SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, COMPUTING

AND ENGINEERING

Pioneering Futures Since 1898

Surveying Working Paper No 01/2020

Introduction to geodetic
datum transformations and
their reversibility
A. C. Ruffhead and B. M. Whiting
Abstract
This paper provides an introduction to methods of performing coordinate transformations
between geodetic datums. The emphasis is on the types of transformation which can be
expressed directly by formulae. The paper aims to be comprehensive. To that end it takes
account of the fact that some methods have slightly different forms, something which is seldom
acknowledged. Each method is classified according to whether it is conformal, near-conformal
or non-conformal.

This paper is primarily concerned with the application of transformations for which “optimal”
parameters are already known. Methods for optimising parameters are not covered here, partly
because they constitute a major topic in their own right. A typical approach is minimisation of
the sum of the squares of residual shifts, although there are many variations. It is assumed that
the derivation methods are statistically based and are designed to produce transformation
models that fit actual data to a particular level of accuracy.

Published parameters for a datum transformation are primarily designed for a one-way
transformation of coordinates, usually from a local geodetic datum to a global datum. Where
reverse transformations are needed, there is a general tendency to recommend the original
formulae with negated parameters, giving results that are only approximate relative to the
forward transformation. This paper recommends mathematically-exact reverse formulae where
they exist and computationally-convergent reverse processes where they do not.

Keywords: datum transformations, geodetic datums, reverse transformations

Acknowledgements
The data used to obtain a transformation model in Section 2.3 was provided by Ordnance
Survey of Great Britain. It consisted of the coordinates of 44 control points common to
Ordnance Survey of Great Britain 1936 and the World Geodetic System 1984.

The data used to obtain a transformation model in Section 2.13 was provided by Professor
Joseph Awange, Department of Spatial Sciences, Curtin University. It consisted of the
coordinates of 82 control points common to the Australian Geodetic Datum 1984 and the
World Geodetic System 1984.

The authors are indebted to Mr B Pearce for reading the original manuscript and for making
useful suggestions.

i
Notation
The notation below refers to the general usage of symbols in this working paper. Symbols that
are local to a subsection (such as U and V in 2.13) are not included.

a semi-major axis of an ellipsoid

b semi-minor axis of an ellipsoid
 prefix denoting “shift in” or “change in” (eg S is change in scale)
e 2
square of the first eccentricity of an ellipsoid, equal to (a 2 − b 2 ) / a 2
f flattening of an ellipsoid, equal to (a-b)/a
 geodetic latitude
 geodetic longitude
h ellipsoidal height, meaning height above ellipsoid
 radius of curvature in the prime vertical
 radius of curvature in the meridian
R rotation matrix
RX rotation of position vector about X-axis, as illustrated in Figure 1-7
RY rotation of position vector about Y-axis, as illustrated in Figure 1-7
RZ rotation of position vector about Z-axis, as illustrated in Figure 1-7
S scale; a subscript is added if it only applies to a direction or a plane
s subscript denoting source datum of a forward transformation
T superscript denoting transpose of a matrix
t subscript denoting target datum of a forward transformation
X, Y, Z Cartesian coordinates
x,y grid coordinates, meaning Eastings and Northings

ii
 Contents
Notation ii

1. Introduction to datums and transformations

1.1 Geodetic datums 1
1.2 Coordinate types and coordinate systems 2
1.2.1 Geodetic coordinates 2
1.2.2 Geocentric Cartesian coordinates 2
1.2.3 Grid coordinates 3
1.2.4 Local Cartesian coordinates 4
1.2.5 Local level coordinates 4
1.3 Datum transformations 4
1.3.1 Translation parameters 5
1.3.2 Scaling parameters 5
1.3.3 Rotation parameters 6
1.3.4 Miscellaneous coefficients 6
1.4 Reverse (or inverse) transformations 6

2. Direct transformation methods and their inverses 7

2.1 Conformal transformation in 2 dimensions 7
2.2 Affine transformation in 2 dimensions 7
2.3 3-parameter conformal transformation 9
2.4 Standard Molodensky 9
2.5 Abridged Molodensky 10
2.6 Rigorous 7-parameter conformal (Helmert) transformation 14
2.7 Rigorous localised 7-parameter conformal transformation 16
2.8 Bursa-Wolf 16
2.9 Molodensky-Badekas 18
2.10 8-parameter affine transformation 18
2.11 9-parameter affine transformation 19
2.12 12-parameter affine transformation 20
2.13 Multiple regression equations 20

3. Observations and conclusions 23

3.1 Some observations and comparisons 23
3.2 Surface-fitting methods 23
3.3 Concluding remarks 24

References 25

iii
1. Introduction to datums and transformations
1.1. Geodetic datums
A geodetic datum is a geometric representation of the earth intended for use as a coordinate
reference system. It includes an ellipsoid of revolution about a polar (Z) axis, and axes (X and
Y) in the equatorial plane such that the positive X axis defines zero longitude. These axes are
shown in Figure 1-1. A meridian plane showing how latitude is measured is shown in Figure
1-2.

Figure 1-1: Ellipsoid showing Figure 1-2: Meridian plane containing point
Cartesian axes, the ellipsoidal P showing the ellipsoidal normal through P,
normal through point P and the the geodetic latitude of P and the ellipsoidal
geodetic longitude of P. height of P.

To complete the specification of the geodetic datum, the chosen ellipsoid is fitted to the earth
according to whether the datum is intended for local or global use. Fitting the earth means
minimising the separation between the ellipsoid and the “geoid”, the equipotential surface that
best describes mean sea level. For local datums, which generally came about before satellites,
the ellipsoid has been chosen to fit the geoid closely in the local area (often a single country).
This has resulted in a large number of local datums. The arrival of satellites has made it
possible to identify ellipsoids that give a close fit to the global geoid (as far as that is
possible). This has given rise to global datums.

It follows that the terms geodetic latitude, geodetic longitude and ellipsoidal height (height
above ellipsoid) are dependent on the geodetic datum. Position coordinates will differ between
datums.

The most widely-used global datum is the World Geodetic System (WGS84). This was
produced in the US by what is now the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).
WGS84, together with approximate models of its relationship to local datums, are
documented in NIMA (2004) and DMA (1987).

A geodetic datum transformation is a widely-accepted term which describes the process that
changes position coordinates in one geodetic datum to position coordinates in another.
Typically, values of coordinates obtained from measurements are known in both datums at a set
of common points. A typical transformation method is a mathematical model which fits the
common points according to chosen criteria, usually least-squares optimisation.

1
The datums for which a transformation is designed are generally labelled “source” and “target”.
Coordinates in the respective datums are often assigned subscripts “s” and “t”, while the prefix
“” often denoted the change from source to target. A transformation can be expressed in either
of the following forms:
• Coordinates in the target datum as a function of coordinates in the source datum;
• Change in coordinate (eg ) as function of coordinates in the source datum.

For some datums, there are what appear to be different versions of the same datum, each
linked to a point in time. For transformation purposes they can be regarded as datums. They
are actually data realisations, or “terrestrial reference frames” (TRFs). They consist of a
network of reference points with known coordinates. (The reason for time-related datum
realisations is the small changes in point positions that arise from movement of tectonic
plates.)

Before considering relationships between datums, it is important to examine the different

coordinate systems that can be used within a datum.

1.2. Coordinate types and coordinate systems

Within a geodetic datum there are several types of coordinates. Changing coordinates from one
type to another within the same datum is traditionally designated coordinate conversion. Datum
transformation methods sometimes require the input coordinates to be converted to a different
type before application of the model. For example, if points in the source datum are known in
geodetic coordinates, these would need to be converted to geocentric Cartesian coordinates
before the Bursa-Wolf transformation could be applied. The transformed coordinates in the
target datum would normally be converted to the same coordinate-type as the original input.

1.2.1. Geodetic coordinates

The full geodetic coordinates of a point consist of geodetic latitude (), geodetic longitude ()
and ellipsoidal height (h). There are circumstances in which ellipsoid height is either
disregarded or given a dummy value (such as zero). This is partly because ellipsoidal heights in
older datums are often unknown or not known very accurately.

1.2.2. Geocentric Cartesian coordinates

For any given datum, geocentric Cartesian coordinates have their origin at the centre of the
reference ellipsoid. OX and OY are in the Equatorial plane with longitudes 000° and 090°
respectively; OZ is the polar axis.

