertical planes?
Yes No
1-5) The GPS is a network of about 30 satellites orbiting the Earth at an altitude of 20,000
km. Once it has information on how far away at least three satellites are, your GPS receiver
can pinpoint your location using a process called trilateration?
Yes No
1-6) Total station is generally suitable for surveys of small size plots whereas GPS are more
suitable for survey requirements over large distances, especially for difficult terrain as their
results in such environments are more accurate and dependable.
Yes No
82
Appendix L (Continued)
Part II: Find Different Instrumental Accuracy, Precision, Cost and Measuring Time
2-1) Instrumental accuracy, precision, cost and time expenditure you encounter when using a
Leica total station.
Instrument Accuracy Yes No
2mm + 2ppm ( with prism) and 3mm + 2ppm (without prism)
Instrument Precision Yes No
3mm for both horizontal and vertical coordinates
Instrument Cost Yes No
It cost around Є 7,495.00, which is equivalent to 4,928,187.35 FCFA
Instrument Measuring time(s) Yes No
5sec (with prism) and 3-6sec, max. 12sec (without prism)
2-2) Instrumental accuracy, precision, cost and time expenditure you encounter when using a
Leica GPS.
Instrument Accuracy Yes No
Horizontal: 5mm+0.5 ppm and Vertical: 10mm +0.5 ppm ( for RTK)
Instrument Precision Yes No
0.2mm rms(carrier phases) and 20mm rms (code -pseudorange)
Instrument Cost Yes No
It cost around US $ 20,486.91 which is equivalent to 12 000 000 FCFA.
Instrument Measuring time(s) Yes No
0.05(20Hz) to 60 sec(for RTK)
83
Appendix L (Continued)
Part III: Comparison between Total Station and GPS
Total station GPS Yes No
A Direct acquisition of 3D Indirect acquisition of 3D coordinates

coordinates
B Both horizontal and vertical The horizontal accuracy is better than

accuracies are comparable the vertical accuracy
C The accuracy depends on the The accuracy depends on the satellite

distance, angle and the used prism availability, atmospheric effect,
satellite geometry, multipath
D Less precise than GPS More precise than total station
E Satellite dependent Satellite independent
F Needed inter-visibility between the Visibility is not needed

instrument and the prism
G Day time data collection Day or night time data collection
H Total station and GPS can perform the same work with the same
accuracy and precision?
I Works with total station is more time consuming than work with GPS?
J As far as cost factor is concerned, GPS are more expensive than total
stations and also require surveying training as well as software training
according to the specific product and models.
THANKS FOR YOUR COLABORATION
84

Thesis - Library Format

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis - Library Format

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNIVERSITY OF BAMENDA

HIGHER TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SOME TOPOGRAPHICAL

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering and Forestry Techniques in

I, TAKEM FOKOU STEPHANE, registration number 14T0164, Department of Civil

Dr. JEAN CLAUDE TCHAMBA

Dr. KATTE VALENTINE YATO Prof. Joseph Ngwain Yong

(Head of Department) (Director)

The General Coordinator

To my beloved mother NGEUNA NGANFASSI MARCELINE

Nowadays, the accuracy of positioning information is improving by using advanced GPS

De nos jours, la précision des informations de positionnement s'améliore grâce à

MOTS-CLES : Exactitude, Précision, Cout, Dépense De Temps, Station Totale GPS,

Table II.1: Angle Measurement Accuracy .....................................................................13

3D: Three Dimension

I.1. Background of the study

I.2. Justification of the choice of the topic

I.4. Research Questions

I.5. Objectives of the Research

I.5.2. Specific Objectives

I.6. Formulating the Hypotheses

I.7. Definition of Indicators and Variables

I.8. Thesis Outline

II.1.1. Accuracy Comparison of Total Station and GPS in Height Determination

II.1.2. Accuracy Test between GPS RTK and Total Station

II.1.3. RTK Measurement Applied to Accuracy Test of Different GPS Instruments

II.1.6. Comparative Analysis of DGPS and TS Accuracies for Deformation Monitoring

II.2. Overview of Total Station Instruments

II.2.1. Types of Total Station

Figure II.1: Leica 1203 TPS (Source: Author)

a. High Resolution b. Low Resolution

a. High Precision b. Low Precision

a. High accuracy b. Low precision

Table II.2: Distance Measurement Accuracy

Distance measurement Measure time

I.2.3. Measurement Errors

Table II.4: Angle Errors and Their Adjustment

Instrument error Affects Affects Eliminated with Corrected with

a. Systematic error b. Random error

II.2.4. Mode of Distance Measurement

Three sets of atmospheric conditions:

Table II.6: Accuracy of measurements to standard prism

Table II.7: Distance Accuracy in RL Mode

II.3. Overview of GPS Instruments

II.3.1. Types of GPS

GX1230+GNS GX1220+GNS GX1230+ GX1220+ GX1210+

GX1230+GNSS/ GX1230+ GX1220+ GX1210+

II.3.2. Measurement precision, accuracy, time and cost

 Measurement Precision and Position Accuracies

ATX1230+ GNSS GX1220+ GX1210+

Table II.12: Accuracy (RMS) with Post Processing

Table II.13: Accuracy (RMS) with Real-Time/RTK

ATX1230+ GNSS GX1230+ GX1220+ GX1210+

ATX1230+ GNSS GX1220+ GNSS / GX1210+

II.3.3. Measurement Errors

II.3.4 Real Time Kinematics (RTK)

II.4. Theoretical Comparison of Total Station and GPS Instruments

Total station GPS

III.1. Project Study Area

Figure III.1: Reference control points (Source: Author)

III.2. ESTABLISHING REFERENCE NETWORK

III.3. Choosing Suitable Control and Detail Survey Points

III.4. Detail Survey

Sum 14 1111 8 610