6601765#general Transverse Mercator

This dissertation has been
microfilmed exactly as received

COLVOCORESSES, Alden Partridge, 1918-
A UNIFIED PLANE COORDINATE REFERENCE
SYSTEM.
The Ohio State University, Ph.D ., 1965

Geography
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

A UNIFIED PLANE COORDINATE
REFERENCE SYSTEM
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
Alden P. Colvocoresses, B.S., M.Sc.

Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers
United States Army
* * * * *
The Ohio State University

1965
Approved by
Adviser
Department of Geodetic Science
PREFACE
This dissertation was prepared while the author was pursuing
graduate studies at The Ohio State University. Although attending
school under order of the United States Army, the views and opinions
expressed herein represent solely those of the writer.
A list of individuals and agencies contributing to this paper
is presented as Appendix B. The author is particularly indebted
to two organizations, The Ohio State University and the Army Map
Service. Without the combined facilities of these two organizations
the preparation of this paper could not have been accomplished.
Dr. Ivan Mueller of the Geodetic Science Department of The Ohio
State University served as adviser and provided essential guidance
and counsel.
ii
VITA
September 23, 1918 Born - Humboldt, Arizona
1941 o o . o o . o BoS. in Mining Engineering, University of

Arizona
1941-1945 .... Military Service, European Theatre
1946-1950 o . . o Mining Engineer, Magma Copper Company,.

Superior, Arizona
1951-to date . . . Military Service
1959 o . o o . o o M.SCo in Geodetic Science, The OhioState

University
1959 ......... . M.SCo in Civil Engineering, The Ohio State

University
PUBLICATIONS
"Flood Prediction in Korea," Military Engineer, 1954
"Map Reliability," ARMY, 1958
"Engineering Data for Disaster Planning Purposes," thesis, The

Ohio State University, 1959
"A National City Mapping Program," thesis, The Ohio State University,
1959
"Unity of Effort?" Military Review, June, 1963
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Fields: Geodetic Science (Topographic Engineering)

Civil Engineering
Mining Engineering
iii
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Scope and Purpose

Background
II. PHILOSOPHY OF PLANE COORDINATES .......... 4
III. ANALYSIS OF SUITABLE PROJECTION SYSTEMS ....... 7
IV. SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR REFERENCE SYSTEMS ..... 11
Military Reference Criteria

Civil Reference Criteria
V. CURRENT STATUS AND DESCRIPTION OF REFERENCE

SYSTEMS ......................... 18
Military Reference Systems

The Universal Transverse Mercator Grid and
Projection (UTM)
Soviet Unified Reference System
Other Reference Systems
VI. SELECTION OF PROJECTION AND SCALE TOLERANCE ... 24
Projection Choice
Scale Tolerance
VII. SCALE FACTOR MAPPING........ 28
Projection Scale Factor

Elevation Reduction Scale Factor
Combined Scale Factor
Development of Scale Factor Mapping
Consideration in Scale Factor Mapping
Application of Scale Factor Mapping
VIII. ZONE WIDTH AND DESIGNATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Zone Width
Zone Boundaries
Zone Designation
Alternate System of Zone Designation
iv
Chapter Page
IX. GRIDS AMD COORDINATES . . . . . . . ....... ..... 56
X. THE GENERALIZED TRANSVERSE MERCATOR REFERENCE SYSTEM. . 58
Specifications of the GTM
XI. POLAR REGIONS ......... 62
XII. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GTM . ...................... 67
General
Specific Regions
Impleaientation Procedure
XIII. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . ^ ..... ........... 74
Basic System
Auxiliary System
Conclusions
Appendix
A. DEFINITION OF TERMS AS USED IN THIS PAPER . . . . . . . 78
B. LISTING BY COUNTRY, AGENCY AND NAME OF THOSE

CONTRIBUTING TO THIS PAPER....................... 80
C. SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL PROJECTION IN USE BY VARIOUS

COUNTRIES..................................... 82
D. SELECTED ELEVATION DATA OF THE WORLD. ........ 84
E. TABULATION OF POLAR DISTANCE (r) AND SCALE FACTOR (k)

ON THE POLAR STERBOGRAPHIC PROJECTION . . . . . . . . 88
F. APPLICATION OF THE GTM TO THE UNITED STATES ........ 92
G. DIGITAL COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR THE GENERALIZED

TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION (GTM)............ . 99
BIBLIOGRAPHY................ 157
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Elevation Increments of the Earth . . .. . . .. . . . . 31
2 TM Combined Scale Factor Based on Central Scale

Factor of 1.0000 . . . . . . 0 . . . .......... 34
3 TM Combined {icale Factor Based on Central Scale

Factor of 0.9999........................... 35
4 TM Combined Scale Factor Based on Central Scale

Factor of 0.9996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 36
5 Width of Subzones of ±1:10,000 Scale Error.. . . . . . 41
6 No. of ±1:10,000 Scale Error Subzones in a 6° TM Zone . 43
7 Mean Elevations of the Continents ....... 84
8 Elevation Breakdown of Continents Based on the 1,000

Meter Contour ........ 85
9 Elevation Breakdown, U S S R .......... . ............. 85
10 Elevation Breakdown, CHINA (Continental)....... 86
11 Elevation Breakdown, ConterminousUnited States .... 86
12 Elevation Breakdown, Alaska .............. . . . . . 87
13 Elevation Breakdown, Hawaii . ................... 87
14 Polar Distance (r) and Scale Factor (k), CSF =1.0000 . 90
15 Polar Distance (r) and Scale Factor (k), CSF =0.9727691 91
16 Ellipsoid Parameters in Terms of Semi-Major Axis (a)

and Inverse Flattening (1/f)............... .. 100
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Graph of Projection Scale Factor (TM) Based on

Central Scale Factor of 1.0000 . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2 Sea Level Scale Reduction Due to Elevation . . . . . . 32
3 Schematic Cross Section of a 6° Transverse Mercator

Zone Divided into Subzones ......... . . . . . . . 42
4 Graph of Projection Scale Factor (PS) Based on Pole

Scale Factor of 1.0000 i ............ 65
5 Index to Suggested Regions for the GTM Reference

System . . . . . . ....... ....... 69
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Scope and Purpose
The problem of depicting a portion of the earth's surface on a'-
plane has been the subject of intense study for over 2000 years.
Since man first realized that the earth was curved, many of the
greatest minds have been applied to mapping this surface in two
dimensions. Thus the science of map projections has developed pro
viding the geometric and mathematical solutions to this problem.
Once the earth's surface has been depicted on a plane, a coordinate
system (usually a rectangular grid) can arbitrarily be imposed and
thus develop a convenient reference system for defining the horizontal
location of any point on or related to the earth's surface. Un
fortunately, several of the basic terms used in this field are am
biguous or ill-defined. Such terms are marked with an asterisk (*)
at their early appearance and are defined, for purposes of this re
port, in Appendix A.
This paper encompasses the problem of developing a reference
system of plane coordinates by which any point on the earth can be
described within certain degrees of positional accuracy. Since the
selected degrees of accuracy are high, the mapping^ involved is
.necessarily of relatively large scale*. The small-scale* depiction
1
Actual zone width may vary depending on specific geographic
problems.
3. The concept of Scale Factor Mapping or alteration of the
central scale factor offers a solution to many regional and local
scale problems.
4. Formulas and machine programs as presented provide the
means for obtaining required transformations with specified ac-
curary of a high order.
5. The system derived is best described as the Generalized
Transverse Mercator Reference System or GTM.
6. The north polar region (above 84° N) can be ignored for
the present but a plane coordinate system is required for Antarctica.
7. A single Polar Stereographic projection on which "polar"
(as opposed to rectangular) coordinates are utilized was determined
as the most suitable reference system for Antarctica.
Implementation of the GTM offers no serious problems to countries
now using six degree transverse Mercator zones based on the Inter
national Map of the World (UW). This includes the Soviet Bloc (in
cluding continental China) and the large number of Western countries
that have adopted the Universal Transverse Mercator Grid (UTM).
Certain island areas might retain transverse Mercator zones which
vary from those of the MJ. Countries not using transverse Mercator
zones would require a complete conversion in order to apply the GTM.
The problems and advantages of converting an area such as the United
States to the GTM are also discussed. It is concluded that the GTM
Background
In addition to the study of published texts and papers on this
subject, a considerable effort was made to obtain information and
suggestions from various mapping authorities. This latter effort
was in the form of correspondence and interviews with concerned in
dividuals and included a questionnaire which was distributed to
pertinent organizations. A list of the agencies and personnel answer
ing the questionnaire or who otherwise contributed to this paper are
included as Appendix B. Since the mapping and reference system within
the Soviet Bloc and Continental China is unified, well documented, and
was fully studied, all major reference systems in use today received
consideration even though the questionnaire and personal contacts were
restricted to the Western World. Various departments of the U. S.
Army Hap Service prepared tabulations and graphics which are found
throughout this paper. The machine programs proposed for use were
developed and tested on the International Business Machine (IBM) 7094
Digital Computer of the Ohio State University. These programs, ex
planations, and test results are presented in Appendix 6 .
3
CHAPTER II
PHILOSOPHY OF PLANE COORDINATES
Since man first sailed the seas a need has existed for describing
positions on the earth's surface. The concept of latitude and longi
tude which was developed by the ancient Greeks was an astounding
development for its age, and this system of geographic coordinates is
as valid today as it was at its inception (57, 32). However, geo
graphies do not meet all referencing requirements. Locally the earth's
surface closely approaches a plane which is a far simpler geometric
surface than a sphere or ellipsoid, and plane coordinates were there
fore introduced at an early era. Although plane coordinates are sub
ject to distinct limitations, their use has paralleled the development
of civilization. The electronic computer has now revolutionized man's
capabilities to handle statistical data. Plane coordinates offer the
simplest means for converting the mass of natural and man-made objects
related to the earth's surface into statistics. From there on a
properly directed computer can perform an endless array of computations
to help solve the economic, social, and scientific problems of mankind.
In theory neither map projections nor plane coordinates are
necessary for computations involving points on the earth's surface.
Using a mathematical figure to represent the earth's surface (such as
an ellipsoid) distances and direction can be computed thereon, using
the well-known geographic coordinates* of latitude and longitude.

The formulas are quite complex but electronic computers make such
operations feasible. Why then bother with projections and plane
coordinates? The answer lies in the fact that the principles of
plane geometry cannot otherwise be applied. On the ellipsoid or
sphere, all survey data would have to be computed by elliptical or
at least spherical formulas which involve lengthy calculations or
access to an electronic computer. For long lines, navigational pur
poses, and higher order control geographic coordinates are ideal, but
it is doubtful that they will ever be used for large-scale portrayal
where the distances Involved are relatively short but very numerous.
By utilizing three-dimensional space rectangular coordinates even
a reference surface can be eliminated, although the ellipsoid will
undoubtedly be retained as the basic reference figure of the earth.
To use three-dimensional coordinates absolute angle measurements with
the vertical as well as horizontal components must be made; or, a pre
cision instrument based on the principle of a sextant which measures
a true angle without reference to any surface may be used. In any case,
the resulting three-dimensional coordinates will' have no apparent
relationship to the earth's level surface. It is therefore hard to
conceive of such coordinates being put to practical use for the large-
scale mapping of the earth's surface. For the foreseeable future there
appears to be a firm requirement for presenting the earth's surface as
a plane and employing rectangular coordinates for describing the innumer
able features involved. With such a system computations can be made by

anyone who has mastered the elements of plane geometry and trigo
nometry „ For other than plane coordinates, however, the services of
a mathematician or at least his trained disciple— the electronic
computer— are required. It is significant that throughout the civil
ized world, plane coordinates in one form or another are generally in
use. Actually the United States is unique in this respect for
there are large segments thereof where plane coordinates are still
not generally applied.
Concluding that plane coordinates are required, the next problem
is to determine the characteristics of this reference system. Obviously
the system must be such that all points on the earth’s surface (or at
least a portion thereof) can be described in a unique and continuous
manner. There should also be a defined mathematical relationship be
tween the point on the earth and its counterpart on the plane, and the
simpler this relationship the better. This means that the plane co
ordinates must be specifically related to the geographic coordinates
applied to the earth's surface. In addition, certain accuracy limits
as to linear scale and direction must exist in the reference system.
Achieving the above characteristics depends on the selection of an
appropriate projection. Thus, before considering the final reference
system, the projection selection must be resolved.
6
CHAPTER III
ANALYSIS OF SUITABLE PROJECTIONS
The earth's surface can be depicted on a plane in a variety of
manners. There are at least 100 different ways in which this has
been done and all of them purport to have certain advantages. There
are several detailed texts and papers on map projections which cover
this subject in detail and no attempt will be made to do so here
(15, 22, 25, 54). Since this study is concerned only with large-
scale, accurate mapping, the choice of projection is severely limited.
This is because the characteristics imposed on the reference system
in turn impose limitations on the way by which the spherical or ellip
soidal figure of the earth is transformed to a plane. Since a spheri
cal surface in nondevelopable (i.e., cannot be transformed onto a
plane without distortion), the projection will always have distortion
in one direction or another. This distortion will be reflected in
scale or angular errors which must be held to certain predetermined
tolerances. Experience in large-scale mapping shows that angular
(or directional) errors are more serious than scale errors (38, 59).
This first became apparent from the military (artillery) use of maps,
but it is now accepted that for all accurate mapping, including those
for engineering and cadastral purposes, the angular error on the map
must be negligible (33, 38).
7
The only type o£ projection that retains true angular relationships
is the so-called conformal or orthomorphic projections. Actually, these
projections retain the shape of the earth's surface (and hence its angu
larity) only in the differential range, and there are unique points where
even this does not apply, but for practical purposes points in the same
general area do retain their angular relationship. Mr. Erwin Schmid (52)
has analyzed this matter in considerable detail and shows that angular
conformality depends on projecting corresponding curves (usually
geodesics) from the earth to the plane and these will be true straight
lines on the plane only in exceptional cases. However, conformality is
a desirable prerequisite for a large-scale map projection. Practically
all such maps made today are conformal. This includes those general
purpose 1:24,000 and 1:62,500 sheets of the United States made during
the past ten years or so.
In discussing criteria for reference systems (Chapter IV),
continuity and linear scale accuracy will be stressed. Continuity
implies large projections or zones whereas scaling accuracy demands
small or at least narrow zones. In moving away from a line or point

&
to which the projection is centered and scaled, scale error increases
and thus continuity and scaling accuracy are conflicting character-
istics. For a given maximum scale error maximum zone size can be
achieved by continuing a single zone completely around the world-,
following either a great or small circle. The conformal projections
that meet this criterion are the Lambert and the Mercator (direct,
transverse, and oblique) projections. The Lambert may be visualized

as a cone fitted over the earth, whereas the Mercators are repre
sented by a cylinder encasing the earth and oriented in some par
ticular way. None of these projections will be described in detail
because of the numerous published works which do so (23, 41, 55).
It should be noted that both the Lambert and Mercators are mathemat
ical conformal projections and that neither can be fully represented
geometrically. Unfortunately several published references (17, 43,
56) do describe these projections in geometric terms, including the
location of a perspective center (projection origin). It can be
shown that neither of these projections have perspective centers
and indicating such is considered to be in error. However, these
projections are frequently illustrated geometrically to assist the
reader in visualizing the relationship of the projection to the earth.
As long as no attempt is made to show a perspective center or projec
tion rays this practice is considered both proper and useful. One
remaining projection is the stereographic which may be thought of as
a plane tangent (or secant) to the earth. Uhere the earth is treated
as a sphere this projection is geometric as well as mathematical with
the perspective center being the point on the sphere's surface oppo
site to the point of tangency. Scale error develops in the plane in
all directions from the tangency point and this projection therefore
has only limited application. It does, however, provide an excellent
projection for the polar regions and for such application it is dis
cussed in Chapter XI. In summarizing the suitable projections for
large scale mapping, it is noted that only three types exist—®the