The equations for converting geodetic coordinates to geocentric Cartesian coordinates are as
follows.
a
= . (1-1)
1 − e 2 sin 2
X = ( + h) cos cos  . (1-2)
Y = ( + h) cos sin . (1-3)
Z = [ (1 − e 2 ) + h] sin  . (1-4)

The derivation of these equations can be found, for example, in Section 5-3 of Heiskanen and
Moritz (1967).

The process of converting (X, Y, Z) to (, , h) is less straightforward. The problem of

obtaining an explicit expression for  has itself been the subject of considerable research (much
2
of which is summarised in Featherstone and Claessens, 2008). The oldest-known process is the
iterative approach that is recommended in Section 5-3 of Heiskanen and Moritz (1967).
Ruffhead (2016) expressed the algorithm as follows.

r= X 2 +Y 2 (1-5)
which is the distance from the polar axis.
λ = arctan2(X, Y), (1-6)
unless r  a / 1012 , in which case  should be set to 0. The function arctan2(X, Y) is the four-
quadrant version of arctan(Y/X) and takes the same sign as Y.

Unless Z  a / 10 (in which case  should be set to 0) the following iterative approach is used
12

to compute .
 Z 
 = arctan   (1-7)
 (1 − e )r 
2

as a first estimate.
  = . (1-8)

a
= . (1-9)
1 − e 2 sin 2  

 Z + e 2 sin   
 = arctan  . (1-10)
 r 

Assignments (1-8) to (1-10) are performed until |−|<10-12radians.

The ellipsoidal height can be computed from

r
h= − , (1-11)
cos

except in regions of very high latitude in which case the following formula is recommended:
Z
h= −   (1 − e 2 ). (1-12)
sin 

1.2.3. Grid coordinates

Grid coordinates are coordinates on a projected plane. Notation conventions vary, but in this
paper, x denotes Eastings and y denotes Northings. The most commonly used units are metres.
Eastings and Northings are usually relative to a convenient point so that they have positive
values in the area of interest.

The coordinate conversion from (, ) to (x, y) is a projection (or map projection). The reverse
process is an inverse projection. Snyder (1987) covers a wide range of projections and their
inverses.

A plane cannot be an exact representation of part of an ellipsoidal surface, because there is

bound to be an element of squashing & stretching, causing small variations in scale.
Nevertheless, grid coordinates are sometimes used for the application of transformations.

3
1.2.4. Local Cartesian coordinates

Local Cartesian coordinates are intended for use in a local region. The axes are parallel to the
geocentric Cartesian axes, but their origin is a point in the region of interest. These are rarely
used.

1.2.5. Local level coordinates

Local level coordinates are sometimes known as ENU coordinates. This is a Cartesian system,
but the first two coordinate axes are in a “local level” plane rather than the Equatorial plane.
The local origin O is a central point in the region of interest. O may be on the ellipsoidal
surface, as in Figure 1-3, or above or below it. The axis OZ is the ellipsoidal normal through
O, so it is approximately the local vertical. The coordinate plane OXY is perpendicular to
OZ, so it is approximately horizontal in the area. In this paper, OX, OY and OZ are, locally
speaking, towards East, towards North and Up respectively. This identification preserves right-
hand axes.

Figure 1-3: Axes for local level coordinates.

The formula for converting geocentric Cartesian coordinates to local level coordinates (X, Y, Z
as defined above) is as follows.
 X   − sin 0 cos0 0  X − X 0 
Y   = − sin cos − sin sin  cos  Y − Y  (1-13)
   0 0 0 0 0  0 

Z    cos0 cos0 cos0 sin 0 sin0  Z − Z 0 

The matrix is the product of rotation matrices and therefore orthogonal. The reverse formula is
therefore

(1-14)

1.3. Datum transformations

Datum transformations can be divided into three categories:

• Conformal transformations (or similarity transformations) that preserve shape.
• Near-conformal transformations, which are usually mathematical
approximations of conformal transformation.
4
 • Non-conformal transformations.

A special case of the non-conformal type is the affine transformation. This is a

transformation that preserves collinearity and proportions along a straight line. It allows for
changes in angles and lengths, so there can be different scale changes in different directions.

A general range of transformation methods will be discussed in Section 2, along with the
respective reverse methods.

A transformation differs from a relationship in that it is one-way. Coordinates in a source

datum are converted into coordinates of a target datum. It is called the forward
transformation if and when there is a need to distinguish it from the reverse (or inverse)
transformation (which converts coordinates in the opposite direction, ie from target datum to
source datum).

Transformation parameters are quantities that determine how the position coordinates in the
source datum are changed to position coordinates in the target datum. They can be divided
into four types, which are described below.

1.3.1. Translation parameters

These are additions to linear coordinates in the transformation from source to target. They are
denoted X, Y & Z in the case of Cartesian coordinates and x & y in the case of grid
coordinates. They arise from the movement of the origin from the source datum to the target
datum, as illustrated in Figures 1.3 and 1.4. Translation parameters do not affect conformality
(preservation of shape).

Figure 1-4: Change of origin Figure 1-5: Change of origin giving rise
giving rise to translation to translation parameters for Cartesian
parameters for grid coordinates. coordinates.

1.3.2. Scaling parameters

These are multiplying factors applied to distances in the directions of the axes. In the often-
occurring case of conformal transformations, there is only one scaling parameter and it is
applied to distances in any direction. A scaling parameter can be expressed as a scale factor S
or a scale change S (where S=1+S). S is often given in parts per million (ppm).

5
1.3.3. Rotation parameters

These define rotation of axes in a grid plane or in 3-dimensions. Relative to the changing
axes, however, they can be regarded as rotations of a position vector. The sign convention
adopted here is that positive rotations are counter-clockwise in the grid plane (Figure 1-6) and
counter-clockwise about Cartesian axis when viewed from the positive side of the origin
(Figure 1-7). Rotation parameters do not affect conformality.

Figure 1-6: Rotation convention Figure 1-7: Rotation conventions for

for a position vector in the Oxy position vectors in the OYZ plane, the
plane. OZX plane and the OXY plane.

The rotation convention in Figure 1-7 is widely known as the position vector (PV) convention.
To quote Ordnance Survey (2018, page 37) “It is the form in most common use in Europe
(particularly in the oil and gas industry), is used by the International Association of Geodesy
(IAG) and recommended by ISO 19111 and is EPSG dataset coordinate operation method
code 1033”. One characteristic is that a positive rotation about the Z-axis has the effect of
increasing longitude. It is important to note that there is no movement in the points whose
coordinates are transformed. Any rotation of the position vector is purely relative to the axes
which have changed.

Nevertheless, a significant number of authors adopt the opposite sign convention. It is widely
known as the coordinate frame (CF) convention because it considers rotation of axes about
fixed points. Ordnance Survey (2018, page 37) says the CF convention “is common in the
USA oil and gas industry and is EPSG dataset coordinate operation method code 1032”. The
effect of that preference on transformation formulae will be noted where appropriate.

1.3.4. Miscellaneous coefficients

Some transformation formulae have other types of parameters. These could be coefficients of
monomials in a polynomial expression or matrix elements. They provide an element of
freedom to fit models to data, but the resulting transformations will probably not be conformal.

1.4. Reverse (or inverse) transformations

Besides the formulae for forward transformations, Section 2 also considers how to compute the
corresponding reverse or inverse transformations. In this context, coordinates with subscript t
are transformed into coordinates with subscript s.

It is important to acknowledge that a datum transformation method will always be affected by

inaccuracies in the measurements of common points. A reverse method will never be more
accurate than the forward method. It can only be exact in the sense of being totally consistent

6
with the forward method, without introducing any new errors; that is to say, coordinates
converted from source to target then back to source should be identical to the original
coordinates. Nevertheless, that property can be reassuring to users of transformation
software, particularly if they are concerned about cumulative errors from repeated
transformations.

In several cases, the principle used is the very basic one that if y = f ( g ( x)) where f is
invertible and g is invertible, then x = g −1 ( f −1 ( y )) . An inverse transformation achieved in this
way can be considered an inverse by rearrangement, and should be exact.

A same-formula inverse is where the transformation formula is used with different parameters
to compute the inverse. Very often the parameters used have the same magnitude as the
forward-transformation parameters but have opposite sign. This can be classified as a simple
same-formula inverse, but in general it is not exact.

The reverse transformation methods recommended in this paper are of two types:
• Inverse by rearrangement as described above.
• Inverse by the following computational process: apply the simple same-formula
inverse, apply the forward transformation to the result, then use the misclosure as a
correction.

7
2. Direct transformation methods and their inverses
This Section describes a general range of transformation methods, along with the respective
reverse methods. It is not intended to cover the respective merits of individual in any depth, or
the derivation of the optimal parameters. Nor is it intended to cover the application of surface-
fitting methods to residual shifts.

2.1. Conformal transformation in 2 dimensions

This consists of 4 parameters: translations Δx and Δy, scale factor S, and rotation θ. The last
two can be replaced by alternative parameters a1 = S cos and a2 = S sin . The
transformation is applied to grid coordinates (as per Section 1.2.3).

For this type of transformation to give satisfactory results, there needs to be a strong
resemblance between the projections which generate the grids. In particular, the variations in
scale factor across the area of interest must be proportional to each other. This issue is
discussed in more detail in Iliffe and Lott (2008, 4.5.2).

The transformation equation is

 x t  x  cos − sin    x s 
 y  = y  + S  sin  cos   y s 
. (2-1)
 t   

This is exactly equivalent to

 x t  x   a1 − a2  xs 
 y  = y  + a a1   y s 
, (2-2)
 t    2
using the substitutions given earlier.

An example of this transformation can be found in Ziggah et al (2018). It transforms grid

coordinates in Ghana from Leigon datum to Accra datum. The parameters are
x = 1.56449m , y = −1.10457 m , a1 = 1.00001 and a 2 = −0.00001 (so that the
multiplying matrix differs slightly from the identity matrix). The equivalent values of S and 
are approximately 1.00001 and 2.06263 respectively. There is, therefore, a scale change of
10 parts per million and a rotation of axes of just over 2.

The reverse transformation can be obtained exactly by rearranging equation (2-1) with a
reversal of the rotation:
 x s  1  cos sin    x t − x 
 y  = − sin  cos   y t − y 
(2-3)
 s S 

An equivalent form can be found by rearranging equation (2-2) and applying the inverse
matrix:
 xs  1  a1 a 2   x t − x 
y  = 2 − a a1   y t − y 
(2-4)
 s  a1 + a 2
2
 2

If the rotation convention is opposite to that shown in Figure 1-6, then each of the square
matrices in equations (2-1) to (2-4) is replaced by its transpose.

2.2. Affine transformation in 2 dimensions

An affine grid-to-grid transformation is linear but non-conformal. The transformation is
applied to grid coordinates (as per Section 1.2.3).
8
Unless the area of application is small, there needs to be a strong resemblance between the
projections which generate the grids. In its general form, the transformation has 6 parameters,
x, y, a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 . The equation takes the form
 x t   x   a1 a2  xs 
 y  = y  + a a 4   y s 
(2-5)
 t    3

An example of this transformation can be found in Ziggah et al (2018). It transforms grid

coordinates in Ghana from Leigon datum to Accra datum. The parameters are
x = 0.5414654m , y = −2.3336951 m , a1 = 1.00001260, a 2 = 1.36  10 −5 ,
a 3 = −5.39  10 6 and a 4 = 1.00001. The differences between a1 and a4 and between a2
and a3 show a slight stretching effect.

One merit of the affine transformation is that it can be derived uniquely from the vertices of a
triangle. The transformation along any side of the triangle will depend only on the two end
vertices. For a given triangulation of an area, an affine transformation in each triangle will
ensure a continuous transformation over the whole area, although it may not be smooth.
Vertices that are too close together may give rise to an unrealistic scale distortion.

The reverse transformation can be obtained exactly by rearranging equation (2-5) and
applying the inverse matrix:
 xs  1  a4 − a 2   x t − x 
y  = − a a1   y t − y 
(2-6)
 s a a
1 4 − a 2 a3  3

2.3. 3-parameter conformal transformation

This is for use in three dimensions. The description “3-parameter conformal transformation”
is generally reserved for the transformation with three translation parameters, X, Y and Z.
(The transformation of WGS72 to WGS84 falls outside this category.) The reliance on
translations to the exclusion of rotations and a scale factor will give at best an approximate fit
and at worst a poor-quality model.

The transformation is applied to geocentric Cartesian coordinates (as per Section 1.2.2). The
equation takes the form
 X t  X   X s 
Y  = Y  + Y  (2-7)
 t    s 
 Z t  Z   Z s 

3-parameter conformal transformations have been derived for Ordnance Survey of Great Britain
1936 (OSGB36) to WGS84. The precise values of the parameters depend on the area covered
and the common points used. The values obtained by the authors from 44 common points
covering Great Britain were X=376.414m, Y=-111.300m and Z=431.653m. The residuals
are relatively large (up to 15.5 metres in position) but for some purposes the accuracy is
sufficient. (The shifts quoted in NIMA [2004], which are used in Table 1 of this paper, are
based on a smaller dataset.)

The inverse of the 3-parameter conformal transformation simply requires X, Y and Z to be
of opposite sign to their values for the forward transformation. This is a case of the simple
same-formula inverse being exact. Alternatively, the original parameters can be subtracted:

9
  X s   X t  X 
Y  = Y  − Y  (2-8)
 s  t   
 Z s   Zt  Z 

2.4. Standard Molodensky transformation

This is a close approximation to the 3-parameter conformal transformation, so it can be

regarded as near-conformal. It uses the substitutions a = at − a s and f = f t − f s causing
some sources to describe it as a 5-parameter transformation. This is debatable given that a
and f are differences between ellipsoid-defining constants and therefore fixed.

The Standard Molodensky transformation is applied to geodetic coordinates. It is often

preferred to the 3-parameter conformal transformation because it avoids the complication
(discussed in 1.2.2) of converting to and from Cartesian coordinates. Although the
approximation error is usually small compared with the inaccuracies of a 3-parameter model,
there are purists who argue for the strictly conformal model and the avoidance of any
additional sources of error.

The Standard Molodensky transformation is recommended by NIMA (2004) for

transformations from a wide range of local datums to WGS84. The authors selected four of
those transformations for analysis purposes:
• Ordnance Survey of Great Britain 1936 (OSGB36) to WGS84 over Great Britain;
• Australian Geodetic Datum 1984 (AGD84) to WGS84 over Australia;
• ARC 1950 (Zaire) to WGS84 over Congo;
• Indian Datum to WGS84 over India and Nepal.

The test points considered for the four transformations are shown in Figures 2-1 to 2-4. The
RMS of the 3D differences between Standard Molodensky and the rigorous 3-parameter
conformal transformation is 0.019m with a worst case of 0.050m.

Figure 2-1: Locations of the Figure 2-2: Locations of the

OSGB36  WGS84 test AGD84  WGS84 test points
points at height levels 0, at height levels 0, 500m, 2km
500m, 2km and 10km. and 10km.

10
Figure 2-3: Locations of the ARC 1950  Figure 2-4: Locations of the Indian Datum
WGS84 test points at height levels 0, 500m,  WGS84 test points at height levels 0,
2km and 10km. 500m, 2km and 10km.

For the precise formulae, it is necessary to define ν and  by

a
= , (2-9)
1 − e sin 
2 2

and
a(1 − e 2 )
= . (2-10)
(1 − e 2 sin 2  ) 3 / 2
Using the superscript SM to denote “from Standard Molodensky”, the transformation equations
are given below, the first two being in radians. A detailed derivation can be found in Deakin
(2004).
 SM = {−X sin  s cos s − Y sin  s sin s
+ Z cos s + a ( s e 2s sin  s cos s ) / a s (2-11)
+ f [  s (a s / bs ) + s (bs / a s )]sin  s cos s } /(  s + hs ).
− X sin s + Y cos s
SM = . (2-12)
( s + hs ) cos s
h SM = X coss coss + Y coss sin s
(2-13)
+ Z sin s − a(as / s ) + f (bs / as ) s sin 2s .

Table 1 contains a numerical example of a Standard Molodensky transformation computed

from equations (2-11)-(2-12).