Lambert, Mercators, and Stereographic. Since accuracy require
ments generally demand the consideration of the earth as an
ellipsoid rather than a sphere, restrictions also exist as to
the way the projection is oriented on the earth. This is par
ticularly true with the Lambert, which for practical reasons, is
only oriented with the cone's axis coincident to the polar axis of
the earth. The problem is thus limited to utilizing a series of
one of the above three projections, or combinations thereof, until
the earth's surface has been encompassed.
10
CHAPTER IV
SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR REFERENCE SYSTEMS
In analyzing suitable projection systems two basic criteria,
conformality and continuity, were noted which limited the types of
projections considered. However, there are also additional specific
criteria which impose further limitations on a particularly oriented
projection or zone. Actually, two sets of criteria are involved,
one involving military requirements and the other nonmilitary or
civil requirements. Mapping is logically divided into these two
categories as the military have mapped substantial portions of the
earth's surface to their own specifications. Civil mapping takes a
variety of forms, but the large-scale accurate varieties generally
have similar characteristics.
Military Reference Criteria
No single segment of our civilization is more concerned with
plane coordinate reference than the military. The development of
large-scale gridded maps has paralleled military requirements and
invariably accurate maps are found in the areas of past or planned
military actions. The artillery provided the basic military mapping
requirement which has now been intensified by the development of
missiles. Napoleon is often credited with having implemented modern
mapping as he initiated the large-scale mapping programs of Europe to
meet French artillery needs. Germany and England also got into the
11
military mapping business at an early dateand these three countries
started programs throughout the world which providedthe foundation
for the large-scale civil systems in use today (32). However, the
early military mapping systems were not conformal and even during
World War I military maps were still largely based on nonconformal
projections (29, 44). Following World War I, new criteria for mili
tary maps were formulated which was influenced by the advance in
artillery range and accuracy. World War II created the need for a
world-wide plane coordinate reference system and in 1944 criteria
for such a system were developed by the U. S. and its allies (29, 44).
Since then these criteria have been generally accepted by the military
throughout the world. In essence the basic criteria for a military
reference system are these: 1
1. It must be conformal in order to minimize angular errors.
2. It must be ''continuous1’ over sizeable areas and result in
a minimum number of zone boundaries.
3. It must be suitable for extension over sizeable portions of
the earth's surface.
4. It must not develop scale errors in excess to certain
specified amounts. The tolerance usually set for this scale error
is one part in one thousand (±1:1,000).
5. It must be suitable for unique referencing in a rectangular
system of Eastings and Northings.
12
Two additional criteria may also be included:
60 That transformation tables or formulas developed for one
zone (and one ellipsoid) could be used for other zones.
7. That the divergence of grid north from the meridian (con
vergence of the projected local meridian to the central meridian)
would not exceed five degrees.
Thus, these are five basic and two ''desirable" criteria for
military mapping which are generally accepted today.
Civil Reference Criteria
The nonmilitary (civil) uses to which plane reference systems
are applied encompass a large and varied array of human activities.
However, these activities can be classified into four major headings
as follows:
1. Geodetic control designation
2. Point and area designation for general mapping and reference
3. Point and area designation for engineering purposes
4. Boundary designation for cadastral, taxation, and other
purposes related to property description
The four above activities are not mutually exclusive but are,
in fact, closely related. For example, laying out a modern highway
which is a direct engineering application, requires the use of
general purpose mapping which is in turn based on geodetic control
even if the highway engineer does not tie directly to such control.
In turn, right-of-ways involve the acquisition of real property which
13
brings up the last remaining item of the four activities. It is
only logical to conclude that all plane referencing of a civil
nature should be on a single system. However, such is often not
the case. Local independent reference systems, mainly for city
use, were adopted before national or regional systems were avail
able, and in many areas of the world these local systems are still
in use. As cities expand and intergrow, these local systems create
confusion. Modern countries which have studied this problem have
generally come to this conclusion and are taking active steps to
establish single national or regional reference systems. However,
the theory of a single reference system is by no means universally
accepted. The established military reference systems meet many
civil needs and often two systems are in use with a division being
made based on the scale of the mapping rather than the intended use;
the military system being used for the smaller scales and a civil
system for larger scales. The U. S. and many other countries
throughout the world are currently in this status. In any case,
there are specific civil requirements for plane coordinates, and
criteria to meet these requirements have been established. Basic
ally these criteria are the same as for military purposes (page 12)
with one major exception. Maps for engineering and cadastral purposes
in areas of high land values have customarily been designed to have
a maximum projection scale error of ±1:10,000, as compared to ±1:1,000
for military maps. This criterion is by no means rigid and its validity
14
is open to question. It is based on the assumption that third order
surveying, which is the standard for much local work, will not be notice
ably affected by this scale error. Third order surveying calls for a
maximum positional probable error of ±1:5,000 and therefore may tolerate
a systematic error of half this anjou-t (18). This criterion has been
generally accepted. The above argument assumes that surveyors will re
duce their measured distances to sea level. In Western Europe, where
control is dense and fully accepted, such reduction may be automatically
taken care of since surveys are inevitably tied to two or more control
points to which all measurements and coordinates are adjusted. In most
parts of the world, however, control does not have the density or authority
that it does in Western Europe. In these areas sufficient control ties
for proper adjustment are not practical. Under such conditions the local
surveyor, even though using highly accurate instruments, is loath to
become involved in reductions as indicated by Professor Zakatov (59) who
is representative of the Russian geodetic profession and states*
(Translation) One cannot demand that the engineer who is using

topographic and geodetic data for planning or for carrying out
his plan deal with reductions of any kind. This would lead to
numerous misunderstandings and errors,
Floyd Hough, former president of the Geodetic Division of the American
Geophysical Union, also states (29):
It is a distinct advantage in cadastral as well as military

surveys to avoid the necessity for the application of scale
corrections to the measured lengths on the ground.
Hr. William T. Pryor (47) of the U. S. Bureau of Public Roads has
also pointed out that even where a highway survey may tie into more than
one control point, the tie is used as a check on the survey's accuracy
15 _
but not normally used as a basis for adjustment of the various points
established by the survey. It Is difficult to visualize a surveyor, who
is laying out a large subdivision, reducing every dimension of each lot
to the ellipsoid. Yet, if he is surveying in an area of considerable
elevation, his failure to do so may result in appreciable error as his
survey continues. Figure 2 on page 32 graphically illustrates the scale
error Introduced by elevation. (Note: For such purposes the difference
between geodetic height* and orthometric height* may be disregarded.) It
can be seen that at 650 meters (2,100 feet) an elevation scale error of
+1:10,000 (0.9999 scale factor) exists. If this is added to an ellipsoid
to projection scale error of + 1:10,000 (such as along a central meridian),
a combined systematic error of +1:5,000 results. This means that a third
order survey will now have a probable error of from "O'* to +1:2,500 and
this latter figure is beyond the acceptable standard for third order work.
The above example Is based on a line near the central axis of a projection
which has a central scale factor of 0.9999 and the signs indicate the
distance on the ground or ellipsoid is longer than the corresponding
scaled distance on the map. It should be noted that the actual scale
error between a distance on the ground and a scaled distance on the map
may greatly exceed the ±1:10,000 projection scale error criterion.
The other criteria for military mapping are equally applicable
to civil purposes. This includes the criterion that the reference
system should be continuous and result in as few zone boundaries as
possible. Admiral Karo (34), Director of the U. S. Coast and Geodetic
16
Survey (USC&GS) recently stated:
Mapping should extend continuously across international

boundaries. It is frustrating in considering any develop
ment project to have to stop short at an irregular line
across the map and then fish out another series of maps
which may be on a different scale, or different sheet lines,
and certainly on a different origin.
Mapping and plane reference systems are two different things, but it
is hard to conceive of the principle of continuity not applying equally
to both. It can be seen that mapping for military and civil purposes
involve the same principles and criteria, with the one exception that
scaling accuracy for civil purpose should be more precise than for
military purposes unless reductions are to be made for all measurements.
There is another reference system criteria problem that is
political rather than technical and this is national security. Some
countries treat gridded maps as classified military documents and
restrict their use. Actually, any accurately made map, whether gridded
or not, has military importance but the grid does, of course, simplify
military use. However, most of the world's leading powers (U. S. ex
cepted) are taking steps to combine their military and civil reference
systems which is an indication that this problem may soon disappear
<1. 16, 45).

Combining military and civil criteria together appears possible
by compromising the scale error problem to meet both military and civil
needs and by eliminating the security problem that is still associated
with some military mapping.
17
CHAPTER V
CURRENT STATUS AND DESCRIPTION OF REFERENCE SYSTEMS
The present use and extent of the various plane coordinate refer
ence systems does not necessarily indicate the relative merits of such
systems. However, converting from one reference system to another in
volves an enormous amount of time, money, and effort and must be fully
justified. If two systems are of nearly equal merit, that system in
wider use should certainly be favored. Appendix C is a listing by
countries of the principal projections in use today throughout the
world. This list reflects the efforts of the U. S. and its allies in
producing large-scale military maps of selected areas throughout the
world on the Universal Transverse Mercator Grid and Projection (UTM) .
In many such areas, this military reference system has been adapted
for nonmilitary use as Appendix C indicates.
Military Reference Systems
As has been indicated the military has played a key role in the
development of large-scale mapping. The various' reference systems
used were originally of local origin and up to World War II there was
no real uniformity to military mapping (29, 44). However, World War II
awoke the U. S. and its allies to the need for a world-wide mapping
system and as a result the Military Universal Grid System was developed.
At the same time the Russians developed a similar system and extended
it through the entire Soviet Union and its Satellites (1, 59). The
18
indigenous military mapping systems were rapidly replaced by one
or the other of these two systems which are now the only military
systems in use today except for isolated areas.
The Universal Transverse Mercator Grid and Prolection (UTM)
The Military Universal Grid system developed by the U. S. and
its allies shortly after World War 11 is customarily known as the UTM.
John O'Keefe (44) and Floyd Hough (29), formerly geodesists of the
U. S. Army Map Service, both published excellent accounts of why and
how this world-wide plane coordinate system was implemented. It was
based on the seven criteria given for a military reference system
(page 12), received rapid acceptance and is now in general use through
out the Western World.
The UTM is fully described in various publications (17, 20) but
its basic specifications are as follows;
1. 60 transverse Mercator zones each 6° in width extending north
to 84° and south to 80°. Zone number one lies between 180° and 174°
west longitude and the zones are numbered consecutively from west to
east. Thus, the Greenwich meridian is the boundary between zones 30
and 31. This zone numbering system is not original with the UTM but
is based on the 1:1,000,000 International Map of the World (IMW) es
tablished by international agreement in London during 1909.
2.A scale factor of 0.9996 introduced along the central meri
dian of each zone gives the effect of a secant (rather than tangent)
condition in the geometric sense.
19
3. A rectangular metric grid superimposed on each zone with
a 500,000 meter false Easting along the central meridian, a lt0"
Northing at the equator for the Northern Hemisphere and a 10,000,000
meter false Northing at the equator for the Southern Hemisphere.
4. The two polar regions are each covered by a single polar
stereographic projection with a pole scale factor of 0.994.
5. A rectangular grid designated as North Zone and South Zone
respectively is superimposed on the two polar projections. Diagrams
and descriptions of this system are contained in U. S. and other
military publications (19). It can readily be seen that this rec
tangular grid in the polar regions has no fixed relationship to the
cardinal directions. The use of this projection and grid in the
polar regions is known as the Universal Polar Stereographic Grid
System (UPS) and is of course independent of the UTM. All zones
(including the stereographic) carry their grid into adjacent zones
to provide an overlap area which simplifies computational procedures
near the zone boundaries.
6. The ellipsoid on which the projection and grid are based
depends on the area involved. The Clarke 1866 is used in North Am
erica and the International throughout other areas of the world
except for portions of Africa and Asia where the Clarke 1880, Everest,
Bessel and Clarke 1866 are employed (18). The parameters of these
and other ellipsoids are given by Table 16 on page 100.
7. The two sets of grids (UTM and UK ) constitute what is
known as the Universal Grid System, but since the UTM covers the
20
areas of principal concern the overall system is generally referred
to by that name.
Soviet Unified Reference System
Based on criteria similar to those used in the West, the
Russians developed and implemented a reference system in 1946 which
was extended throughout the Soviet Bloc in 1952 (1). However, they
made this system applicable for both military and civil plane coordi
nate referencing and mapping. Like the UTM, the basic Soviet system
consists of 6° transverse Mercator zones and utilizes the same zone
boundaries. It also carries a rectangular metric grid with a 500,000
meter false Easting along the central meridian. The principal dif
ference to the UTM is that the scale factor along the central meridian
is 1.0000 rather than 0.9996. A scale factor of unity is equivalent
to a tangent condition geometrically and results in the original
transverse Mercator projection as set forth by C. F. Gauss in 1816
to 1820 (33). For map scales larger than 1:25,000 there are pro
visions for 3° zones. Every other 3° zone retains the same central
meridian as the 6° zones and those in between have central meridians
that fall on the boundaries of the 6° zones. For very large-scale
maps of 1:5,000 and 1:2,000 which are developed for urban areas, the
use of local systems is permitted. These local systems are also
transverse Mercator but have arbitrary central meridians and conform
to -the local mean elevation (1). Thus, in half of the area three
different plane coordinate systems may exist and be used according
to the scale of the map involved. Although the three coordinate
21
systems are all based on the transverse Mercator (TM) projection, they
are not otherwise compatible and going from one system to another
requires a full zone-to-zone conversion. Several European countries
in addition to the Soviet Bloc employ '‘Gaussian" coordinates. The
matter of the central scale factoi* being 1.0000 or 0.9996 is actually
a rather minor matter as will be shown in Chapter VII.
Other Reference Systems
Appendix C indicates the preponderance of the TM projection in
use today. Categories I, II, and III of Appendix C, which are all TM,
indicate this is the principal projection in over 90% of the land
areas where plane coordinates are well established.
Among nations using the TM there is a considerable difference
in the zone width which varies from 2° to over 6°, not counting zone
overlap. However, the 6° zone is predominant and most of the many
countries that switched to the TM in the past 25 years have adopted
the 6° zone. The subject of zone width is given detailed coverage
in Chapter VIII.
An overall analysis of the projection systems in use today for
plane coordinate referencing indicates the following:
1. Military referencing is based on 6° transverse Mercator
zones except for isolated areas.
2. Civil referencing is predominantly based on transverse Merca
tor zones of either 3° or 6°. Projections other than TM are used
in less than 10% of the areas in which civil plane coordinates have
been established.
22
3o During the past 25 years the trend has been to combine
military and civil referencing into a single system and to eliminate
those of local origin„
23
CHAPTER VI
SELECTION OF A PROJECTION AND SCALE TOLERANCE
Projection Choice
The land areas of the world can be divided up according to
their shape and geographic location, and projections applied ac
cordingly. However, experiences with the UTM and the Soviet Unified
System have demonstrated the tremendous advantages that result from
using "world oriented" systems. Considering the recent developments
toward a world-wide geodetic system, such world oriented projection
systems become even more meaningful.
A narrow island oriented in an east-west direction (such as
Java or Cuba) in itself is best suited to a Lambert (conic) projection.
The Plane Coordinate System of the U. S. is divided between Lambert
and transverse Mercator (TM) zones depending on the shape of the
individual states (one oblique zone also exists in Alaska). However,
such a philosophy cannot be applied world-wide without developing a
hodgepodge of zones with irregular boundaries. The Lambert and TM
are the only suitable systems that can be used for systematic world
coverage and they are basically imcompatible. Appendix C shows the
TM to be the dominant system in use and this reason alone might justify
it as the logical choice for any world-wide system. In addition to
its widespread use the TM has the following basic advantages:
1. The zones are congruent and utilize identical transformation
formulas for any given ellipsoid and central scale factor, whereas
24
the Lambert formulas are different for each zone of latitude.
2. A single zone can (theoretically) be carried from pole to
pole utilizing the same grid without generating excessive convergence.
3. A total of sixty 6° zones will encompass the earth as com
pared to several hundred 6° Lamberts (depending on allowable convergence),
4. The scale factor is basically a function of the distance from
the central meridian and can be easily computed from the plane coordi-
nates.
The advantages of the Lambert as compared with the TM are as follows:
1. Formulas themselves are simpler and easier to use.
2. Each zone maintains fixed width.
3. The system is more compatible with the stereographic which
is normally used at the poles.
Weighing the above relative merits of the two systems is not
difficult. For world-wide coverage the TM is the obvious choice.