Table 1 Standard Molodensky transformation (ΔX=371m,

ΔY=-111m, ΔZ=434m) applied to a sample point
Source datum OSGB36 Derived shifts Target datum WGS84
a s = 6377563.396m a t = 6378137m
bs = 6356256.909m bt = 6356752.314m
2 2
e s = 0.00667054 et = 0.00669437999013
f s = 1/299.3249647 f t = 1/298.2572236
 s = 54° Δϕ = 0. 000237577°  t = 54.000237577°
 s = -2° Δλ = -0.001494250° t = -2.001494250°
hs = 500m Δh = -51.159m ht = 148.841m

11
The simple same-formula inverse (SSFI), in which X, Y, Z, a and f have their signs
reversed, is widely recommended for the reverse process, although it is not exact. Using the
superscript SSFI to denote this approximate inverse, the equations are as follows.
 SSFI = {X sin  t cos t Y sin  t sin t
− Z cos  − a( e 2 sin  cos  ) / a
t
(2-14)
t t t t t

− f [  t (a t / bt ) +  t (bt / a t )] sin  t cos  t } /(  t + ht ).

X sin t − Y cos t
SSFI = . (2-15)
( t + ht ) cost
h SSFI = −X cos t cos t − Y cos  t sin t
(2-16)
− Z sin  t + a(a t /  t ) − f (bt / a t ) t sin 2t .

The accuracy of the SSFI formulae can be tested by application of the forward Standard
Molodensky transformation, completing what could be termed a back-then-forward exercise.
The authors selected datasets of test points covering 4 NGA transformations between local
datums and WGS84. These are shown in Figures 2-1 to 2-4. The parameters are given in
NIMA (2004). Test computations established that the misclosures can be as large as -54mm in
latitude, -93mm in longitude -32mm in height, and 100mm in 3D.

The misclosures from the back-then-forward test can be used as a correction. Subtracting them
from the SSFI results gives an accurate reverse transformation. For the selected datasets, the 3-
dimensional error was reduced by around 99.99%, the worst case being 0.012mm in the
eastern extremity of India. The Reverse Standard Molodensky (RSM) equations can therefore
be written
 sRSM =  sSSFI − (tSM − t ). (2-17)
 RSM
s = SSFI
s − (tSM − t ). (2-18)
hsRSM = hsSSFI − (htSM − ht ). (2-19)

Two implementation considerations need to be mentioned.

• The reverse transformation makes use of the same formulae as the forward
transformation, so a coding error could go undetected. The data in Table 1 is
recommended for checking purposes. Application of (2-14)-(2-16) to the “target”
(WGS84) coordinates will give SSFI source coordinates 53.999999945°,
-2.000000298°, 499.990m. Application of (2-11)-(2-12) will give SM coordinates
54.000237522°, -2.001494548°, 148.831m. Application of (2-17)-(2-19) will give
RSM coordinates 54°, -2°, 500m.
• The reverse transformation always requires a value for ht even if it is a dummy value
or 0. The SSFI formulae will generate a value for hs which is needed for the forward
formulae.

2.5. Abridged Molodensky transformation

This is a simplification of the Standard Molodensky transformation although it is also near-
conformal. The transformation is applied to geodetic coordinates. The equations do not use
the ellipsoidal heights and it is not uncommon for the h equation to go unused.

The authors applied Abridged Molodensky to the test points shown in Figures 2-1 to 2-4 (using
the parameters recommended by NGA/NIMA for Standard Molodensky). The RMS of the 3D
differences between Abridged Molodensky and the rigorous 3-parameter conformal
transformation is 0.125m with a worst case of 0.735m.

12
Using the superscript AM to denote “from Abridged Molodensky”, the transformation
equations are given below, the first two being in radians. A detailed derivation can be found
in Deakin (2004).
 AM = {−X sin s cos s − Y sin s sin s (2-20)
+ Z coss + (as f + f s a) sin 2s } / s
− X sin s + Y cos s
AM = (2-21)
 s coss
h AM = X coss cos s + Y coss sin s
(2-22)
+ Z sin s + (as f + f s a) sin 2s − a.

Table 2 contains a numerical example of an Abridged Molodensky transformation computed

from equations (2-20)-(2-22).

Table 2 Abridged Molodensky transformation (ΔX=371m,

ΔY=-111m, ΔZ=434m) applied to a sample point
Source datum OSGB36 Derived shifts Target datum WGS84
a s = 6377563.396m a t = 6378137m
2 2
e s = 0.00667054 et = 0.00669437999013
f s = 1/299.3249647 f t = 1/298.2572236
 s = 54° Δϕ = 0. 000236915°  t = 54.000236915°
 s = -2° Δλ = -0.001494367° t = -2.001494367°
hs = 0m Δh = -51.101m ht = 48.899m

The simple same-formula inverse, in which X, Y, Z, a and f have their signs reversed, is
widely recommended for the reverse process, although it is not exact. Using the superscript
SSFI to denote this approximate inverse, the equations are as follows.
 SSFI = {X sin t cos t + Y sin t sin t (2-23)
− Z cos t − (at f + f t a) sin 2t } / t
X sin  s − Y cos  s
SSFI = (2-24)
 t cos t
h SSFI = −X cos t cos t − Y cos t sin t
(2-25)
− Z sin t − (at f + f t a) sin 2t + a.

The accuracy of the SSFI formulae can be tested by application of the forward Abridged
Molodensky transformation, completing what could be termed a back-then-forward exercise.
The authors’ computations using the datasets shown in Figures 2-1 to 2-4 established that the
misclosures can be as much as -56mm in latitude, -96mm in longitude -33mm in height, and
104mm in 3D.

The misclosures from the back-then-forward test can be used as a correction. Subtracting them
from the SSFI results gives an accurate reverse transformation. For the selected datasets, the
3-dimensional error was reduced by around 99.99%, the worst case being 0.014mm in the
eastern extremity of India. The Reverse Abridged Molodensky (RAM) equations can therefore
be written
 sRAM =  sSSFI − (tAM − t ). (2-26)
RAM
s = SSFI
s − (tAM − t ). (2-27)
hsRAM = hsSSFI − (htAM − ht ). (2-28)

13
One implementation consideration needs to be mentioned. The reverse transformation makes
use of the same formulae as the forward transformation, so a coding error could go
undetected. The data in Table 2 is recommended for checking purposes. Application of (2-
23)-(2-25) to the “target” (WGS84) coordinates will give SSFI source coordinates
53.999999946°, -2.000000287°, -0.011m. Application of (2-20)-(2-22) will give AM
coordinates 54.000236861°, -2.001494654°, 48.888m. Application of (2-26)-(2-29) will give
RAM coordinates 54°, -2°, 0m.

2.6. Rigorous 7-parameter conformal (Helmert) transformation

There are strong reasons for regarding this as the 7-parameter Helmert transformation as, for
example, Sjöberg (2013) does. However, some sources, notably NATO (2001), use the name
“Helmert transformation” for the simplified form attributed to Bursa (1962) and Wolf (1963)
discussed later in Section 2.8. In this paper, it is identified as “rigorous 7-parameter
conformal” or “rigorous 7PC”.

The 7 parameters are 3 translations, 1 scaling and 3 rotations: X , Y , Z , S (or S ), RX , RY , RZ .

It is convenient to denote cos RX by c X , sin RX by cY , etc; this convention is used in Deakin
(2006).

The transformation is applied to geocentric Cartesian coordinates. Using R to denote the

rotation matrix, the equation is
 X t  X  X s 
Y  = Y  + (1 + S )R Y  (2-29)
 t     s 
 Z t  Z   Z s 

The precise form of R depends on the order in which the rotations are applied. If the X-
rotation is applied to the position vector first and the Z-rotation last, then R is given by
c Z − s Z 0   c Y 0 sY  1 0 0 

R ZYX = s Z cZ 0   0  
1 0 0 cX − sX  (2-30)
   
 0 0 1 − sY 0 cY  0 s X c X 
This has been categorised as Helmert Version 1 in Ruffhead (2019) and Ruffhead (2020). It
is easily verified that
c Y c Z s X s Y c Z − c X s Z s X s Z + c X s Y c Z 
R ZYX = cY s Z c X c Z + s X sY s Z c X sY s Z − s X c Z  (2-31)
 
 − sY s X cY c X cY 

If the Z-rotation is applied to the position vector first and the X-rotation last, then R is given
by
1 0 0   cY 0 s Y  c Z − s Z 0 

R XYZ = 0 c X − s X   0 1 0  s Z cZ 0 (2-32)
   
0 s X c X  − sY 0 cY   0 0 1
This can be categorised as Helmert Version 2 in Ruffhead (2019) and Ruffhead (2020). It is
easily verified that
 cY c Z − cY s Z sY 
R XYZ =  s X sY c Z + c X s Z c X c Z − s X sY s Z − s X cY 
 (2-33)
 s X s Z − c X sY c Z c X sY s Z + s X c Z c X cY 

14
The sine terms in equations (2-30) to (2-33) change sign if the rotation convention is the
opposite of that shown in Figure 1-7.

Special cases of the rigorous 7PC transformation include

• The 4-parameter conformal transformation based on X, Y, Z and scale factor S.
• The 4-parameter conformal transformation based on X, Y, Z and Z-rotation;
• The 5-parameter conformal transformation based on X, Y, Z, scale factor S and Z-
rotation;
• The 6-parameter conformal transformation based on X, Y, Z and 3 rotations.

Using 82 common points covering Western Australia, the authors derived a Helmert Version 1
transformation for Australian Geodetic Datum 1984 (AGD84) to WGS84. The parameters
obtained were X=-115.838m, Y=-48.373m, Z=144.760m, RX =-0.119712,
RY =0.383988, RZ =0.370396 and S=-3.689815ppm. The root mean square of the residual
distances was 0.7583 metres, compared with 3.2703 metres for the best-fitting 3-parameter
conformal transformation.

The reverse transformation of Helmert can be obtained exactly by rearranging (2-29):

X s   X t − X 
Y  = 1 −1  
 s  (1 + S ) R Yt − Y 
(2-34)
 Z s   Z t − Z 

Aktuğ (2009, page 48) acknowledges that a matrix formula equivalent to equation (2-34) can
be used to compute the reverse transformation. He uses it to derive parameters that can be
used as a same-formula inverse of the rigorous 7PC. The authors consider it preferable – and
simpler – to turn (2-34) into an implementable form.

The inverse of R is its transpose. For Helmert Version 1, R is given by (2-30) and (2-31), so
its inverse is given by
 cY c Z cY s Z − sY 
−1 
R ZYX = s X sY c Z − c X s Z c X c Z + s X sY s Z s X cY  (2-35)
 
 s X s Z + c X sY c Z c X sY s Z − s X c Z c X cY 

For Helmert Version 2, R is given by (2-32) and (2-33), so its inverse is given by
 cY c Z s X sY c Z + c X s Z s X s Z − c X sY c Z 
−1 
R XYZ = − cY s Z c X c Z − s X sY s Z c X sY s Z + s X c Z  (2-36)
 
 sY − s X cY c X cY 

Reit (1998, page 404) has a formula similar to equation (2-34), but only applies it to the case
where R = R XYZ .

2.7. Rigorous localised 7-parameter conformal transformation

This is similar to the rigorous 7PC transformation, except that the rotations are related to a
local centroid ( X m , Ym , Z m ) . In effect, the transformation is applied to local Cartesian
coordinates. It is rarely used.

The transformation equation takes the form

15
  X t   X m  X  X s− X m 
Y  = Y  + Y  + (1 + S )R Y − Y  (2-37)
 t   m     s m 

 Z t   Z m  Z   Z s − Z m 

The rotation matrix R is given by (2-30) and (2-31) or by (2-32) and (2-33), depending on the
order in which the rotations are applied.

The rigorous localised 7PC transformation is an alternative implementation of the non-

localised version. Equation (2-37) can easily be converted into the form (2-29), although the
values of the translation parameters will change. Conversely, equation (2-29) can be
converted into the form (2-37). Because of this, the authors regard the values assigned to
X m , Ym and Z m as convenient offsets rather than additional parameters.

There are the same special cases as for the non-localised version.

The reverse transformation can be obtained exactly by rearranging (2-37):

X s  X m   X t − X m − X 
Y  = Y  + 1 −1  
 s   m  (1 + S ) R Yt − Ym − Y 
(2-38)
 Z s   Z m   Z t − Z m − Z 

The inverse of R is its transpose. If R is given by (2-30) and (2-31), then its inverse is given
by (2-35). If R is given by (2-32) and (2-33), then its inverse is given by (2-36).

2.8. Bursa-Wolf
The near-conformal transformation associated with Bursa (1962) and Wolf (1963) is a
simplified version of the rigorous 7-parameter conformal transformation described in Section
2.6. Unfortunately – and this is seldom acknowledged – there are two versions (quite apart
from the choice of rotation convention).

The following partially-linear version of Bursa-Wolf is the formula defined as “Bursa-Wolf”

in ESRI (2008), Deakin (2006) and Iliffe and Lott (2008). The rotation matrix in (2-29) is
linearised as follows (where the rotations are in radians):
 1 − RZ RY 
R =  RZ 1 − R X  . (2-39)
− RY RX 1 
With this approximation, the transformation equation becomes
 X t  X  X s  
Y  = Y  + (1 + S )R Y  
 t     s  
 Z t  Z   Z s  
 (2-40)

X   1 − RZ RY   X s  
 
= Y  + (1 + S )  R Z 1 − R X  Ys  

Z  − RY RX 1   Z s  


This is not totally linear because the individual equations contain the second-order terms
S R X , S RY and S RZ .

16
The following linear version of Bursa-Wolf is the formula defined as “Bursa-Wolf” defined in
Ge et al (2013), Kashani (2006), McCarthy (1996) and Yusheng (2014). It treats all second-
order terms as negligible:
 X t  X  1 + S − RZ RY   X s 
Y  = Y  +  R 1 + S − R X  Ys  (2-41)
 t     Z
 Z t  Z   − RY RX 1 + S   Z s 

The Bursa-Wolf transformation is near-conformal if the rotations are small (less than 2). The
parameters for some Bursa-Wolf transformations used by NATO can be found in NGA (2008).

The simple same-formula inverse of (2-41) changes the sign of all 7 parameters. Despite the
fact that it is only approximate, it is often used as the reverse transformation.

The reverse transformation of the partially-linear Bursa-Wolf can be obtained exactly by

rearranging (2-40):
−1
Xs   1 − RZ RY   X t − X 
Y  = 1  R 1 − RX  Y − Y  . (2-42)
 s  1 + S  Z  t 
 Z s  − RY RX 1   Z s − Z 
The exact inverse matrix can be found by Cramer’s Rule:
−1
 1 − RZ RY   1 + RX2 RX RY + RZ RX RZ − RY 
 R 1 
 Z 1 − RX  =  RX RY − RZ 1 + RY2 RY RZ + RX  (2-43)
D
− RY RX 1   RX RZ + RY RY RZ − RX 1 + RZ2 

where the determinant D is given by
D = 1 + R X2 + RY2 + RZ2 . (2-44)
The reverse transformation of the linear Bursa-Wolf can be obtained exactly by rearranging
(2-41):
−1
 X s  1 + S − RZ RY   X t − X 
Y  =  R 1 + S − R X  Y − Y  (2-45)
 s   Z  t 
 Z s   − RY RX 1 + S   Z s − Z 

Aktuğ 2009 (page 48) acknowledges that a matrix formula equivalent to equation (2-45) can
be used to compute the reverse transformation. He uses it to derive parameters that can be
used in a same-formula inverse. The authors consider it preferable – and simpler – to apply
equation (2-45) itself as the reverse formula. The exact inverse matrix can be computed from
Cramer’s Rule, using the substitution S =1 + S .
−1
 S − RZ RY   S 2 + R X2 R X RY + RZ S R X RZ − RY S 
 R 1 
 Z S − R X  =  R X RY − RZ S S 2 + RY2 RY RZ + R X S  (2-46)
D
− RY RX S   R X RZ + RY S RY RZ − R X S S 2 + RZ2 


The determinant D is given by

D = S 3 + ( R X2 + RY2 + RZ2 ) S (2-47)

It should be noted that in the vast majority of cases the difference between the linear and
partially-linear versions of Bursa-Wolf are negligible because the second-order terms are very
small. This is just as well, because advocates of the partially-linear form derive the
parameters from observation equations based on the linear form. See, for example, Deakin
2006.