i
This opinion is shared by practically all authorities and is reflected
in the widespread adoption of this projection. The TM is considered
to be the only suitable projection for large-scale'world*wide coverage.
Scale Tolerance
It has been shown that the principal difference in military and
civil reference systems lies in the permissible projection scale
error and thus the extent of the projection used. Obviously if a
single system is to be employed it should meet the more rigid civil
requirements. It is assumed that the maximum projection scale error
25
of ±1:10,000 is a legitimate requirement. However, why not go a step
further and state that this should be the tolerance allowed between
horizontal distances on the ground as compared to scaled (or described)
distances on the map? If this more rigid criterion is accepted third
order surveys can be transferred from ground to map and vice versa
without any reductions (other than for slope) being made. Thus the
desirable characteristics of a civil projection, as expressed by
Professor Zakatov and Messrs. Hough and Pryor would be fulfilled.
Projection systems in use today often do not meet this criterion even
though specifically designed for civil use. This is because projec
tions are normally based on the ellipsoid and do not take into account
the error introduced by elevation. Some projections are based on a
local mean elevation (1, 2). However, such projections have been de
signed to meet the requirements of a single limited area and bear no
direct relationship to adjoining projections. The basic problem is to
design a projection that will meet a rigid grouhd-to-map scale tolerance,
be continuous over a reasonably sized area, and also be related to
adjacent projections if possible. Consider a smooth section of the
earth's surface, such as the sea-level surface or a flat plateau.
If a conforms1 projection such as the TM is imposed thereon, the zone
width will be approximately 254 kms for a maximum projection scale
error of ±1:10,000. Obviously the projection must be altered when
the 254 km width is reached. The standard method of solving this
problem is to create a new zone based on a new central meridian.
There is, however, another method of retaining the scale error tolerance
26
without creating a new zone. This is done by merely altering the
central scale factor. Since this is not a customary procedure, it
will be discussed in detail and referred to as Scale Factor Mapping*,
Fitting a projection to the actual terrain is the philosophy behind
Scale Factor Mapping, and it is not the intent of this paper to
necessarily support such a philosophy. However, for engineering and
cadastral mapping in some areas a ground-to-map scale error tolerance
of ±1:10,000 has been established. Under such conditions Scale Factor
Mapping offers the only method of meeting such a criterion and still
utilize plane reference which is related to a regional system.
27
CHAPTER VII
SCALE FACTOR MAPPING
Projection Scale Factor
In all Transverse Mercator (TM) projections the scale factor
along the central meridian must be specified. As originally con
ceived by Gauss this scale factor was unity which is geometrically
equivalent to the cylindrical projection surface being tangent
to the ellipsoidal (or spherical) figure of the earth. This is
often referred to as the Gaussian projection and it is utilized
in the Soviet Unified Reference System. Its principal drawback
is that the projection scale factor is everywhere larger than one,
except along the central meridian. In order to equalize the scale
error in a projection of given width the central scale factor may
be reduced below unity. This is the principal of the UTM where
the central scale factor is 0.9996 creating a projection scale error
of -1:2,500 along the central meridian. This introduction of a
reduced scale factor along the central meridian is geometrically
equivalent to the projection cylinder being secant to the ellip
soidal (or spherical) figure of the earth. The TM projections
utilized in the State Plane Coordinate System of the U. S. (42)
and the National reference grids of Great Britain and Canada also
28
utilize central scale factors of less than one. Moving away from
the central meridian the scale factor of the projection increases
according to the following approximate formula:
.2
“p m.
“o l +
2R2
where mQ = central scale factor
x = scaled distance on the projection from the central

meridian
R = mean radius of the earth
nip = projection scale factor at point in question
This formula yields the graph shown in Figure 1, when a central
scale factor of 1.0000 is used. Based on the above formula and
graph, it is easy to design a projection which will yield equal
valued (but opposite signed) scale errors at the central meridian
and along the edges of the projection. This principle of design has
been widely used, but it is limited in one respect. It does not account
for the scale error introduced due to elevation above sea level.
In first and second order geodetic surveying all measurements
are reduced from the elevations involved to the ellipsoid (or at
least to sea level). Thus the elevation scale error is eliminated.
However, in lower order surveys, both civil and military, this reduction
is often neglected. The effects of elevation on scale factor are
indicated by the formulas on page 31.
29
PROJECTION SCALE FACTOR (TM)
DI S T A N C E IN MILES F R O M C E N T R A L M E R I D I A N
CM n CM
<© CM
1.0022 1.0022
1.0021 1.0021
1.0020 1.0020
1.0019 / 1.0019
1.0018 / 1.0018
1.0017 / 1.0017
1.0016 / 1.0016
/
1.0015 1.0015
/
1.0014 1.0014 a*
1.0013 / 1.0013 o
1.0012 1.0012 u
cgtf
< 1.0011 u»
1.0011 ✓
1.0010 Ui
S 1.0010 —t
1.0009 <
g 1.0009 u
1.0008 1.0008
1.0007 1.0007
1.0006 1.0006
1.0005 1.0005
1.0004 1.0004
1.0003 1.0003
1.0002 1.0002
1.0001 1.0001
1.0000 1.0000
O o o o o o ©
m § U) o
CM
m
CM
o
CO
m
co
O
D I S T A N C E IN K I L O M E T E R S F R O M C E N T R A L M E R I D I A N
FIGURE 1. G RAPH OF PROJECTION SCALE FACTOR (TM )

BASED O N CENTRAL SCALE FACTOR OF 1 .0 0 0 0
m <* — £ — 0r xn_ -sz» 1 - .
6 R + h £ R 6
— L- ^ 0.157 X 10 meters
where R ® mean radius of the earth, R
h ° elevation above sea level
me® elevation reduction scale factor
me, as defined expresses the amount by which a distance measured at
a certain elevation will be reduced to at sea level. The extent of
this reduction Is Indicated by Figure 2.
It can readily be seen from Figure 2 that neglecting this re
duction may introduce errors which are too large to neglect in third
order work, as was illustrated by the example on page 16.
Appendix D provides information on the percentage of the
earth's various land masses (and selected countries) whose surfaces
lie above certain contours. Based on a published source, the entire
earth's land areas may be classified as to elevation according to
the following table:
Table 1. Elevation Increments of the Earth (35)
Elevation Incre- Percent of Percent of

ments in Meters Area in Sq. Km. Earth's Surface Land Area
0-200 37,000,000 7.3 25.2

200-500 39,900,000 7.8 26.8
500-1000 28,900,000 5.7 19.7
1000-2000 22,600,000 4.4 15.2
2000-3000 11,200,000 2.2 7.6
3000-4000 5,800,000 1.1 3.8
4000-5000 2,200,000 0.4 1.4
over 5000 500,000 0.1 0.3
Accurate mapping obviously requires the consideration of both
projection and elevation scale factors.
31
Elevation in feet
0.9985
S
7 1 1 i I I I I I I I I I I I § §
§
&
69
S3
s«A
S
0.9985
0.9986 0.9986
0.9987 0.9987
0.9988 0.9988

0.9989
0.9990 0.9990
0.9991 0.9991
0.9992 0.9992
0.9993 0.9993
0.9994 0.9994
0.9995 0.9995
0.9996 0.9996
0.9997 0.9997
0.9998 0.9998
0.9999
1.0000 1.0000
1.0001 1.0001
o Q O o O o o
m in in m «n
m w K. so «o
Elevation in Meters
FIGURE 2 SEA LEVEL SCALE REDUCTION DUE TO ELEVATION
Combined Scale Factor
The product of the projection and elevation reduction scale factors
form the combined scale factor or m^ times me 13 mc (combined scale
factor). Tables 2, 3, and 4 are tabulations of the combined scale
factors based on central scale factors of 1.0000, 0.9999, and 0.9996,
respectively. With tables such as these, or correction tables derived
therefrom, the determination of the combined correction may be made with
practically the same ease as either the projection or elevation correc
tions .
The combined scale factor defines the relationship between a scaled
distance on the map and the equivalent distance on the ground. Whenever
ground distances are used, the combined scale factor must be considered.
If the allowable scale error between ground and map is ±1:10,000 then
the combined scale factor throughout the projection must lie between
0.9999 and 1.0001.
Development of Scale Factor Mapping
It can be seen from the previous figures and Appendix D that
there are many areas throughout the world where the elevation scale
error itself is greater than 1:10,000. In such areas, projections
fitted to the sea level ellipsoid cannot be used for precise (third
order or better) reference unless reductions are applied to all per
tinent measurements. In the U. S. the projections of the State
Coordinate Systems (42) are fitted to the ellipsoid and develop
no more than ±1:10,000 projection scale error. These projections
were originally designed at the request of highway engineers, but
33
Tab|e 2 TM Combined Scale Factor Based on Central Scale Factor of 1.0000
Elevation Distance from Central Meridian in Kilometers Elevation
in Meters in feet
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-500 1.000076 1.000109 1.000201 1.000365 1.000570 1.000847 1.001186 1.00158 1.00204 1.00257 1.00315 -1640
0 1.000000 1.000030 1.000123 1.000276 1.000492 1.000769 1.001107 1.00150 1.00196 1.00249 1.00307 0
500 .999921 .999952 1.000044 1.000198 1.000413 1.000690 1.001028 1.00142 1.00199 1.00241 1.00289 1640
1000 .999843 .999873 .999966 1.000119 1.000335 1.000612 1.C00950 1.00135 1.00181 1.00233 1.00292 3281
1500 .999764 .999795 .999887 1.000041 1.000256 1.000533 1.000871 1.00127 1.00173 1.00223 1.00284 4921
20(H) .999686 .999716 .999809 .999962 1.000178 1.000454 1.000793 1.00119 1.00165 1.00217 1.00276 6562
25(H) .999607 .999638 .999730 .999884 1.000099 1.000376 1.000714 1.00111 1.00197 1.00209 1.00268 8202
3000 .999629 .999539 .999652 .999805 1.000021 1.000297 1.000636 1.00103 1.00149 1.00202 1.00260 9843
3500 .999460 .999481 .99SS73 .999727 .999942 1.000219 1.000557 1.00095 1.00141 1.00194 1.00252 11483
4000 .999372 .999403 .999495 .999648 .999864 1.000140 1.000479 1.00087 1.00134 1.00186 1.00244 13123
4500 .999293 .999324 .999416 .999570 .999785 1.000062 1.000400 1.00080 1.00126 1.00178 1.00236 14764
5000 .999216 .999246 .939338 .999491 .999707 .999983 1.000321 1.00072 1.00118 1.00170 1.00229 16404
55(H) .999135 .999167 .999259 .999413 .999628 .999905 1.000243 1.00064 1.00110 1.00162 1.00221 18045
60(H) .999068 .995089 .999181 .999334 .999550 .999826 1.000164 1.00056 1.00102 1.00154 1.00213 19685
6500 .998979 .995010 .999102 .933236 .999471 .999748 1.000098 1.00048 1.00094 1.00146 1.00205 21325
7000 .998901 .998932 .999024 .999178 .999393 .999669 1.000007 1.00040 1.00038 1.00139 1.00197 22966
7500 .998823 .998853 .998945 .999099 .999314 .999591 .999929 1.00032 1.00078 1.00131 1.00189 24606
8000 .998744 .998775 .998867 .999021 .999238 .993612 .999850 1.00025 1.00071 1.00123 1.00181 26247
8500 .998566 .998696 .998788 .998942 .999157 .999434 .999772 1.00017 1.00063 1.00113 1.00173 27887
9000 .595587 .998518 .998710 .998864 .999079 .999355 .999693 1.00009 1.00055 1.00107 1.00166 29528
9500 .998609 .998539 .998531 .998785 .999000 .999277 .999615 1.00001 1.00047 1.00099 1.00158 31168
0 31 62 93 124 155 186 217 249 280 311
Distance from Central Meridian in Miles

Note: In this table the last figure shown is for "rounding” purposes and is not significant
TABLE OF COMBINED SCALE EFFECTS OF DISTANCE FROM CENTRAL MERIDIAN AND ELEVATION CENTRAL SCALE FACTOR -1.0000
Table 3 TM Combined Scale Factor Based on Central Scale Factor of 0.9999
»
Elevation Oistance from Central Meridian in Kilometers Elevation
in Meters in Feet
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-500 .999978 . 1.000009 1.000101 1.000255 1.000470 1.000747 1.001085 1.00148 1.00194 1.00247 1.00305 -1640
0 .999900 .999930 1.000023 1.000176 1.000392 1.000668 1.001007 1.00140 1.00166 1.00239 1.00297 0
500 .999821 .999852 .999944 1.000098 1.000313 1.000590 1.000928 1.00132 1.00179 1.00231 1.00289 1640
1000 .999743 .999773 .999886 1.000019 1.000235 1.000511 1.000850 1.00125 1.0)171 1.00223 1.00281 3281
1500 .999664 .9996% .999787 .999941 1.000156 1.000433 1.000771 1.00117 1.00163 . 1.00215 1.00274 4921
2000 .9995% .999616 .999709 .999862 1.000078 1.000354 1.000693 1.00109 1.00155 1.00207 1.00266 6562
2500 .999507 .999538 .999630 .999784 .999999 1.000276 1.000614 1.00101 1.00147 1.00199 1.00258 8202
3000 .999429 .999459 .999552 .9997% .999921 1.000197 1.000536 1.00093 1.00139 1.00192 1.00250 9843
3500 .999350 .999381 .999473 .999627 .999842 1.000119 1.000457 1.00085 1.00131 1.00184 1.00242 11483
4000 .999272 .999303 .999395 .999548 .999764 1.000040 1.000379 1.00077 1.0)124 1.00176 1.00234 13123
4500 .999193 .999224 .999316 .999470 .999685 .999962 1.000300 1.00070 1.00116 1.00168 1.00226 14764
5000 .999115 .999146 .999238 .999392 .999607 .999883 1.000221 1.00062 1.00108 1.00160 1.00219 16404
5500 •9990% .999067 .999159 .999313 .999528 .999805 1.000143 1.00064 1.00100 1.00152 1.00211 18045
6000 .998958 .998989 .999001 .999235 .999450 .999726 1.000064 1.00046 1.0)092 1.00144 1.00203 19685
6500 .998860 .998910 .999002 .999156 .999371 .999648 .999986 1.00038 1.00084 1.00136 1.00195 21325
7000 .998801 .998832 .998924 .999078 .999293 .999569 .999907 1.00030 1.00076 1.00129 1.00187 22966
7500 .998723 .998753 .998845 .998999 .999214 .999491 .999829 1.00022 1.00)68 1.00121 1.00179 24606
8000 .998644 .9 9 ® 7 5 .998767 .998921 .999136 .999412 .999750 1.00015 1.00061 1.00113 1.00171 26247
8500 .998566 .9 9 % % .998689 .998342 .999057 .999334 .999672 1.0)007 1.00053 1.00105 1.00163 27887
9000 .998487 .998518 .998610 .998764 .998979 .999255 .999593 .99999 1.00045 1.00097 1.00156 29528
9500 .998409 .998439 .998532 .998685 .998900 .999177 .999515 .99991 1.00037 1.00089 1.00148 31168
0 31 62 93 124 155 186 217 249 280 311
Didance from Central Meridian in Miles
Note: In this table the last figure shown is for “ rounding" purposes and is not significant
TABLE OF COMBINED SCALE EFFECTS OF DISTANCE FROM CENTRAL MERIDIAN AND ELEVATION CENTRAL SCALE FACTOR = 0.9999
Table 4 TM Combined Scale Factor Based on Central Scale Factor of 0.9996
Election Distance from Central Meridian in Kilometers Elevation