If the rotation convention is the opposite to that shown in Figure 1-7, then each rotation in
equations (2-39) to (2-47) needs a change of sign.
17
2.9. Molodensky-Badekas
The near-conformal Molodensky-Badekas method is a simplified version of the rigorous
localised 7-parameter conformal transformation based on a local centroid. That means the
rotations are related to a local centroid ( X m , Ym , Z m ) . In effect, the transformation is applied to
local Cartesian coordinates. The formula is based on (2-37) but assumptions are made about
S , RX , RY and RZ being small (less than 2 in the case of the rotations). Treating the rotations
as being in radians, second-order terms such as SRX and RY RZ are deemed to be negligible.
The transformation takes the form
 X t   X m  X  1 + S − RZ RY   X s − X m 
Y  = Y  + Y  +  R 1 + S − R X  Ys − Ym  (2-48)
 t   m     Z
Z t  Z m  Z   − RY RX 1 + S  Z s − Z m 

It can be argued that Molodensky-Badekas is an alternative implementation of Bursa-Wolf.

Al Marzooqi et al (2005, Section 2.4.3) describes them as theoretically identical. Equation (2-
41) can easily be converted into the form (2-37), although the values of the translation
parameters will change. Conversely, equation (2-37) can be converted into the form (2-41).
The relationship between the translation parameters arising from the two methods can easily
be shown to be
X BW  X MB   S − RZ RY   X m 
Y  = Y  −  R S − R X  Ym  . (2-49)
 BW   MB   Z
Z BW  Z MB  − RY RX S   Z m 

This has been noted in vector-matrix notation by Deakin (2006, page 20). This may be why
Deakin shares the authors’ view that Molodensky-Badekas is a 7-parameter transformation;
the coordinates of the centroid are merely convenient offsets and their precise values are not
important.

The reverse transformation of Molodensky-Badekas can be obtained exactly by rearranging

(2-48):
−1
 X s   X m  1 + S − RZ RY   X t − X m − X 
Y  = Y  +  R 1 + S − R X  Y − Y − Y  (2-50)
 s   m   Z  t m 
 Z s   X m   − RY RX 1 + S   Z t − X m − Z 
Substituting S for 1+ΔS, the exact inverse matrix is given by (2-46) using the determinant in
(2-47).

If the rotation convention is the opposite to that shown in Figure 1-7, then each rotation in
equations (2-46) and (2-48) to (2-50) needs a change of sign.

2.10. 8-parameter affine transformation

This transformation was proposed in Andrei (2006). This transformation is based on 3
translation components, 3 rotations and 2 scale factors. It is applied to local level coordinates,
described in Section 1.2.5. The scale factors S v and S h are for “vertical” distance in the OʹZʹ
direction (which is normal to the ellipsoid) and for “horizontal” distance in the OʹXʹYʹ plane
(which is perpendicular to OʹZʹ). The rationale behind this is that older geodetic datums used
different measuring techniques for horizontal networks and levelling networks. Horizontally,
in the sense of within the plane OXY, the transformation is near-conformal.

18
The nature of the two scale factors requires the transformation to be applied to coordinates
(X, Y, Z) in the local level system defined by equation (1-13).
 X t  X   S h 0 0   X s 
Y   = Y   + R  0 S 0  Ys  (2-51)
 t     h 
 Z t  Z    0 0 S v   Z s 

The rotation matrix will be in terms of RX  , RY  and RZ  rather than R X , RY and RZ . Apart
from that, it will take the form (2-31) or (2-33) depending on the order of rotations.

The reverse transformation can be obtained exactly by rearranging (2-51):

 X s  1 / S h 0 0   X t− X 
Y   =  0 1/ Sh  −1 
0 R Yt − Y   (2-52)
 s   
 Z s   0 0 1 / S v   Z t − Z 

The inverse of R is its transpose, as it is the product of rotation matrices.

2.11. 9-parameter affine transformation

This transformation is applied to geocentric Cartesian coordinates. It is based on 3 translation

components, 3 rotations and 3 scale factors. The scale factors S X , SY and S Z are in the
directions of the axes OX, OY and OZ. If their values differ, the transformation cannot be
conformal because scale is changing in different directions. Differences might arise if there
are differences between horizontal scale and vertical scale. If, for example, the direction of
the one of the axes is within 25 of the local vertical directions, then that will be the axis upon
which the vertical scale factor has the greatest influence and the horizontal scale factor the
least influence.

The authors cannot see another physical reason for different scale factors in the directions
OX, OY and OZ. The extra parameters do have the (possibly superficial) attraction of
reduced residuals, and unlike the Helmert transformation they enable an exact fit to the shifts
at the vertices of a triangle.

Taking R as the rotation matrix defined by (2-31) or (2-33), the formula for the
transformation is
 X t  X   S X 0 0  X s 
Y  = Y  +  0 S 0  R Ys  (2-53)
 t     Y 
 Z t  Z   0 0 S Z   Z s 

This is the form considered by Varga et al (2017), in that it applies the rotations to the source
coordinates before the scaling.

The reverse transformation can be obtained exactly by rearranging (2-53):

X s  ( X t − X ) / S X 
Y  = R −1 (Y − Y ) / S  (2-54)
 s   t Y 

 Z s  ( Z t − Z ) / S Z 

The inverse of R is its transpose.

19
2.12. 12-parameter affine transformation
This transformation is based on 3 translation components and the 9 elements of a 3-by-3
matrix whose diagonal elements are usually close to 1, the others being close to 0. Those 9
elements are equivalent to 3 rotations, 3 scale factors and 3 shear parameters. In general, the
transformation is non-conformal.

The authors cannot see a physical reason for the use of 12 parameters. Compared with
Helmert, the extra parameters do have the (possibly superficial) attraction of reduced
residuals, and unlike the Helmert transformation they enable an exact fit to the shifts at the
vertices of a rectangle.

The transformation is applied to geocentric Cartesian coordinates. It takes the form

 X t  X   a1 a2 a3   X s 
Y  = Y  + a a5 a 6  Ys  (2-55)
 t     4
 Z t  Z  a 7 a8 a 9   Z s 

The reverse transformation can be obtained exactly by rearranging (2-55):

−1
 X s   a1 a2 a3   X t − X 
Y  = a a5 a6  Y − Y  (2-56)
 s   4  t 
 Z s  a7 a8 a9   Z t − Z 

The exact inverse matrix can be found by Cramer’s Rule:

−1
 a1 a2 a3   a 5 a 9 − a 6 a8 a 3 a8 − a 2 a 9 a 2 a6 − a3 a5 
a a5 a 6 
1
= a 6 a 7 − a 4 a9 a1 a9 − a3 a 7 a3 a 4 − a1 a 6  (2-57)
 4 D
a 7 a8 a9   a 4 a8 − a5 a 7 a 2 a 7 − a1 a8 a1 a5 − a 2 a 4 

The determinant D is given by

D = a1 (a 5 a 9 − a 6 a8 ) + a 2 (a 6 a 7 − a 4 a 9 ) + a 3 (a 4 a8 − a 5 a 7 ) (2-58)

2.13. Multiple regression equations

An alternative approach that is recommended by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
(NGA) is multiple regression equations (MREs). MREs are polynomial functions of latitude
and longitude, recommended as datum transformation formulae by Appelbaum (1982). MREs
for transformations between local datums and WGS84 are provided in NIMA (2004) and DMA
(1987). At their best, they cater for distortions that may be present in control data in a way that
conformal transformations do not.

MREs are usually applied in 2 dimensions, to obtain shifts in latitude and longitude. Only those
are considered here. However, it is worth noting that 3-dimensional use is possible.
Appelbaum (1982) suggested MREs for shifts in ellipsoidal heights and shifts in Cartesian
coordinates.

Multiple regression equations for the datum shifts  and  (in arc seconds) take the
following general form.
 MRE (" ) =  a i , jU iV j (2-59)
i, j

 MRE
(" ) =  bi , jU iV j
(2-60)
i, j

20
The summations are finite and the top power is usually no more than 9. When the top power
is 9 the expressions in (2-59) and (2-60) have – in theory – 100 terms. In practice they
generally have less than half that number. The process of deriving coefficients involves the
elimination of terms which are deemed to be statistically insignificant.

U and V are intermediate coordinates which are linear functions of s and s respectively.
U = K 1 (in deg −  cent ) , (2-61)
V = K 2 (in deg −  cent ) , (2-62)
where ( cent ,  cent ) is at or near the centre of the area of application.