in Meters in Feet
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4(H) 450 500
-500 .999678 .999709 .999801 .999955 1.000170 1.000447 1.000785 1.00118 1.00164 1.00217 1.00275 -1640
0 .999600 .993630 .999722 .999876 1.000091 1.000368 1.000707 1.00110 1.00156 1.00209 1.00267 0
500 .999521 .999552 .999644 .999798 1.000013 1.000290 1.000628 1.00102 1.00148 1.00201 1.00259 1640
10G0 .999443 .999473 .999566 .999719 .999935 1.000211 1.000650 1.00094 1.00141 1.00193 1.00251 3281
1500 .999364 .999395 .999487 .999641 .999856 1.000133 1.000471 1.00087 1.00133 1.00185 1.00244 4921
2080 .999286 .999316 .999409 .999562 .999778 1.000054 1.000392 1.00079 1.00125 1.00177 1.00236 6562
2500 .999207 .999238 .999330 .999484 .999699 .999976 1.000314 1.00071 1.00117 1.00169 1.00228 8202
3000 .999129 .999160 .999252 .999405 .999621 .999897 1.000236 1.00063 1.00109 1.00161 1.00220 9843
3500 .999060 .993081 .999173 .999327 .999542 .999619 1.000157 1.00055 1.00101 1.00154 1.00212 11483
4000 . .998972 .999003 .999095 .999249 .999464 .999740 1.000078 1.00047 1.00093 1.00146 1.00204 13123
1500 .998894 .998924 .999016 .999170 .999385 .999662 1.000000 1.00039 1.00086 1.00138 1.00196 14764
5000 .998815 .998846 .998938 .999092 .999307 .999583 .999921 1.00032 1.00078 1.00130 1.00188 16404
5500 .998737 .998767 .998860 .999013 .999228 .999506 .999843 1.00024 1.00070 1.00122 1.00181 18045
6000 .998658 .998689 .998781 .9989% .999150 .999426 .999764 1.00016 1.00062 1.00114 1.00173 19685
65(H) .998580 .998611 .998703 .998856 .999071 .999348 .999686 1.00008 1.00054 1.00106 1.00165 21325
7008 : .998501 .998532 .998624 .998778 .998993 .999269 .999607 1.00000 1.00046 1.00099 1.00157 22966
7500 ■ .998423 .998454 .998546 .998699 .998914 .999191 .999529 .99992 1.00038 1.00091 1.00149 24606
8000 .998345 .998375 .998467 .998621 .998836 .999112 .999450 .99985 1.00031 1.00083 1.00141 26247
8500 .998266 .998297 .998389 .998542 .998757 .999034 .999372 .99977 1.00023 1.00075 1.00133 27887
9000 .998188 .998218 .998310 .998464 .998679 .998955 .999293 •99969 1.00015 1.00067 1.00126 29528
9500 .998109 .998140 .998232 .998386 .998600 .998877 .999215 .99961 1.00007 1.00069 1.00118 31168
0 31 62 93 124 155 186 217 249 280 311
Distance from Central Meridian in Miles
Note: In this table the last figure shown is for "rounding” purposes and is not significant
TABLE OF COMBINED SCALE EFFECTS OF DISTANCE FROM CENTRAL MERIDIAN AND ELEVATION CENTRAL SCALE FACTOR = 0.9998
these same engineers have had considerable difficulty in applying
them (47)„ Since highway engineers in the U. So do not customar
ily reduce their measurements to sea level, an intolerable
scale error was introduced in the areas of higher elevations. In
1958, William T. Pryor, Chief of Aerial Surveys for the U. S.
Bureau of Public Roads, proposed a solution to this problem (47).
He suggested that an adjustment factor representative of the area
under consideration be applied to the State Plane Coordinates.
This adjustment factor is nothing more than the reciprocal of the
combined scale factor. It has the effect of giving the projection
a true scale relationship to the ground. Inasmuch as Mr. Pryor
recommended computing the adjustment factor on a project basis and
still retaining a direct relationship to the established coordinate
system, his proposal was unique. Mr. Pryor, in effect, proposed a
system of Scale Factor Mapping which is the geometric equivalent of
elevating (or depressing) the projection. In putting this system
into operation the Bureau of Public Roads and various State Highway
engineers encountered several problems. The principal difficulty
lay in that the adjusted zone frequently could not be extended as
far as the original zone and still meet the ±1:10,000 scale error
criteria. This was because of the elevation differences in the
earth's surface and because the axis of the topography did not
follow the axis of the projection. From Figure 2 it is readily
seen that an elevation difference of 1,300 meters will in itself
create a scale change of over 2:10,000. When the topographic and
37
projection axis were in variance the elevation and projection
errors rapidly built up to exceed the allowable tolerance. Since
the U. S. Federal Highway System is interstate in nature, it rep
resents a most difficult endeavor on which to apply the principles
of Scale Factor Happing. However, this method has been applied to
highway work in at least 12 of the 50 states.
In addition to the work of Mr. Pryor there are other examples
of efforts to fit the projection to the terrain. In the past, U. S.
(and other) cities have been mapped on projections based on the
mean altitude of the city. These projections generally have fallen
into disuse as State Coordinates, to which the city systems were
unrelated, were established. One state, Michigan, has recently es
tablished a coordinate system (Lambert) based on the mean elevation
of the state (3). Since Michigan has relatively uniform elevation,
this system will reduce the ground to projection scale error to a
minimum. However, this system will be completely unrelated to those
of its neighboring states which is bound to cause considerable dif
ficulty. Canada has adopted a modified version1of the UTM for its
northern territories which is particularly noteworthy (4). It is
known as the Territorial Plane Coordinate System and was specific
ally designed for oil and gas rights surveys. The UTM had already
been established in this area, but it had two possible defects.
First it created a maximum projection scale error of 1:2,500 and
secondly, it was in meters rather than feet. The Canadian Depart
ment of Mines and Technical Surveys solved both of these problems
38
in a unique and simple manner. The UTM coordinates were all
multiplied by a single conversion factor of 3.281824541. This
factor changed meters to feet and also changed the central scale
factor from 0.9996 to 0.9999. False Eastings and zone designa
tions were also changed, but these are irrelevant to the basic
nature of the projection. The resulting projection develops a
maximum projection scale error of only about ±1:10,000 and instruc
tions indicate that surveys can be made in this system '‘without re
gards for scale factor.11 However, it should be noted that parts of
the Yukon territory are at considerable altitude which develop
elevation scale errors in the order of two or even three parts per
thousand and that along the central meridian these errors will be
additive with the projection scale error. Insofar as the scale be
tween the projection and the ground is concerned changing the scale
factor to 1.0000 rather than 0.9999 would probably have resulted in
a more exact projection for this particular area. It is noteworthy
that Gauss originally designed the TM projection with a central scale
factor of 1.000 and this practice has been retained by the Soviet
Bloc. This unit scale factor has been criticized for placing the
projection scale error all in one direction (.fflus) and most Western
countries have adapted reductions to the central scale factor.
However, plane coordinates are used for land areas which normally
have some elevation above sea level. When the criteria for a
projection is the best fit to the ground, rather than to the ellip
soid, the mean elevations involved must be carefully considered, as
39
must also the actual width of the projection. The foregoing dis
cussion illustrates the problems that arise in defining a specific
projection even after the basic type of projection has been deter
mined. The problem is basically one of closely fitting the projec
tion to the earth's surface, or at least to the ellipsoid. This
problem can be solved by either creating a large number of small
zones or by altering the central scale factor of broader zones when
necessary. This latter procedure of Scale Factor Mapping has some
obvious practical advantages. In the following discussion the earth
is considered as a sphere rather than an ellipsoid as the differences
involved are negligible.
Considerations in Scale Factor Mapping
Changing the central scale factor to meet local requirements
for a projection appears to be a simple procedure. However, the
following factors must be carefully considered:
1. Elevation Differences. Where the elevation differences in
a given area create scale changes larger than the specified tolerance
the use of an adjusted scale factor will not solve the projection
problem. In mountainous areas accurate surveying requires reduction
which can just as readily be made to a basic projection.
2. Attitude of Terrain to Projection. A level area near the
central meridian of a TM projection will lie generally parallel to
to the projection and offers the ideal condition for Scale Factor
Mapping. However, a similar level area near the edge of a basic
40
I
zone will lie at an angle to the projection. A subzone* created
by Scale Factor Mapping for this latter area will, for a given
tolerance, be much smaller than the subzone near the central meridian.
Geometrically this condition is illustrated by Figure 6. Although
this figure is based on the sea level sphere the same geometric condi
tions would apply in fitting subzones to a portion of the earth's
actual surface which had generally uniform elevation. The width
of the subzones rapidly decrease away from the zone center and this
effect is particularly important near the equator. The width of
individual subzones, based on a sea level surface or one of uniform
elevations and a scale error tolerance of ±1:10,000 are as follows;
Table 5« Width of Subzones of ±1:10,000 Scale Error___________
Central subzone . . . . . . . 254 kms wide

1st side subzones 53 kms wide
2nd side subzones 40 kms wide
3rd side subzones 34 kms wide
4th side subzones 30 kms wide
5th side subzones . . . . . . 27 kms wide
6th side subzones . . . . . . 25 kms wide
The above figures will not apply to areas that have an overall slope
in an east-west direction. In such areas the attitude of the terrain
will vary from the normal condition indicated above. The extent of
such zone will be larger or smaller than the above figures depending
on whether the overall slope is towards or away from the central
meridian, respectively. Areas that slope in a north-south direction
will be limited in that direction only according to the scale change
41
SCAIE FACTOR MAPPING (TM ) BASED ON ±1:10,000 S C A li ERROR
TO’
EXPLANATION:
HORIZONTAL SCALI: ©is diaisits = 100 has
VERTICAL SCALE: ©as M ob = « seal© chaage of 20:10,000
CURVED LINE: vspressafis earths flgwo (sphere)
HORIZONTAL LINES (HEAVY): represeat exteet (width) of sabioaos based ea seals orror of ±1:10,000
NEAR VERTICAL LINES (RAYS): defies width of a 6° zoat based oa tbs varioas latitades iadicatod at the sad of the reps
F liU ii 3. SCHEMATIC CROSS SECTION OF A 6 ° TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE DIVIDED INTO SUBZONES
introduced by elevation (Figure 2). In determining the specific
limits of a subzone that will meet certain ground to projection scale
tolerances, all critical points of extremes in elevation must be con
sidered. Specific procedures for this have been developed by Mr. Pryor
(47) and computational forms have been reproduced by the U. S. Bureau
of Public Roads under the title “Explanations of Procedure in Determin
ing a Combined Adjustment Factor” (Lambert and TM Projections).
3. Latitude Effects. TM zones of a specified longitudinal width
decrease in actualwidth in accordance with the cosine of the latitude
(based on a sphere). However, the width of the subzones, which are
limited by scale error, will remain uniform as long as the elevation
is constant. The central subzone at 70° latitude has the same allow
able width as at the equator. The net result of this effect is to re
duce the number of subzones required to cover a zone of fixed longitu
dinal width as latitude increases. The number of subzones required are
illustrated in Figure 3. From this figure the number of subzones, with
±1:10,000 scale tolerance, can roughly be determined. Based on an area
of uniform elevation the number of subzones to cover a 6° zone at
various latitudes are as follows:
Table 6. Number of ±1:10,000 Scale Error Subzones in a 6° TM Zone

Number of Subzones
with ±1:10,000 Scale
Latitude Tolerance __
0 ° 13
20 ° 11
30° 9
40° 7
50° 5
60° 3
70° 1 (zone)
43
4. Continuity of Reference System. Transforming coordinates from
one subzone to another within a given zone is a relatively simple opera
tion but it still represents a discontinuity in the reference system.
Thus every time a new subzone is introduced the continuity of the system
is decreased. Subzones should not be introduced as a general practice
but only created where the specific requirements dictate a need for a
projection other than that of the basic zone. The subzone should also
be treated as a secondary or auxiliary projection and should not replace
the basic projection which would still be recognized throughout the zone.
5. Control Density. Where a dense monumented basic control net
exists (see page 15) and multiple ties thereto are mandatory, scale factors
are automatically taken care of by adjustment, and in such areas Scale
Factor Mapping need not be considered.
Scale Factor Mapping obviously requires the careful consideration
of the above five factors. Even when reductions to sea level are con
templated and the projection is fitted to the ellipsoid rather than the
actual surface the concept of Scale Factor Mapping is still worthy of
consideration due to the latitude effect alone. Hear the equator a 6°
zone should have a central scale reduction of 0.9993 to equalize the
scale error at the center and edges of the projection. At 40° this
equalized scale error on the same zone calls for a central scale factor
of .9996 and at 70s it would be raised to .9999. Obviously the central
scale factor will not be changed continuously with latitude but altering
it for' specific areas or broad bands of latitude warrants consideration.
44
Application of Scale Factor Mapping
Based on the five above listed considerations there are several
situations where Scale Factor Mapping should be considered. Since,
the UTM with its central scale factor of 0.9996 has been applied on
a world-wide basis, it is selected as the basic projection for pur
poses of this discussion. tHus any TM projection which utilizes the
same central meridian, ellipsoid and datum as the UTM but which does
not carry the same central scale factor represents Scale Factor Mapping.
Specific examples of where such systems exist or could be logically
introduced are as follows:
1. Soviet Bloc. The Soviet Unified Reference System (assuming
the UTM used the same ellipsoid and datum) is an example of Scale
Factor Mapping as compared to the UTM. It carries the same central
meridians but has a central scale factor of 1.0000 rather than 0.9996.
It does not create subzones since its basic zone limits (in width) are
identical to those of the UTM. Since it is applied to land area of
higher latitudes, it will generally.develop smaller ground to map
scale errors than does the UTM in this same area. Thus the USSR
system might well be accepted by the Western World as a replacement
for the UTM in areas within the Soviet Bloc. If such a decision
were made, the line of discontinuity between the Soviet and UTM system
should be selected where it would create the least complications— such
as at the boundary of the employment of a certain datum where a
discontinuity already exists. At such a time when the various geodetic

45
systems slight be unified to a single ellipsoid and datum, a dis
continuity between the Soviet system and UTM would still exist.
However, the transformation from one to the other would be no more
than introducing the simple scale factor difference.
2. Northern North America. The Canadian Territorial Plane
Coordinate System (see page 38) is another example of Scale Factor
Mapping of the UTM. The 0.9999 central scale factor gives a much
closer fit to the terrain (and consequently smaller scale error) than
the UTM. If a central scale factor of 1.0000 had been used and this
projection employed in Alaska, where it is ideally suited, there
would be one set of geometrically similar projections in use through
out the major portions of the northern land areas of the Northern
Hemisphere. The fact that the Canadian system is in feet and the
USSR system is in meters and that different false Eastings and North
ings are used, involves no more than linear conversion factors.
3. Small Islands (and Other Isolated Areas). An island which
has little or no direct land ties to the rest of the world may still
want to employ a system of mapping which is basically compatible with
other areas. However, introducing a scale error larger than the
dimensions of the island dictate may create an unnecessary hardship.
In such cases the projection, based on the generally accepted central
meridian but with the central scale factor adjusted to fit the mean
terrain might well provide a simple solution.
4. Sizeable Areas of Extreme Elevation. Greenland and Tibet
are examples of large areas of high elevations.where utilizing a basic
46
projection such as the UTM creates excessively large scale errors.
In Greenland this error reaches 1:2,000 and in Tibet it would exceed
1:1,000. For such areas zone or subzones could be employed to reduce
these errors to more acceptable limits. For Greenland, being an
island, central scale factors of 1.0000 (or similar values) might be
adopted for all use in that area. Since Tibet is connected to lower
lying regions of Asia, a basic projection such as the UTM could be
used for regional'purposes whereas the '‘elevated'1 subzone(s) would be
applied to the extent that it was actually required.
5, Small Areas of Cultural Importance. Cities, rich farm land,
and other areas of high property value require a large volume of ac
curate surveys that approach or meet third order standards. In such
areas the introduction of a subzone(s) may be far preferable to reduc
ing all measurements to the projection or accepting the otherwise in
evitable errors. This is particularly true for areas well removed
from the projection such as those at considerable altitude lying near
a central meridian. Cities such as Denver (U. S.), La Paz (Bolivia),
Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), and Ankara (Turkey) are examples of cities
which may well warrant specific subzones for local use.
An area where subzones may not be suitable to apply is near the
basic zone boundaries and particularly at the lower latitudes. Thus
cities such as Belem (Brazil) and Marieaibo (Venezuela), which lie at
sea level, near the equator and zone boundaries have scale errors of
nearly 1:1,000 on the UTM. A subzone limited to ±1:10,000 scale error
could be introduced but as the listing on page 41 indicates the
47
maximum width of this subzone would be limited to 25 kms. If the
size and importance of Belem or Maricaibo warrant single larger
'"error free'1 projections then new central meridians would have to
be,introduced and subzones of up to 254 kms could then be utilized.
The introduction of zones based on central meridians other than
those basically defined introduces noncompatible local reference
systems. A full zone-to-zone transformation must be used to go from
the local to the basic zone whereas no such difficulties occur when
subzones are based on the same central meridian. The introduction
of central meridians, other than those of the basic system, should
be done only as a last resort, but it is recognized that such action
might be required for certain areas.
48
CHAPTER VIII
ZONE WIDTH AND DESIGNATIONS
Zone Width
Appendix C shows that most countries of the world employ a TM
projection, but the width of the actual zones vary considerably.
Although the 6° zone is the most common, there are valid arguments in
favor of narrower zones--particularly those of 3°. In theory, zones
designed to meet certain scale error tolerances should be of uniform
width. As TM zones extend from the equator they cannot be held at
uniform width due to convergence and the zone limits must be a com
promise. A zone which develops ±1:10,000 scale error at the equator
covers about 2° 171 of longitude and thus would Involve 158 zones to
encircle the globe. Although these zones would be 254 kms wide at
the equator they would be only 126 kms (79 miles) wide at 60° latitude.
Using such narrow zones violates the basic mapping criteria for con
tinuity and creates an unnecessary number of zone boundaries.
When the UTM was designed following World War II, a compromise was
reached between scale error and number of zone which resulted in the 6°
zones to be applied world-wide (except in polar regions). In 1946 the
Russians also adopted the basic 6° zone, but this was only for countries
within the Soviet Bloc, which generally lies north of 40°, and where
they are concerned with only the narrower portions of the 6° zones.
49
In recent years many countries outside the Soviet Bloc have
adopted the 6° UTM, but this has been partially due to the outside
help that was provided in establishing the system. Canada is an
exception in that she is at least considering the adoption of 3°
zones for use below the 60th parallel. For areas within 40° of the
equator there is considerable argument in favor of the narrower zones.
The rather excessive scale errors of the 6° zones have been tolerated
in such areas for the following reasons:
1« The areas have not involved sufficient volume of precision
surveying on the 6° zones to bring up the problem.
2. Some involved countries such as Kenya, Ecuador, and Indonesia
have enormous elevation differences and reduction to a common datum
becomes essential for all precision surveying.
3. The mapping has largely been sponsored by agencies which were
interested in establishing recognized systems such as the UTM.
As was exemplified by Belem on page 47 the 6° zones are bound to
create problems in some equatorial areas sooner or later. The intro
duction of some 3° zones might be required to meet specific needs
near the equator. In the latitudes above 40°, 6° zones are considered
generally adequate based on the following reasoning. At 40° a total
maximum projection scale difference of 8:10,000 is generated. If
equalized by a reduced central scale factor such as the UTM this be
comes ±4:10,000 or ±1:2,500. This scale error is not excessive when
compared to the scale error due to elevation. An elevation change of
about.2,600 meters (8,400 feet) will create an equivalent scale error.
50
Although such elevations are not widespread, they do exist in nearly
every major country in the world. If elevations are to be considered
and reduced to sea level, the reduction might just as well be made
directly to the projection and both systematic errors (elevation and
projection) eliminated,, Tables 2, 3, and 4 indicate the ease of
making such combined reductions. For a particular area where the
central scale factor is other than 1.000, or 0.9999 or 0.9996, similar
tables can easily be made. The introduction of 3° zones does not
really solve the scale problem in areas above 40° latitude. Such
narrow zones give the impression of creating maximum scale errors
in the order of ±1:10,000 whereas the ground to map scale error may
be much larger. When actual ground to map scale error of ±1:10,000
is required, the principles of Scale Factor Mapping must be applied
regardless of the zone width unless the area is uniformly near sea
level. The 6° zone, like any projection, is a compromise but it cer
tainly appears to be a most logical one for the latitudes of 40° to 65°.
It should be noted that highly developed countries such as England
and Italy which are in the mid-latitudes have successfully adopted
the broad zones for all classes of plane coordinate referencing (45).
Today the UTM has been employed as far north as 84° which is the
approximate northern extremity of the earth's land masses. 6° zones
at this latitude are only 70 kms wide and such narrow zones violate
the principle of continuity. At about 68° every other 6° zone can be
dropped without increasing the projection scale error beyond ±1:2,500.
This does not mean that such a change should automatically take place
51
at 68° but that in areas above 60° latitude consideration should be
given to 12° zones. In such cases the line of change from 6° to 12°
should be carefully selected. The Norwegians made such a modifica
tion to the UTM at 72° which lies in open water between Norway proper
and Spitsbergen (17). A similar modification might well be applied to
the other land areas of the Northern Hemisphere such as Greenland and
the islands of Northern Canada, but it does not appear applicable to
the Southern Hemisphere due to the different distribution of land
mass. Where 12° zones are established, there is no need to create a
new zone as every other of the existing 6° zones is merely dropped.
Carrying the required formulas and tables to cover the 12° at higher
latitudes presents no real problems as shown in Appendix G.
Zone Boundaries
The side boundaries of zones are normally designated by meridians
but there are numerous areas where it is advantageous to alter this
procedure. Where a given land area extends only slightly into an
adjacent zone there is no good reason for not extending the dominant
zone into what would normally be the adjacent zone. Norway, again,
has modified the UTM to eliminate what they feel is an unnecessary
zone (17). This same principal has also been applied locally by the
U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey in designing a system of plane coordi
nates for Alaska (13) . Not only the edges of land masses but also
other major geographic features such as mountain divides or rivers,
might warrant the shifting of the zone boundary. As an example, the
Andes in South America parallel and are close to the normal UTM zone
52
boundaries in many areas. In such areas, selecting the divide
created by this range as the zone boundary has three advantages:
1. It is easily identified on the ground.
2. The scale error due to elevation will be better compensated for.
3. The relative sparsity of control in such a mountainous area
will minimize the zone-to-zone conversion problem.
Political boundaries and in particular those where datums change,
may also be worth using as zone boundaries where they fall near the
edge of a normal zone. This need not violate the principal of con
tinuous mapping since a zone boundary in the general area is required
anyway„
Zone Designation
Since zone boundaries may vary, it is important that zones be
designated in terms of their central meridians rather than boundaries.
Accepting the 6° basic zone is considered to be the best choice and a
recognized system of identification a.lready exists. The 1:1,000,000
International Map of the World (IMW) carries zone designations from
1 through 60. This designation was adopted for the UTM (see page 19)
and carries the same central meridians as the Soviet Unified System.
The IMW system is based on sheet lines which correspond to the zone
boundaries of the UTM and Soviet systems. However, by defining the
zones in terms of the central meridian the zone boundaries become
flexible and will fit the concepts presented above.
As long as a zone is based on one of the recognized central
meridians of 6° spacing the zone will carry its simple integer
53
designation (1 through 60). However, provisions must be made for
identifying zones which may be exceptions to this basic system.
For example, England utilizes a TM projection centered on 2° W longi
tude (45). This is one sixth of the way between the central meridians
of zone 30 and 31 of the IMW or UTM zone designations. Thus the
English National Grid could bear a designation such as 30j- or
30.1666. Three degree zones which are centered between established
6° zones could be labelled as 13.5 (Canada) or 38.5 (USSR). Such a
complete set of numerical identification would systematize the zone
designations on a world-wide basis. Since coordinate reference in
both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres use "Northings", a dis
tinction between the hemispheres should be made in the zone designations.
"N" and "S" are not satisfactory as they have other meanings in both
the IMW and UTM.
Alternate System of Zone Designation
It is possible that a sizeable number of countries might decide
that 3° zone spacing is preferable to 6°. If these narrower zones
received sufficient acceptance the entire designation system should
be re-examined. In order to eliminate the fractional (or decimal)
designation for the 3° zones, the basic number of zones should be
doubled. Thus there would be 120 rather than the 60 of the 6° zona
systems. Countries now using the IMW or UTM would use zone designa
tions double that in present use. Zone 1 would be centered on the
180° meridian and Zone 61 would be centered on the Greenwich meridian.
54
Fractional zone designations would, of course, still occur in all
areas which used central meridians other than those of the 3° sys
tem, Within the Soviet Bloc both the 6° and 3° systems are used
simultaneously. Their experience might be a good indication as to
which should be considered the basis for zone designations. Unfor
tunately such views are not currently available to the author.
The 3° zone designation system is mentioned merely as a
possible alternative and is not recommended as being most suitable
at this time.
55
CHAPTER IX
GRIDS AND COORDINATES
Rectangular reference grids are required for military and
many civil uses. The military and civil grid need not be the same
but the more advanced countries are rapidly adopting one common
grid for both purposes (Canada and the U. S. being exceptions).
Grids may be carried on maps with full lines, intersections, or
merely ticks along the map margin. For point designation and com
putations the full grid lines are preferable. They are carried on
all modern military maps and are becoming increasingly popular for
civil use. The principal disadvantage of a full grid is that it tends
to clutter the map and some detail. However, modern printing methods
permit the.use of extremely fine lines which are machine produced
and the effects can be minimized.
Rectangular coordinate reference itself is not a simple matter.
The reference must be unique and of required accuracy which involves
a formidable array of numbers and letters. The military and civil
systems in common use are covered in various publications and are too
involved to describe here (17, 42, 45). A single reference in the UTM
for a point in the U. S., given to the nearest meter, might read:
Zone 13, E 772075, N 3794702.
56
The hemisphere should also be designated to completely avoid ambiguity
since Northings (N) are also used in the Southern Hemisphere, In
actual military practice large zones are designated by letters and
only that portion of the numbered reference is given that is required
to avoid confusion. For civil use similar systems of notations are
derived and in local areas digits are often dropped in accordance with
prescribed procedure. Coordinate systems generally involve false
Eastings and Northings to avoid negative numbers. Grids are normally
indicated in feet or meters and metric systems have been converted to
feet in at least one case (Canada) to satisfy local needs.
In areas where Scale Factor Mapping might be applied the subzone
designation is of paramount importance. Mr. Pryor in developing his
adjusted coordinates for highway work, chose to retain the full State
Plane Coordinates and adjust them directly (47). His adjusted
coordinates appear very similar to the basic ones and this practice
may invite confusion. For subzones it is recommended that an origin
be selected lying just off the southwest corner of the subzone but
corresponding to an even number of the basic reference system. Thus
the coordinates involves will all be positive but still as small as
possible. Moreover the subzone coordinates will in no way resemble
those of the basic system. Conversion between basic zone and subzone
will involve adding or subtracting the values of the origin (in addi
tion to the scale change) which is a relatively simple matter. Of
course, all subzones should be clearly identified and for those of
limited areas the name of the appropriate city, county, province,
or state is suggested.
57
CHAPTER X
THE GENERALIZES TRANSVERSE MERCATOR REFERENCE SYSTEM* (GTM)
Transverse Mercator (TM) projections and grids appear in a
variety of forms,.but they can all be organized into a single system
as long as certain flexibility is permitted. Until such a time as
geodetic datums, ellipsoid dimensions, measuring units and accuracy
standards are unified on a world-wide basis, such items must be left
as varying parameters. However, there are certain accepted features
of TM mapping that can be codified and organized into a single system.
Because of the varying parameters involved, the term "Generalized" has
been applied. Thus the Generalized Transverse Mercator Raference Sys
tem or GTM in short form Is considered an appropriate title for the
following described system which is proposed for world-wide application.
Specifications of the GTM

A
1. General Characteristics. A world-wide series of TM projections
and associated grids designed to fit regional and local specifications
and to still retain maximum uniformity and continuity.
2. Coverage. The GTM to cover the earth's surface from 60°
south latitude to 84° north latitude.
3. Zone Designation. Zones to be designated according to cen
tral meridians. This designation to be based on the numbering system
58
of the 1:1,000,000 International Map of the World (IMW) and to coincide
with that utilized for the UTM. Sixty basic zones to be designated at
6° intervals. Zone 1 to be centered on 177° west longitude, zone 2 on
171° W and so on in an eastward direction. Zone 60 to be centered on
177° east longitude. Zones which carry central meridians other than
those of the 60 basic zones to be designated by a fraction or decimal
part of a zone. Thus a zone centered halfway between zones30 and 31
to be designed zone 30% or 30.5. The word (North) or (South) to follow
the zone number Whenever distinction between Northern and Southern
Hemispheres must be made.
4. Basic Zone Width and Boundaries. Zone width not specified
as an individual zone may be carried laterally as far as particular
conditions warrant. Normally basic zones to be bounded by the meri
dians three degrees on either side of the central meridian (forming
6° zones) providing more suitable boundaries do not exist. At higher
latitudes zones may be extended to a 12° width by eliminating every
other basic zone at such latitudes.
5. Grid and Grid Reference. To be rectangular (squares) and
oriented in a north-south direction on the central meridian. Where
not otherwise designated the grid to be metric, carry a 500,000 false
Easting along the central meridian, a "0" Northing for the Northern
Hemisphere and a 10,000,000 false Northing for the Southern Hemis
phere along the equator. Reference within a zone to be given by
complete numbers or broken down into designated systems of lettered
block designations. A complete numbered reference for a point in the
59
U. So to the nearest meter might readr Zone 13 (North), E772075,
N3794702. Unless otherwise designated the sequence in coordinate read
ing is "right up" or Eastings (E) followed by Northings (N). Grid values
to be computed into adjacent zones to provide an area of overlapping
grids. Total width of such overlap areas for the basic zones to be
80 kms unless otherwise specified.
6. Basic Central Scale Factor. To be determined and extended
regionally over the maximum possible area. In any one region only one
central scale factor to be recognized as basic.
7. Creation of Subzones. To be established for local use as
required and according to the principles of Scale Factor Mapping.
Subzones to be of either temporary or permanent nature and to be clearly
distinguished from the basic zones. Subzones to be based on the same
central meridian as the basic zone.
8. Local Zones. Local zones based on central meridians other
than that utilized for the basic zone to be created only in such areas
where subzones developed by Scale Factor Mapping will not meet require
ments. All such local zones to be developed on the TM projection
utilizing to the maximum extent parameters as established for the
basic zones.
9. Computations. Where possible tables, trig lists, and adjust
ments to be accomplished on a digital computer. Formulas used to de
pend on accuracy requirements but to be compatible with those given
60
in Appendix Go Insofar as possible all computations to be based on
the accepted datums and parameters for the region concerned, All
parameters, constants and coefficients used to be explicitly defined.
10. Extent of Regions. To be as large as possible. As unified
geodetic systems are developed regions to be expanded accordingly.
61
CHAPTER XI
POLAR REGIONS
The transverse Mercator (TM) projections as set forth are not
practical to carry clear to the poles although such a system involving
one major zone extended across the pole is theoretically possible„
The projections that to date have received more serious consideration
for these areas are the polar stereographic (PS), and the Lambert.
Such projections were briefly discussed on pages 8 and 9. In
developing polar zones in conjunction with the UTM both polar regions
were treated in a similar manner but actually the two areas present
entirely different problems.
In the Northern Hemisphere the TM zones can cover all land masses
since none are known to exist above 84° N. Plane coordinates have
been applied to shallow seas such as parts of the Gulf of Mexico, but
no similar requirement now exists for the Arctic Ocean. If such a
need should develop, a PS projection could be introduced. The south
polar region presents a continuous land mass where surveying and
mapping is already being accomplished and a potential need for plane
coordinates does exist (53). The UTM zones stop at 80° S which creates
a rather unmanageable system of 61 zones for Antarctica (60 TM and
one PS). To avoid this lack of continuity the TM zones could well
be terminated in the open water at 60° and Antarctica treated as a