The formulae for applying the shifts  and  to the source-datum coordinates are as
follows.
t =  s +  (2-63)

t =  s +  (2-64)

The purpose of the scaling constants K1 and K 2 is to prevent the powers of U and V from
being too large. The usual practice is to choose a single value of K such as /60. The authors
take the view that separate values should be chosen to normalise U and V, meaning that they
only have values in the range -1 to 1.

The following MRE model, one of several derived by the authors, is an example of true
normalisation. It covers Australia Geodetic Datum 1984 to World Geodetic System 1984
over Western Australia, and is derived from 82 points known in both datums. The constants
in equation (2-65) are derived from latitudes being within 10.755º of the central value
24.350ºS. The constants in equation (2-66) are derived from the longitudes being within
8.048º of the central value 120.949ºE.
U = 0.09298 (in deg + 24 .350 ) , (2-65)
V = 0.12425 (in deg − 120 .949 ) . (2-66)
 (") = 4.84733 + 0.27367  U + 0.30298  V − 0.07386  U 2
− 0.17775  UV − 0.01670  V 2 − 0.13733  U 2V (2-67)
− 0.01533  V + 0.06035  U V + 0.10983  U V
3 3 2 2

+ 0.08154  UV 3 + 0.09873  U 3V 2 − 0.15702  U 3V 3 .

 (") = 4.90745 − 0.47032  U − 0.08276  V + 0.11823  U 2
− 0.06109  UV − 0.08940  V 2 + 0.10322  U 3 (2-68)
− 0.04413  U V − 0.07009  UV + 0.12713  U V
2 2 3

+ 0.05920  U 2V 2 + 0.23763  UV 3 − 0.33383  U 3V 3 .

The nature of polynomials makes it advisable to produce contour maps to show how MRE
transformation models behave. Figures 2-5 and 2-6 illustrate (2-67) and (2-68) respectively.

21
 Figure 2-5: Contour map of Figure 2-6: Contour map of
latitude shifts from AGD84 to longitude shifts from AGD84 to
WGS84 in Western Australia. WGS84 in Western Australia.

The simple same-formula inverse for MREs is widely recommended, although it is not exact.
Using the superscript SSFI to denote this approximate inverse, the equations are as follows.
 SSFI (" ) = −  ai , jU iV j (2-69)
i, j

 SSFI
(" ) = − bi , jU iV j
(2-70)
i, j
The shifts are applied to the original coordinates on the target datum:
 sSSFI = t +  SSFI (2-71)
SSFI
s = t + SSFI (2-72)

The process is approximate because the intermediate variables U and V are supposed to be in
terms of the source coordinates, not the target coordinates. Examples of the size of errors are
given in Table 3 of Ruffhead (2018).

The back-then-forward method approach recommended in 2.4 and 2.5 also works here.
Applying the forward transformation to the SSFI approximate inverse will produce coordinates
 tMRE and tMRE on the target datum. The misclosure from the starting coordinates can be
applied as a correction. The reverse multiple regression equations (RMRE) can therefore be
written
 sRMRE =  sSSFI − (tMRE − t ). (2-73)
 RMRE
s = SSFI
s − (tMRE − t ). (2-74)

Table 6 of Ruffhead (2018) indicates that the errors are well below 0.01mm for the MREs
tested.

22
3. Observations and conclusions
3.1. Some observations and comparisons
One option for choosing a transformation between geodetic datums is to adopt what is already
available. This may be a model embedded in software or a method recommended by an official
body such as NGA. The parameters will be known and documentation may contain statistics
about the transformation accuracy.

Sometimes there are more than one published models for a datum transformation. It is not
always easy to decide which one is “best”. If there are known to be distortions in the data then
a non-conformal model is probably more suitable than a conformal one. On the other hand, if
there is reason to expect a conformal transformation and the data points are known to contain
“noise”, then it is best to resist the temptation to choose a non-conformal model with a large
number of parameters, however much it brings down the residuals. If the transformation model
is to be used for extrapolation - that is, beyond the perimeter of the control points - then it is
advisable to use a simple model with as few parameters as possible.

Iliffe and Lott (2008) make some general comparisons between transformation methods. Not
all opinions, notably Molodensky-Badekas being better than Bursa-Wolf, are shared by the
authors. Comparisons of transformation methods between specific datums are more common.
See, for example, Abd-Elmotaal and Ei-Tokhey (1997), Featherstone (1997) and Varga et al
(2017).

Datum transformations that involve one or more realisations have time-dependent components.
Dawson and Woods (2010) demonstrate this in their description of 14-parameter
transformations of five ITRF realisations to GDA94. The 14 parameters are the 7 used in
Bursa-Wolf (taken at the reference epoch) and the corresponding rates of change. The latter
become coefficients of the time elapsed between the reference epoch and the epoch of interest.
Once the parameters have been computed they can be converted into 7 parameters for the
purposes of application. This is clearly demonstrated in Step 4 of the sample transformation in
Appendix A of Dawson and Woods 2010.

For the purposes of reverse transformations, the same process applies. Translations, rotations
and scaling are computed as constants for the epoch of interest, eliminating the time-dependent
components. In the case described above, the 14 parameters are reduced to 7. The
transformation formula can then be reversed by the corresponding method shown earlier in this
paper.

3.2. Surface-fitting methods

Multiple regression equations are a form of surface-fitting method, although they have the
advantage of being direct and relatively light on data storage. For higher accuracy there are
other surface-fitting methods for modelling datum transformations which have distortions.
Among them are the following:

• Least-squares collocation where shifts are computed from an underlying conformal

model and a ‘signal’ derived from deviations at control points (and depending on
proximity to those points). It has been used for several datum transformations around
the world. See, for example, González-Matesanz et al (2003), You and Hwang (2006)
and Yun et al (2006). One inconvenience is the need to solve a large system of
equations whenever shifts are to be computed at new points (although the size of the
problem can be reduced by stepwise collocation).

23
 • The ‘grid-file’ technique implemented by Collier (2002), which is a variation on least-
squares collocation. It is used between Australian datums by Kinneen and
Featherstone (2004). A large file of shifts at regularly-spaced points is computed by a
one-off application of least-squares collocation. Bi-linear interpolation is used to
obtain further shifts in the appropriate grid cells.
• Kriging, an interpolation technique named after Danie G. Krige. Merry and Whittal
(1998) used ‘Kriging’ to approximate  and  at grid points. The transformation
was from Cape Datum to WGS84 for a test area in South Africa. Kriging is faster
than least-squares collocation but gives very similar results. Interpolation from the
grid was done by cubic splines.
• Minimum curvature surfaces, originally developed by Briggs (1974) for geophysical
data that can be represented by contour maps. Dewhurst (1990) applied this to a
transformation between North American Datums to develop gridded datasets for the
shifts, solving a system of difference equations. Computing  and  for an
individual point is achieved with bi-linear interpolation based on the 4 surrounding
grid points. Dewhurst’s computer program NADCON is now available online for a
number of datum transformations; see NGS (2013). NTv2 (National Transformation
Version 2) is similar to NADCON although originally designed for Canada. A key
difference is that NTv2 allows for sub-grids with a higher density.
• Rubber sheeting, a method noted by González-Matesanz et al (2003). The version
highlighted was a Delaunay triangulation of the data points, with some virtual points
on the outside. Computing  and  for an individual point was achieved by a linear
transformation inside the enclosing triangle.
• The grid look-up process recommended by Greaves (2004). The transformation is for
projected grid coordinates from European Terrestrial Reference System 1989 to
Ordnance Survey of Great Britain 1936 via the projected grid coordinates on
Ordnance Survey Grid Reference System 1980 and the British National Grid. The
method used is a modification of a triangulation with a 6-parameter affine
transformation assigned to each triangle. A regular grid smooths out the
discontinuities along the edges of the triangles and enables straightforward bilinear
interpolation. The latest version of the transformation model is OSTN15 (see
Ordnance Survey, 2018). This superseded earlier versions OSTN02 and OSTN97.

3.3. Concluding remarks

Geodetic datum transformations constitute a vast subject and one which has been referred to in
many hundreds of research papers. Nevertheless, the authors believe that their coverage of the
basic methods is one of the most comprehensive available, not least because of the inclusion of
variations which are frequently found.