unit. Based on customary standards for projection scale error no
single zone could be applied, but Antarctica should probably be
treated as an exceptional case insofar as projection scale toler
ance is concerned.
The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) is a
United Nations organization currently coordinating mapping activities
in Antarctica. They recommend the use of a 10° radius PS projection
with 4° Lambert zones extending north of the stereographic for
1:1,000,000 scale mapping (53). There is no question but that such
a system will give good fitting projections which could be applied to
larger scale mapping and would develop less than ±1:1,000 projection
scale error. However, the practicality of such a system is questioned.
All of the disadvantages of the Lambert system are involved and if
rectangular coordinates are used the 4° Lambert zone must be further
divided if the grid is to have any directional meaning. The use of
“polar" coordinates (direction and distance from the cone's apex)
could be applied to the Lambert zones and the formulas therefore are
given by Thomas (55). If the Lambert zones are actually employed,
the use of a polar rather than rectangular grid should be fully con
sidered as each Lambert zone could then be continuous.
Due to the desolate nature of the area and the relatively lower
order of surveys that would be required, the use of a single PS pro
jection is considered feasible. Such a projection is recognized as
being suitable for the first order depiction of an entire hemis
phere (23). On the PS the scale difference between the pole and the
63
generalized edge of the Antarctic land mass at 67° S is about 4%.
This scale error is excessive when compared to normal standards and
may not be practical with a rectangular grid system. However, the
use of polar coordinates might well make such a projection worthwhile.
In such a system the direction (longitude or X.) and projected distance
from the pole (r) constitute the plane coordinates. Since scale is a
function of r only, it can be tabulated and applied by the surveyor.
Rectangular coordinates could also be applied locally if necessary
through such simple transformations as x » r cos \ and y ■ r sin A.
but the polar form is much better suited to this projection. Figure 4
illustrates this projection scale factor based on a central scale
factor of 1.0000. Since Antarctica has a reported mean elevation of
over 2,000 meters (see Appendix D) reduction to sea level should also
be considered and the combined scale factor utilized as set forth in
Chapter VII. Graphs or tabulations indicating the combined scale
factor due to r and elevation can be readily developed based on the
determined scale factor at the pole. SCAR has recommended the use of
a PS projection to cover all of Antarctica for scales smaller than
1:1,000,000. This projection has a standard parallel at 71° S which
on the International Ellipsoid (recommended by SCAR) has a scale
factor at the pole of 0.9727691. In Appendix E machine computed
tabular value for r and k are presented based on pole scale factors
of 1.0000 and 0.9727691, respectively. A central (pole) scale factor
of 0.9727691 would balance the scale tolerance to within 3% throughout
all but the Antarctic (Palmer) Peninsula. The principles of Scale
64
PROJECTION SCALE FACTOR, POLAR STEREOGRAPNIC PROJECTION
DISTANCE IN KILOMETERS FROM POLE ON PROJECTION (r)
m O *o N.
O' 00 «n e*> 04
m 'O CO
w oT P)
1.080 1.080
.076 .076
.072 / .072
.068 /
T .068
.064 / .064
1.060 / 1.060
/
.056 .056
/
SCALE FACTOR (k)
.052 .052
/
SCALE FACTOR
.048 .048
/
.044 .044
/
1.040 / 1.040
.036 .036
/
.032 .032
.028 .028
.024 ■> .024
1.020 1.020
.016 V
't .016
.012 .012
.008 .008
.004 .004
1.000 1.000
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o » cb k <o m n n s
„ o o» co k o ^ ■ n C M r - 0 0 > ® N m ^ n cs 3: o
o> co <o eo CO CO CO CO ® N K tv N. IV tv tv K IV <o <o <o O <o «o >o ^ o -
LATITUDE, SOUTH OR NORTH

For Pole Scale Factor other than 1.000 both r and k must be multiplied by Pole Scale Factor
FIGURE 4. GRAPH OF PROJECTION SCALE FACTOR (PS)

BASED ON POLE SCALE FACTOR OF 1.000
Factor Happing as presented in Chapter VII are also applicable to
Antarctica,, Near the pole sizeable "error free" projections could
be utilized by merely altering the scale factor. Thus subzones
would be created with r values different from the basic projection.
As long as such subzones were clearly identified their use might be
justified for localized projects. At latitudes removed from the
pole subzones based on Scale Factor Mapping become relatively narrow
strips and of questionable value. For a ±1:10,000 scale tolerance
a zone at 68° S would have a width of only about 6 kms whereas a
similar one centered at the pole would have a diameter of 360 kms.
It is anticipated that the above described polar projection will
be used in conjunction with the Generalized Transverse Mercator (GTM)
designed for the nonpolar latitudes. Therefore, Generalized Polar
Stereographic Reference Systei? or GPS is considered to be an approp
riate title.
66
CHAPTER XII
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GTM
General
Because of the large number of countries that are now using
transverse Mercator (TM) projections, implementation of the GTM
can be accomplished on a regional basis. Those countries now using
the UTM are already employing a form of the GTM. Countries using
the Soviet Unified System need only subtract 30 from their zone
designations to obtain the GTM zone designation. Countries using
TM projections not based on the IMW or UTM defined central meridians
may refer their zones to the GTM by use of fractions or decimal
parts of a zone. Thus, without any basic changes, a large percent
age of mapping systems in use today can be incorporated into the GTM.
One primary objective of any world-wide reference system is to
establish maximum continuity. The advantages of continuous systems
are self evident and political boundaries should normally not warrant
a change in the reference system. However, alterations must be made
because of non-unified geodetic systems, latitude effects on the TM
zones, and land mass limits. Geodetic systems may eventually be uni
fied, but the latitude effect cannot be eliminated and as long as
plane coordinates are used primarily for land areas, shore lines must
be considered. The most logical place to alter a reference region is
67
in open water areas where plane coordinates are not normally employed.
On a large continuous land mass where a change must occur, a political
boundary may offer the most suitable regional limit. This does not
violate continuity if a regional change in the general area is re
quired anyway. Islands which lie within a region may still warrant
systems divergent from that of the region due to their size and rela
tionship to basic central meridians. The importance and extent of
the plane coordinate system and the comparative isolation of the
island to the rest of the region are prime considerations. Thus, a
highly developed area like the British Isles, even though within sight
of the European mainland, may warrant a unique system since the cen
tral meridians of the regional system fit so poorly to their land
areas. '
Specific Regions
Based on the above considerations and the basic principles of
Scale Factor Mapping as presented in Chapter VII, a suggested regional
breakdown has been, derived. Figure 5 is an index to such a system.
It is presented as a compromise solution to the problem and attempts
to utilize indigenous systems insofar as possible. Countries
utilizing non-TM systems will undoubtedly disagree with this index
since only TM zones are considered for the reasons given in Chapter VI.
Under the most favorable of circumstances it is not expected that such
an index would receive universal acceptance without some changes.
However, it is believed that it might serve as a guide for developing

LEGEND:
Region, Spacing Central Scale Factor (CSF)
Number and Name of Basic Zones of Basic Zones Remarks
1. Far North 12° 0.9996, 0.9999, or 1.0000 Formed by dropping every other 6° zone.
2. Canada-Alaska 6° 0.9999 or 1.0000 If a CSF of 1.0000 is used in Region 2,
3. Soviet 6° 1.0000 it becomes identical with Region 3-
Central 6° 0.9996 This is basically the UTM.
Exceptions: Areas marked "X" represent island areas where central meridians other than those normal to the
GTM are well established. Certain countries such as Finland, Austria, West Germany and Yugoslavia use
I independent TM systems and lie between Regions 3 and 4.
Figure 5 INDEX TO SUGGESTED REGIME FOR THE GTM REFERENCE SYSTEM

' ______
world-wide plane coordinate referencing and the large-scale mapping
normally associated thereto. A brief discussion of the suggested
regional selection is as follows:
Region 1, Far North. Areas which due to their latitude and
general desolation can be adequately covered by 12° zones. The pro
jection scale error in these zones will generally be less than
±1:2,500 depending on the central scale factor selected. Insofar as
possible the break between Region 1 and those lying adjacent to it
falls on open water. It is anticipated that the central scale factor
used would normally be the same as for the zones lying respectively
to the south of Region 1. Thus, continuity would be achieved as
illustrated by the following sketch:
Zone 1 Zone 3
Lower limit of Region
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
However, if it were decided to change the central scale factor for
Region 1, it could readily be done and still retain --the -
tion indicated by the above sketch even though the grids within the
same zone would change at the region boundary.
Region 2, Canada-Alaska. For the latitude involved, 6° zones
are considered sufficiently narrow; however, a central scale factor
of 0.9999 or 1.0000 appear more appropriate than 0.9996 in order to
70
balance the scale error. The value now employed by Canada for their
Territorial System is 0,9999, whereas the USSR at similar latitudes
employs 1.0000. An alternate application for this area would be to
retain a central scale factor of 0.9996 (UTM) but to change to 12°
zones (Region 1) generally along the 60th parallel. Such a break
down is very simple and would undoubtedly meet the referencing needs
of the area. It was not given as the suggested breakdown only because
it is contrary to the current trends of coordinate referencing for
civil purposes in Canada and Alaska.
Region 3, Soviet. The 6° Unified USSR system is well suited to
the latitude involved, apparently well established, and is the logi
cal choice for the area. Since the elevations along the southern
edge of this region are generally high, the scale factor resulting
from the wider zones toward the south is in part compensated. Thus,
a generally good fit of projection to terrain results even though a
unit central scale factor is employed. The boundary indicated between
Region 3 and Regions 2 and 4 generally coincides with the extent to
which the Krasovskii ellipsoid is presently employed.
Region 4, Central. This region generally includes the remain
ing land masses of the world with the exception of Antarctica. The
UTM is well established throughout this area and provides a reasonable
fit for the wide range of latitude involved. As mentioned in Chap
ter VIII, the 6° zones create a sizeable scale problem near the
equator and a requirement for narrower zones (probably 3°) might
develop. Until such requirements are fully determined, the 6° zones
are considered adequate.
71
Transverse Mercator Exceptions. In Figure 5 countries such as the
British Isles and New Zealand are shown with an irXfr and considered ex
ceptions for reasons previously given. There are other countries
lying within Region 4, as indicated by Appendix C which also use
independent TM systems. Since these countries are contiguous to
countries employing the UTM, it is possible that they may eventually
adopt this system. In the meantime they can be incorporated into
the GTM as exceptions to the Region 4 in which they lie. Likewise
Yugoslavia, Austria, West Germany, and Finland could be incorporated
into either Region 3 or 4 by adopting one of the two systems involved.
Non-TM Systems. Countries which currently do not generally
employ TM reference systems will have difficulty in accepting the
GTM. Appendix C indicates the extent of these areas. India and the
U. S. represent the two largest areas involved. It is doubtful if
any such country would adopt the GTM in the immediate future except
for special purposes. The specific problems and advantages of the
U. S. adopting the GTM are covered in Appendix F. It is believed
that eventually all such countries might find it worthwhile to con
vert to this universal mapping and reference system.
Implementation Procedure
Due to the world-wide scope of the proposed system, an inter
national body such as the United Nations (UN) is the most suitable
organization for turning the GTM into reality. However, regional
agreements might well be reached by the countries concerned which
would facilitate any UN action.
72
Examples of regional action which should be accomplished at
an early date are as follow:
lo Determination of a plane coordinate system for North
America (and Greenland) that would be continuous across inter
national boundaries,,
2. Adoption by Australia of zones which would be compatible
with the GTM (such adoption has, reportedly taken place).
3. Adoption (at least in principle) of a GTM compatible system
for Southeast Asia.
4. Consideration by SCAR of the recommended single zone (GPS)
for Antarctica.
A resolution at the UN level relative to the basic number of zones
(60 or 120) should also be made. This action should be based on
regional recommendations and would lay the basic framework of iden
tification for the entire system. Changing from 60 to 120 zones
would require altering the zone designation in use today throughout
most of the worlds but would nevertheless be feasible to implement.
73
CHAPTER XIII
SUMMARY
The various arguments and conclusions relative to a Unified Plane
Coordinate Reference System are summarized in this chapter.
Basic System
The Generalized Transverse Mercator (GTM) and Generalized Polar.
Stereographic (GPS) Reference Systems as described in Chapters X and XI
represent the most suitable world-wide plane coordinate reference system.
Their principal features are as follows:
GTM. A World encircling series of 60 transverse Mercator zones
based on central meridians six degrees apart. The zones coincide with
those of the UTM and Soviet systems except that zone boundaries are not
specifically designated. The GTM should be established on a regional
basis (see Figure 5) based on the central scale factor and the spacing
between central meridians actually employed.
Exceptions to the GTM. Island areas, where central meridians other
than those of the basic system are well established, should retain their
systems and be incorporated info the GTM as exceptions. Likewise,
countries lying between regions and which utilize independent systems
should also be treated as exceptions until such time as they might adopt
one of the regional systems. In areas of lower latitudes 6° zone spacing
may prove excessive. In such areas 3° zone spacing should be introduced
where required.
74
GPS. Antarctica can best be mapped on a single polar stereographic
projection. On such a projection "polar" rather than "Cartesian" plane
coordinates should be used. This reference system is described in
Chapter XI.
Auxiliary System
Because of elevation and the basic projection used, the error or
difference between a scaled distance on a map and the corresponding
distance on the ground may be excessive. This is described in detail
in Chapter VII. To the geodesist this presents no problem as reductions
to the projection, or at least to sea level, are considered routine.
Also, in areas where a high density of control exists, the problem may
be solved by tying all surveys to such control and adjusting the survey
accordingly. However, many land areas are not covered by a dense control
net and surveys for engineering and cadastral purposes must still be
implemented. If the surface involved is at a considerable distance from
the datum of the basic zone, then a practical problem does exist. In
such areas surveyors may not have the education and experience which
permits them to readily cope with elevation and projection reductions,
even though their observations may be of a relatively high order. Where
such conditions, or a combination of such conditions, exist, the use of
subzones which are auxiliary to the basic zone may well be warranted.
This is nothing more than fitting a projection to the mean terrain of
an area without changing the angular geometry of the basic zone. This
is defined as Scale Factor Mapping and described in Chapter VII. Such
a subzone retains the same characteristics of the basic zone except for
75
scaleo The use of subzones as a general rule is not recommended and
they may be looked on as expedients for those areas where geodesy has
not been thoroughly taught and applied. It should also be noted that
the potential use of subzones may make a relatively broad-zoned system
acceptable for engineering and cadastral purposes where the entrenched
criteria for projections that develop very small scale errors (±1:10,000)
have resulted in such narrow zones that the principle of continuity has
been seriously compromised. Regardless of the philosophy involved,
there are conditions and areas where the use of subzones offers the
only solution for establishing plane coordinate referencing which meets
local requirements and is still directly related to a basic national or
world-wide system. It should be noted that wherever a subzone is
employed the basic zone is also recognized and used for all but local
purposes.
Conclusions
It is concluded that a Unified Plane Coordinate Reference System as
described herein can and should be adapted on a world-wide basis. It is
also concluded that the system as described will meet both civil and
military requirements and, as such, become the one basic system by
which those features related to the surface of the earth are accurately
described in plane coordinates.
Such a system readily lends itself to computer operations and would
materially enhance man's capability to analyze and cope with his environ
ment .
76
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A
DEFINITIONS OF TEEMS AS USED IN THIS PAPER
central scale factor— The arbitrary scale ratio imposed along: (a) the
central meridian of a transverse Mercator projection, (b) the central
parallel of a Lambert projection, or (c) the central point or pole of
a stereographic projection. It is referred to as "CSF".
ellipsoid— The surface developed by an ellipse rotating about its

(minor) axis. It is used to define the mathematical figure of the
earth and is synonymous with "spheroid" as used in most British
and U. S. publications.
geodesic— The shortest line between two points along the mathematically
defined surface of the earth.
geodetic height— The elevation of a point above the ellipsoid. It is

the sum of the orthometric height and geoidal height (undulation).
geographic coordinates— Latitude (0) and longitude (X) values based on

the mathematical figure of the earth. This term is synonymous with
"geodetic coordinates" as used by many texts.
Generalized Polar Stereographic Reference System— The name applied to

the projection and ,grid recommended for the Antarctic region. It is
referred to as "GPS". The abbreviation "PS" refers to polar stereo
graphic.
Generalized Transverse Mercator Reference System— The name applied to

the system of projections and grids recommended for all but the polar
regions. It is referred to as "GTM?*. The abbreviation "TM?' refers
to transverse Mercator.
mapping (map)--The scaled presentation of a portion of the earth's sur

face on a plane by either geometric or purely mathematical methods.
orthometric height— The elevation of a point above the geoid. This is

the value resulting from (adjusted) spirit leveling on which the
commonly used system of elevations above mean sea level are based.
projection— An orderly arrangement of the latitude and longitude lines

of a geometric figure of the earth as portrayed on a plane. When
the earth's surface features are added, it becomesa "map projection".
78
APPENDIX A (Continued)
region— The neon 'applied to a sizeable portion of the earth's surface

over which a single defined set of basic GTM zones is applied. .
scale (large scale, small scale)— Refers to the relative size of the
fraction that compares a distance on the map to the equivalent
distance on the ground. For example: 1:1,000 is large scale as
compared to 1:1,000,000 which is small scale. Maps of scale larger
than 1:100,000 are arbitrarily defined as large scale.
scale error--The difference between the given and actual scale on the
projection or map. When referred to the sea-level surface of the
earth, it is the result of the projection distortion. When referred
to the actual ground distance, it includes the combined effects of
elevation reduction and projection distortion and is referred to as
"combined scale error".
Scale Factor Mapping— The term applied to the process of fitting a

defined projection to a particular portion of the earth's surface
by altering.the central scale factor.
subzone— The term applied to the extent of a particular projection

that has been created through the process of Scale Factor Mapping,
and which does not fully cover any one zone within a region.
zone— The extent of a TM projection as defined only by its central

meridian. Changes in central scale factor do not alter zone
designation. The term is also applied to the extent of defined
Lambert or stereographic projections.
79
APPENDIX B
LISTING BY COUNTRY, AGENCY, AND NAME OF CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS PAPER
The following listed agencies and individuals either answered
a detailed questionnaire relative to the subject matter, or other
wise provided assistance in the form of comments or consultations.
1. Australia.
Division of National Mapping.
Mr. A. G. Bomford.
2. Canada.
Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Mr. S. G. Gamble.
Mr. J. E. Lilly.
3 o Germany.
Institute fur Angewante Geodasie, Frankfurt on Main.
4. Great Britain.
Directorate of Overseas Surveys.
Mr. J. W. Wright,
University College of Swansea.
Dr. D. H. Maling.
Brigadier G. Bomford.
Mr. Hume F. Rainsford.
5. Netherlands.
Technische Hogeschool, Laboratorium Voor Geodesie, Delft.
Professor G. F. Witt.
6. Norway.
Forsvarets Karttjeneste Festingen, Oslo.
Colonel J. Schive.
7. Switzerland.
Eidg. Technische Hochshule, Institut fur Geodasie und
Photogrammetrie, Zurich.
Dr. Hans Odermatt.
80
APPENDIX B (Continued)
8. United States
Air Force
SM Sgt. Thaddeus Vincenty
American Geophysical Union
Mr. Floyd Hough
Array Map Service
Numerous officials and technicians
Bureau of Public Roads
Mr. William Pryor
Coast and Geodetic Survey
Brigadier Martin Hotine
Mr. Lansing Simmons
Mr. Erwin Schmid
Mr. Douglas H. Benson
Geological Survey
Mr. H. D. Walker
Mr. W. A. Radlinski
Mr. Ralph M. Berry
Mr. Nathan Resnick
Ohio State University, Department of Geodetic Science
Dr. Ivan Mueller (Adviser)
Dr. Richard Rapp
Dr. Arthur Brandenberger
Dr. Urho Uotila
Dr. Weikko Heiskanen
Dr, Simo H. Laurila
Dr. Sanjib K. Ghosh
81
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL PROJECTIONS IN USE BY VARIOUS COUNTRIES
The following tabulation is based on data provided by the U« S. Army

Map Service in January 1965.
Countries are listed by category according to the projection which

carries the most aiuthoritative and general use within the country. In
most countries secondary projections and grid references also exist.
Category I - UTM: Universal Transverse Mercator Projection and Grid (6° Zones)
Arabian Peninsula Guatemala Nicaragua
Bechuanaland Haiti Norway
Belgium Honduras Panama
Bolivia Hong Kong Philippines
Brazil Iceland Republic of South Africa
Cambodia Iran Rhodesia (South Rhodesia)
Cameroon Iraq Sierra Leone
Cyprus Italy Sweden
Denmark Japan Syria
Ecuador Jordan Taiwan
Ethiopia Kenya Tanzania (Tanganyika)
French Somaliland Korea Thailand
Former French Laos Togo
Equatorial Africa5^ Libya Turkey
Former Frenchjijl Luxembourg Uganda
West Africa^ Malawi (Nyasaland) Venezuela
Gambia Mexico Peru
Greece Netherlands Vietnam
Greenland New Guinea Zambia (North Rhodesia)
# Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Central African Republic, Gabon
Dahomey, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Mali, Mauritania, Senagal
* ** *
Category II - Unified (USSR): Gauss - Kruger (Transverse Mercator)

Projection and Grid of the Soviet Bloc (6° Zones)_________________________
China (Continental) Soviet Block (USSR and Satellites)
Mongolia Soviet Zone of Occupation (East Germany)
82
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Category III - TM (Other than 6° Zones): Transverse Mercator Projections

of Various Widths Which Do Not Fall in Either Category I or II________ ,
Argentina Chile Nigeria
Australia Colombia Paraguay
Austria Federal Republic of Sudan
Basutoland Germany (West Germany) Swaziland
British Isles Finland United Arab Republic
Ceylon Ghana (Egypt)
New Zealand Yugoslavia
* ** *
Category IV - Lambert: Lambert Conformat~Conic Projection (Zones of

Various Widths )______
Algeria France Morocco
Burma India Pakistan
Costa Rica Lebanon Spain
* ** *
Category V - Oblique Mercator: SkewOrthomorphic, Laborde, and Bonne

(Swiss) Projections, All of Which Are Conformal Oblique Projections
Malagasy Republic Switzerland
Malaysia
Category VI - Unclassified: Countries Either Use None of the Standard Pro

jections or Else Use Several - None of Which May Be Considered as Principal
Angola Indonesia Somali Republic
Antarctica Israel Spanish Sahara
Burundi Mozambique Southwest Africa
Canada Portugal United States of America
Democratic Republic Rwanda Uruguay
of the Congo
83
APPENDIX D
SELECTED ELEVATION DATA OF THE WORLD
This Appendix is a tabulation of elevation data in various forms
as follows:
Table 7 Mean Elevations of the Continents
Table 8 Elevation Breakdown of Continents based on the

1,000 meter contour
Elevation eakdown by Selected Countries as follows:
Table 9 USSR
Table 10 China (Continental)
Table 11 Conterminous United States
Table 12 Alaska
Table 13 Hawaii
Table 7, Mean Elevations of the Continents
Continent Area (Km^) Mean Elevation (m)

Europe 10,000,000 340
Asia 44,200,000 960
Africa 29,800,000 750
North America 24,100,000 720
South America 17,800,000 590
Antarctica 14,200,000 2,250
Australia 8,900*000 340
Source: Landolt - Bornstein

Zahlenwerte und Funktionen (35)
84
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Table 8. Elevation Breakdown by Continents Based on the 1,000 Meter Contour

Area below Area above
Continent 1,000 meter contour 1,000 meter contour
Africa 60% 40%

Antarctica 10% 90%
Asia 77% 23%
Europe 88% 12%
Greenland 33% 67%
North America 82% 18%
South America 70% 30%
Source: Small scale map analysis by Army Map Service
ELEVATION BREAKDOWN BY SELECTED COUNTRIES
Table 9. Elevation Breakdown, USSR

Elevation Area Percent
increment in of land
in meters Km2 area
-200 - 0 692 0.005
0 - 200 6,849,336 49.5
200 - 1000 6,282,017 45.4
1000 - 2000 502,285 3.63
2000 - 5000 202,021 1.46
5000 - + 692 0.005
Total 13,837,043 100.00
Source: Brief relief study by the Army Map Service
85
Table 10. Elevation Breakdown, China (Continental)

Elevation Land area Percent
increments in square of land
in meters miles area
0 - 500 888,000 24
500 - 1000 407,000 11
1000 - 2000 1,036,000 28
2000 - 4000 259,000 7
over 4000 1,110,000 30
Total 3,700,000 100
Source: National Atlas of China, Vol. V, Topographic Map (A 4),

published by The National War College, Taipei, Taiwan, 1962
Table 11. Elevation Breakdown, Conterminous United States

(Area: 2,974,726 square miles, land area)
in feet miles area
0- 1,000 892,418 30.0
1,000- 2,000 892,418 30.0
2,000- 3,000 446,209 15.0
3,000- 4,000 297,473 10.0
4,000- 5,000 118,989 4.0
5,000- 6,000 118,989 4.0
6,000- 7,000 89,242 3.0
7,000- 8,000 59,495 2.0
8,000- 9,000 29,747 1.0
9,000-10,000 14,874 0.5
10,000-11,000 7,436 0.25
11,000-12,000 7,436 0.25
Total 2,974,726 100.00
Source: Study by U. S. Geological Survey
86
Table 12. Elevation Breakdown, Alaska

(Area: 571,065 square miles, land area)

in feet mi les area
0- 1,000 228,426 40.0

1,000- 2,000 171,319 30.0
2,000- 3,000 114,214 20.0
3,000- 4,000 34,264 6.0
4,000- 5,000 11,422 2.0
5,000- 6,000 5,710 1.0
6,000- 7,000 2,285 0.4
7,000- 8,000 1,142 0.2
8,000- 9,000 1,142 0.2
9,000-10,000 571 0.1
10,000-11,000 285 0.05
11,000-12,000 285 0.05
Total 571,065 100.00
Table 13. Elevation Breakdown,, Hawaii

(Area: 5,404 square miles, land area)
in feet miles area
0- 1,000 2,242 35.0
1,000- 2,000 1,922 30.0
2,000- 3,000 640 10.0
3,000- 4,000 640 10.0
4,000- 5,000 256 4.0
5,000- 6,030 192 3.0
6,000- 7,000 192 3.0
7,000- 8,000 128 2.0
8,000- 9,000 64 1.0
••*£000-10,000 64 1.0
10,000-11,000 32 0.5
11,000-12,000 32 0.5
Total 6,404 100.0
87
APPENDIX E
TABULATION OF POLAR DISTANCE (r) AND SCALE FACTOR (k) ON THE POLAR
STEREOGRAPHIC PROJECTION
Tables 14 and 15 are listings of rand k based on 10' intervals of lati>
tude (0) from 59° 30' to 90°, using the International Ellipsoid. These
tables were made on a Bendix G-15 digital computer of the U. S. Army Map
Service.
Formulas used were those common to this projection which may be
found in several basic texts (33,55). In series form the formula for polar
distance is:
r * (i! ..>i p + 12(1*- I n 9 <l-7e8) 1,8 etc-
and k - gvTT- ea sln§~g