Mathematical models of datum transformations must be recognised as imperfect because they

can never wholly eliminate errors in measurements. It is desirable, however, that reverse
transformations should be exact relative to forward transformations. This is partly to avoid
additional errors which can have a cumulative effect when transformations occur regularly
between datums. It also has the merit of giving users of positioning instruments confidence in
the built-in transformation software.

The investigation undertaken for this paper indicates that most of the basic methods have exact
inverse formula attainable through rearrangement of the forward model. The others, Standard
Molodensky, Abridged Molodensky and multiple regression equations, can be inverted by a
computational process which is as good as exact. The simple same-formula inverse is
computed, the forward translation is applied to the result, then the misclosure is used as a
correction.

24
References
Abd-Elmotaal, H., and Ei-Tokhey, M., 1997. The Role of the Geoid in the Coordinate
Transformation. Survey Review, 34 (263), 31-40.
Aktuğ, B., 2009. Inverse and Compound Datum/Frame Transformations. Journal of Surveying
Engineering, 135 (2) 46-55.
Al Marzooqi, Y., Fashir, H., and Ahmed, S. I., 2005. Derivation of Datum Transformation
Parameters for Dubai Emirate. From Pharaohs to Geoinformatics, FIG Working Week 2005
and GSDI-8, Cairo, Egypt, 16-21 April 2005.
Andrei, C. O., 2006. 3D affine coordinate transformations. MSc thesis. School of Architecture
and the Built Environment. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.
Appelbaum, L.T., 1982. Geodetic datum transformation by multiple regression equations.
Proceedings of the Third International Geodetic Symposium on Satellite Doppler Positioning.
Las Cruces, New Mexico, 207-223.
Briggs, I.C., 1974. Machine contouring using minimum curvature. Geophysics, 39 (1), 39-48.
Bursa, M., 1962. The Theory of the Determination of the Non-parallelism of the Minor Axis of the
Reference Ellipsoid and the Inertial Polar Axis of the Earth, and the planes of the Initial
Astronomic and Geodetic Meridians from Observation of Artificial Earth Satellites. Studia
Geophysica et Geodetica, 6 (3), 209-214.
Collier, P., 2002. Development of Australia’s national GDA94 transformation grids. Consultant’s
Report to the Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping, Department of
Geomatics, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Dawson, J., and Woods, A., 2010. ITRF to GDA94 coordinate transformations. Journal of
Applied Geodesy 4, 189-199.
Deakin, R. E., 2004. The Standard and Abridged Molodensky Coordinate Transformation
Formulae. Department of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences, RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia, 22 pages,
Deakin, R. E., 2006. A Note on the Bursa-Wolf and Molodensky-Badekas Transformations.
Department of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia,
21 pages.
Dewhurst, W.T., 1990. The application of minimum curvature-derived surfaces in the transform of
positional data from the North American Datum of 1927 to the North American Datum of 1983.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NGS-50.
DMA, 1987. Supplement to Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1984 Technical Report:
Part II – Parameters, Formulas, and Graphics for the Practical Application of WGS 84, DMA
TR 8350.2-B, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Washington, WA, USA.
ESRI, 2008. “ArcGIS Desktop 9.3 Help: Equation-based methods.”
[http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.3/index.cfm?TopicName=Equation-
based%20methods]
Featherstone, W.E., 1997. A Comparison of Existing Co-ordinate Transformation Models and
Parameters in Australia. Cartography, 26 (1), 13-26.
Featherstone, W. E., and Claessens, S. J., 2008. Closed-Form Transformation Between Geodetic
and Ellipsoidal Coordinates. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, 52: 1-18.
Ge, Y., Yuan, Y., and Jia, N., 2013. More efficient methods among commonly used robust
estimation methods for GPS coordinate transformation. Survey Review, 45 (330), 229-234.
González-Matesanz, J., Dalda, A., Quirós, R. and Celada, J., 2003. ED50-ETRS89 Transition
Models for the Spanish Geodetic Network. Paper presented at 2003 EUREF Symposium.
Greaves, M., 2004. OSTN02: A new definition transformation from GPS derived coordinates to
national grid coordinates in Great Britain. Survey Review, 37, 293, 502-519.
Heiskanen, W. A., and Moritz, W., 1967. Physical Geodesy. W. H. Freeman San Francisco.
Iliffe, J. C. and Lott, R., 2008. Datums and map projections: for remote sensing, GIS and surveying
(2nd edition) Whittles Publishing.
ISO, 2007. ISO 19111, Geographical information – Spatial referencing by coordinates, Second
Edition, International Organization for Standardization.
Kashani, I., 2006. Application of Generalized approach to Datum Transformation between Local
Classical and Satellite-based Geodetic Networks.” Survey Review, 38 (299), 412-422.
25
Kinneen, R.W. and Featherstone, W.E., 2004. Empirical Evaluation of Published Transformation
Parameters from the Australian Geodetic Datums (AGD66 and AGD84) to the Geocentric
Datum of Australia (GDA94). Journal of Spatial Science 49 (2), 1-29.
McCarthy, D. D. (ed), 1996. “IERS Conventions (1992).” Observatoire de Paris, IERS Technical
Note 21.
Merry, C.L. and Whittal, J.F., 1998. Transformation of Coordinate Data for the New South
African Datum – A Pilot Study. Survey Review 34, 268, 379-388.
NATO, 2001. Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 2211 IGEO, Geodetic Datums,
Projections, Grids and Grid References, Edition 6, NATO Military Agency for
Standardization, Brussels.NGS, 2013. NADCON User
NGA, 2008. NATO datum transformation parameters. (Available as http://earth-
info.nga.mil.GandG/coordsys/datum/NATO_DT.pdf)
NGS, 2013. NADCON User Manual. US Department of Commerce National Geodetic Service.
NIMA, 2004. Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1984: Its definition and relationships
with local geodetic systems. 3rd ed, Washington: National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
Available from: <http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/tr8350.2/wgs84fin.pdf>
[Technical Report no. 8350.2].
Ordnance Survey, 2018. A guide to coordinate systems in Great Britain. Version 3.3.
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/support/guide-coordinate-systems-great-
britain.pdf?awc=2495_1472758581_2be7907c343c32b09a8d5171103197d7
Reit, B.-G., 1998. The 7-parameter transformation to a horizontal geodetic datum. Survey
Review, 34 (268), 400-404.
Ruffhead, A. C., 2016. The SMITSWAM method of datum transformations consisting of Standard
Molodensky in two stages with applied misclosures. Survey Review, 48 (350), 376-384.
Ruffhead, A. C., 2018. Introduction to multiple regression equations in datum transformations and
their reversibility. Survey Review 50 (358), 82-90.
Ruffhead, A. C., 2019. Derivation of rigorously-conformal 7-parameter 3D geodetic datum
transformations. Survey Review. Published online: 18 September 2019. 8 pages.
Ruffhead, A. C., 2020. Equivalence properties of 3D conformal transformations and their
application to reverse transformations. Survey Review. Published online: 08 January 2020. 11
pages.
Sjöberg, L. E., 2013. Closed-form and iterative weighted least squares solutions of Helmert
transformation parameters. Journal of Geodetic Science 3 (1), 7-11.
Soler, T., 1976. On Differential Transformations Between Cartesian And Curvilinear (Geodetic)
Coordinates. Department of Geodetic Science Report No. 236, Ohio State University. 89
pages.
Varga, M., Grgić, M., and Bašić, T., 2017. Empirical comparison of the geodetic coordinate
transformation models: a case study of Croatia. Survey Review, 49 (352), 15-27.
Wolf, H., 1963. Geometric connection and re-orientation of three-dimensional triangulation nets.
Bulletin Géodésique, 68, 165-169.
You, R.-J. and Hwang, H.-W., 2006. Coordinate Transformation between Two Geodetic Datums
of Taiwan by Least-Squares Collocation. Journal of Surveying Engineering, 132 (2), 64-70.
Yun, H.S., Song, D.S. and Cho, J.M., 2006. Horizontal datum transformation by distortion
modelling in Korea. Survey Review, 38, 301, 554-562.
Yusheng, G., 2014. Simulation design of Bursa-Wolf coordinate transformation model based on the
access. Computer Modelling & New Technologies, 18 (2), 83-86.
Ziggah, Y. Y., Issaka, Y., Laari, P. B., and Hui, Z. (2018b) 2D Cadastral Coordinate Transformation
using extreme learning machine technique. Geodesy and Cartography, 67 (2), 321-343.

26