a cos 0
where
r “ polar distance on projection
Hd “ scale factor at the pole (CSF)
e *»first eccentricity, e® ® 2f • f8 (f ■ flattening)
a = semi-major axis
p = geodetic colatitude
k = scale factor at point on projection
On page 8 of TM5-241-9 (19) the coefficients for the r formula have been
evaluated on the International ellipsoid using 1% «* 0.994. Since the
series form for r is basically that of the tangent, these coefficients
88
APPENDIX E (Continued)
follow a distinct pattern. Although only the coefficients through {f1
are given in the referred to texts, the approximate value of the pA3
coefficient can be easily deduced. However, this term was derived by
Mr. Foster Walker of the U. S. Army Map Service and this deduction
verified. Using r in meters and pin radians, the coefficient for the
p13 term was determined to be 5.5 for ko ranging from 0.9700 to 1.0000.
Based on an accuracy requirement for r to ±.001 meters, the ^ 3
term is desirable for latitudes lesser than 70°. At 60° this term has
a value of about .0012 meters, whereas at 70° it is less than .0001.
In Tables 14 and 15 the p13 term was used only for latitudes from
59° 30' through 70° O'. In these tables the last digit has not been
rounded and therefore may be in error by a value of 1.
89
Table 14 POLAR DISTANCE (r) AND SCALE FACTOR (k), CSF=1.0000
Latitude r k Latitude r k Latitude r k
0 / o / O /
59 30 3486382>2988 1.0742582 69 50 2275219.5390 1.0316093 80 10 1100977.5483 1.0073992
59 40 3466443.0066 1.0734105 70 2256042.3278 1.0310785 80 20 1082230.9289 1.0071494
59 50 3446518.8893 1.0725684 70 10 2236874.5790 1.0305524 80 30 1063488.7358 1.0069039
60 3426609.8502 1.0717317 70 20 2217716.2071 1.0300311 80 40 1044750.8915 1.0066627
60 10 3406715.7887 1.0709005 70 30 2198567.1267 1.0295145 80 50 1026017.3181 1.0064259
60 20 3386836.6065 1.0700748 70 40 2179427.2528 1.0290027 81 1007287.9380 1.0061934
60 30 3366972.2017 1.0692545 70 50 2160296.5003 1.0284956 81 10 988562.6736 1.0069652
60 40 3347122.4786 1.0684397 71 2141174.7843 1.0279932 81 20 969841.4475 1.005/414
60 50 3327287.3377 1.0676303 71 10 2122062.0202 1.0274955 81 30 951124.1822 1.0055219
61 3307466.6811 1.0668263 71 20 2102958.1235 1.0270025 81 40 932410.8004 1.0153068
61 10 3287660.4108 1.0660277 71 30 2083863.0098 1.0265142 81 50 913701.2248 1.0050959
61 20 3267868.4293 1.0652345 71 40 2064776.5950 1.0260306 82 894995.C782 1.0048894
61 30 3248090.6393 1.0644467 71 50 2045698.7951 1.0255516 82 10 876293.1834 1.00468/2
61 40 3228326.9437 1.0636642 72 2026629.5262 1.0250773 82 20 857594.5634 1.0044893
61 50 3208577.2460 1.0628870 72 10 2007568.7045 1.0246076 82 30 838899.4411 1.0042956
62 3188841.4495 1.0621152 72 20 1988516.2466 1.0241426 82 40 820207.7395 1.0041063
62 10 3169119.4581 1.0613487 72 30 1969472.0691 1.0236823 82 50 801519.3819 1.0039213
62 20 3149411.1758 1.0S0S875 72 40 1950436.0886 1.0232265 83 782834.2913 1.003/406
62 30 3129716.5071 1.0698315 72 50 1931408.2221 1.0227754 83 10 764152.3910 1.0035642
62 40 3110035*3564 1.0590809 73 1912388.3867 1.0223289 83 20 745473.6042 1.0033921
62 50 3090367.6286 1.0683355 73 10 1893376.4996 1.0218871 83 30 726797.8543 1.0032242
63 3070713.2288 1.0675963 73 20 1874372.4780 1.0214498 83 40 708125.0647 1.0030607
63 10 3051072.0624 1.0668603 73 30 1855376.2395 1.0210171 83 50 689455.1588 1.0029014
63 20 3031444.0350 1.0561306 73 40 1836387.7017 1.0205890 84 670788.0601 1.0027464
63 30 3011829.0524 1.0654061 73 50 1817406./824 1.0201655 84 10 652123.6922 1.0025957
63 40 2992227.0208 1.0646868 74 1798433.3994 1.0197465 84 20 633461.9786 1.0024493
63 50 2972637.8465 1.0639726 74 10 1779467.4709 1.0193321 84 30 614802. 8430 1.0023071
64 2953061.4361 1.0632636 74 20 1760508.9150 1.0189223 84 40 596146.2090 1.0021692
64 10 2933497.6965 1.0525597 74 30 1741557.6500 1.0185170 84 50 577492.0004 1.0020356
64 20 2913946.5346 1.0518610 74 40 1722613.5943 1.0181162 85 558840.1410 1.0019062
64 30 2894407.8580 1.0511675 74 50 1703676.6666 1.0177200 85 10 540190.5545 1.0017811
64 40 2874881.5740 1.0604790 75 1684746.7855 1.0173283 85 20 521543.1649 1.0016602
64 50 2855367.5906 1.0497956 75 10 1665323.8698 1.0169412 85 30 502897.8959 1.0015436
65 2835865.8157 1.0491173 75 20 1646907.8386 1.0165585 . 85 40 484254.6717 1.0014313
65 10 2816376.1576 1.0484441 75 30 1627998.6110 1.0161804 85 50 465613,4160 1.0013232
65 20 2796898.5247 1.0477760 75 40 1609096.1060 1.0158068 86 446974.0529 1.0012194
65 30 2777432.8259 1.0471129 75 50 1590200.2430 1.0154376 86 10 428336.5065 1.0011198
65 40 2757978.9699 1.0464548 76 1571310.9416 1.0150730 86 20 409700.7007 1.0010245
65 50 2738536.8660 1.0458018 76 10 1552428.1212 1.0147128 86 30 391066.5598 1.0009334
66 2719106.4236 1.0451538 76 20 1533551.7015 1.0143571 86 40 372434.0078 1.0008466
66 10 2699687.5523 1.0445108 76 30 1514681.6023 1.0140059 86 50 353802.9689 1.0007640
66 20 2680280.1618 1.0438728 76 40 1495817. 7436 1.013659! 87 335173.3672 1.0006856
66 30 2660884.1622 1.0432398 76 50 1476960.0454 1.0133169 87 10 316545.1270 1.0006115
66 40 2641499.4638 1.0426118 77 1458108.4278 1.0129790 87 20 297918.1725 1.0006417
66 50 2622125.9769 1.0419887 77 10 1439262.8110 1.0126456 87 30 279292.4279 1.0004761
67 2602763.6124 1.0413706 77 20 1420423.1154 1.0123167 87 40 260667.8176 1.0004147
67 10 2583412.2810 1.0407573 77 30 1401589.2615 1.0119922 87 50 242044.2658 1.0003575
67 20 2564071.8938 1.0401491 77 40 1332761.1698 1.0116721 88 223421.6969 1.0003046
67 30 2544742.3622 1.0396457 77 50 1363938.7610 1.0113564 88 10 204800.0350 1.0002560
67 40 2525423.5975 1.0389473 78 1345121.9558 1.0110452 88 20 186179.2048 1.0002115
67 50 2506115.5116 1.0383537 78 10 1326310.6752 1.0107384 88 30 167559.1303 1.0001713
68 2486818.0162 1.0377650 78 20 1307504.8400 1.0104360 88 40 148939./362 1.0001353
68 10 2467531.0235 1.0371813 78 30 1288/04.3714 1.0101380 88 50 130320.9466 1.0001036
68 20 2448254.4457 1.0366023 78 40 1269909.1906 1.0098444 89 111702.6881 1.0000761
68 30 2428988.1954 1.0360283 78 50 1251119.2187 1.0095552 89 10 93084,8790 1.0000528
68 40 2409732.1851 1.0354590 79 1232334.3772 1.0092704 89 20 74467.4498 1.0000338
68 50 2390486.3278 1.0348946 79 10 1213554.5874 1.0089899 89 30 55850.3229 1.0000190
69 2371250.5384 1.0343351 79 20 1194779./710 1.0087139 89 40 37233.4226 1.0000084
69 10 2352024.7243 1.0337803 79 30 1176009.8495 1.0084422 89 50 18616.6735 1.0000021
69 20 2332808.8048 1.0332304 79 40 1157244.7447 1.0081749 90 0.0000 1.0000000
69 30 2313602.6915 1.0326852 79 50 1138484.3782 1.0079120
69 40 2294406.2983 1.0321449 80 1119728.6721 1.0076534
Note: 1. Above tabulation is based on the International Ellipsoid.
2. The last digit in this table has not been rounded and may be in error by 1.
r and k Evaluated on the Polar Stereographic Projection Using CSF = 1.0000

90
Table 15 POLAR DISTANCE (r) AND SCALE FACTOR (k), CSF=0.9727691
Latitude r k Latitude r k Latitude r k
0 9 • / • i
59 30 3391444.9719 1.0450052 69 50 2213263.2632 1.0035176 80 10 1070996.9388 .9799868
59 40 3372048.6435 1.0441806 70 2194608.2647 1.0090013 80 20 1032760,8067 .9797238
59 50 3352667.0788 1.0433614 70 10 2175962.4710 1.0024895 80 30 1034528.9804 .9794850
60 3333300.1807 1.0425475 70 20 2157325.7988 1.0019824 80 40 1016301.3844 *9792504
60 10 3313947.8523 1.0417389 70 30 2138698.1652 1.0014799 80S ) 998077.9431 ,9798200
60 20 3294609.9972 1.040935/ 70 40 2120079.4872 1.0009820 81 979858.5809 .9787938
60 30 3273286.5189 1.0401378 70 50 2101469.6823 1.0004887 81 10 961643.2223 .9785719
60 40 3255977.3216 1.0393451 71 2082868.6678 1.0000000 81 20 943431.7920 .9783542
60 50 3236682.3095 1.0385578 71 10 2064276.3615 .9995159 81 30 925224.2147 .9781407
61 3217401.3871 1.0377757 71 20 2045692.6811 .9990363 81 40 907020.4152 .9779314
61 10 3198134.4594 1.0369988 71 30 2027117.5446 .9985613 81 SO 888820.3181 .9777263
61 20 3178881.4313 1.0382272 71 40 2008550.8700 .9980908 82 870623.8485 .9775253
61 30 3159642.2083 1.0354608 71 50 1989992.5758 .9976249 82 10 852430.9313 .9775286
61 40 3140416.6959 1.0346996 72 1971442.5802 .9971635 82 20 834241.4916 .9771361
61 50 3121204.8002 1.0339437 72 10 1952900.8019 .9967066 82 30 816055.4543 .9769478
62 3102006.4272 1.0331929 72 20 1934367.1596 .9962543 82 40 797872.7446 .9767636
62 10 3082821.4833 1.0324472 ■»2 30 1915841.5721 .9958065 82 30 779693.2878 .9765837
62 20 30S3649.8753 1.031706/ 72 40 1897323.9585 .9953832 83 761517.0090 .9764079
62 30 3044491.5101 1.0309714 72 50 1878814.2380 .9949243 83 10 743343.8336 .9762363
62 40 3025346.2948 1.0302411 73 1860312.3298 .9944900 83 20 725173.6870 .9760688
62 50 3006214.13/0 1.0295160 73 10 1841818.1534 .9940602 83 30 707006.4946 .9759055
63 298(7094.9442 1.0287960 73 20 1823331.6285 .9936348 83 40 688842.1619 .9757464
63 10 2967988.6244 1.0280811 73 30 1804852.6746 .9932139 83 50 670680.6743 .9755915
63 20 2948895.0858 1.0273712 73 40 1786381.2118 .9927974 84 652521.8976 .9754407
63 30 2929814.2369 1.0266664 73 50 1767917.1600 .9923854 84 10 634365.7771 .9752941
63 40 2910745.9862 1.0259667 74 1749460.4394 .9919779 84 20 616212.2388 .9751517
63 50 2891690.2427 1.0252720 74 10 1731010.9701 .9915748 84 30 598061.2082 .9750134
64 2872646.9156 1.0245823 74 20 1712568.6728 .9911761 84 40 579912.6112 .9748792
64 10 2853615.9142 1.0238976 74 30 1694133.4677 .9907818 84 50 561766.3735 .9747492
64 20 2834597.1481 1.0232179 74 40 1675705.2758 .9903920 85 543622.4210 .9746234
64 30 2815590.5272 1.0225432 74 50 1657284.0176 .9900066 85 10 525480.6795 .9745017
64 40 2/96595,9615 1.0218735 75 1638869.6142 .9896256 85 20 507341.0751 .9743841
64 50 2/77613.3614 1.0212087 75 10 1620461.9866 .9892489 85 30 489203.5336 .9742707
65 2758642.6374 1.0205489 75 20 1602061.0560 .9888767 85 40 471067.9811 ,9741614
65 10 2739683.7002 1.0198940 75 30 1583666.7436 .9885089 85 SO 452934.3436 ,9740563
65 20 2720736.4608 1.0192441 75 40 1565278.9708 .9881454 86 434802.5472 ,9739553
65 30 2701800.8304 1.0185991 75 50 1546897.6592 .9877863 86 10 416672.5179 .9738584
65 40 2682876.7206 1.0179589 76 1528522.7304 .9874316 86 20 398544.1819 .9737657
65 50 2663964.0426 1.0173237 76 10 1510154.1062 .9870813 86 30 380417.4654 .9736771
66 2645062.7086 1.0166933 76 20 1491791.7085 .9867353 86 40 362292.2946 ,9735926
66 10 2626172.631% 1.0160679 76 30 1473435.4591 .9863936 86 50 344168.5956 .9735123
66 20 2607293.7208 1.0154472 76 40 1455085.2803 .9860563 87 326046.2947 .9734361
66 30 2588425.8917 1.0148314 76 50 1436741.0941 .9857233 87 10 307925.3183 .9733640
66 40 2569569.0561 1.0142206 77 1418402.8230 .9853947 87 20 289805.5925 .9732960
66 SO 2550723.1267 1.0136144 .77 10 1400070.3893 .9850704 87 30 271687.0438 .9732322
67 2531888.0168 1.0130131 77 20 1381743.7156 .9847504 87 40 253569.5983 .9731725
67 10 2513083.6395 1.0124166 77 30 1363422.7245 *9844347 87 50 235453.1826 .9731169
67 20 2494249.9085 1.0118249 77 40 1345107.3386 .9641234 88 217337.7230 .9730654
67 30 2475446,7374 1.0112379 77 50 1326797.4809 .9838163 88 10 199223.1458 .9730181
67 40 2458654.0401 1.0106558 78 1308493.0743 .9835135 88 20 181109.3774 .9729749
67 50 2437871.7307 1.0100784 78 10 1290194.0418 .9832151 86 80 162996.3444 .9729358
68 2419099.7235 1.0095058 78 20 1271900.3085 .9829209 88 40 144883.9731 .9729008
S8 10 2400337.9329 1.0089379 78 30 1253611.7916 .9826310 88 50 126772.1899 .9728699
SB 20 2381586.2737 1.0083747 78 40 1235328.4204 .9823454 89 108660.9214 .9728431
68 30 2382844.6607 1.0078163 78 50 1217060.1164 .9820641 89 10 30550.0940 .9728205
68 40 2344113.0090 1.0072626 79 1198776.8030 .9817870 89 20 72439.6341 .9723020
68 50 2325391.2336 1.0087135 79 10 1180508.4038 .9815142 89 30 34329.4683 .9/37876
69 2305679.2502 1.0081692 79 20 1162244.8425 .9812457 89 40 382)9,5230 .9727773
69 10 2287976.9743 1.00SS296 79 30 1143986.0429 .9809814 89 50 18109.724/ .9737711
69 20 2269284.3215 1.0050946 79 40 1125731.928/ .9807214 90 o.oaoo .9727691
69 30 2250801.208) 1.0045643 79 50 1107482.4240 .9804656
69 40 2231927.5498 1.0040836 80 1089237.4526 .9802141
Note: 1. Above tabulation is based on the International Ellipsoid.
2. The last digit in this table has not been rounded and may be in error by 1.
r and k Evaluated on the Polar Stereographic Projection Using CSF = 0.9727691

91
APPENDIX F
APPLICATION OF THE GTM TO THE UNITED STATES
Present Status of Plane Coordinates and Mapping
As has been previously mentioned, the U. S. is unique with regards
to plane coordinates and large-scale mapping. The UTM grid is used
for military (and some civil) reference purposes, 1:250,000 scale
mapping and as ticks on practically all of the newer large-scale
standard series maps. A State Plane Coordinate or "state1'' system con
sisting of 126 zones has been designated by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic
Survey and is described in their publications (12, 13, 42). This system
has been adopted by many of the states and considerable local large
scale mapping is accomplished on this system. Several cities also
have their own local'projection and grid which is independent of the
state system. The large-scale maps of 1:24.000 and 1:62,500 being pro
duced by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) are also based on the state
system, although they still are noted (erroneously) as being on the
polyconic projection. Each sheet is practically free of scale error,
but discontinuities do occur at the numerous zone boundaries Involved.
Moreover, the UTM cannot be accurately superimposed on these sheets
without adjusting the grid to individual sheets. In theory this grid
will change continuously both in size and shape. Although the total
extent of the UTM grid scale change will only be in the order of 1:1,200,
it is a systematic error which cannot be neglected and still retain ac
cepted mapping standards (14). Both the UTM and state grid values have
92
APPENDIX F (Continued)
been established throughout the U. So, but neither system is generally
accepted for local use. In most cases property and engineering sur
veys are conducted on local arbitrary systems, even where the state
system has been legally adopted.
Criteria for Applying Plane Coordinates
There seems to be little argument as to the advantages of plane
coordinates, but certain conditions must be met before they can be
successfully applied. The principal conditions are as follows;
1. The net of monumented described control must be sufficiently
dense to allow the local surveyor to tie into it without excessive
effort or expense.
2. The control must be properly adjusted and must meet recog
nized accuracy standards.
3. Information on the control must be readily available and in
an understandable form.
4. The projection must either be relatively "error free" or the
surveyor must be trained to cope properly with elevation and projec
tion reductions.
5. The zones must be sufficiently large to permit plane survey
ing through sizeable areas without necessitating zone-to-zone trans
formations .
In the U. S. the five conditions above do not generally exist,
although they have been met in selected areas. The first four con
ditions can be met by vigorously applying the state system at all
levels. However, the final condition, which involves continuity, can

93
never be properly met with.the state system. The Eastern Seaboard
of the United States presents an excellent example. The coastal
strip from Washington, D. C., to Boston, Massachusetts, is a more
or less continuously built-up area or "megalopolis." In the state
system at least nine completely independent zones are involved
whereas one or two zones might adequately cover the same area.
Comparison of "State" and GTM Zones
Considering only the 48 conterminous states, the state system
involves 111 TM and Lambert zones, whereas only 10 GTM 6° zones are
required. If a central scale factor (CSF) of 0.9996 is used (UTM)
the maximum projection scale error would be slightly over ±1:2,500
for the GTM as compared to ±1:10,000 for the state system. However,
the ±1:2,500 scale error is in the same order as elevation scale
errors as was shown in Chapter VII. By applying Scale Factor Mapping
"error free" subzones can be fitted as required. A large urban area
lying near a GTM zone boundary might also justify a special zone in
the event a subzone of the 6° zone would prove too narrow. Alaska
is ideally suited for 6° or 12° GTM zones and because of its relation
ship to Canada, both should be on the same system. The state system
for Hawaii is already on TM projections, but with odd central meri
dians and CSF's (12), Hawaii could be left on these zones and treated
as an exception (such as the British Isles) or it could be put on the
same GTM system as the rest of Region 4 (see Figure 5, page 69).
94
3° Versus 6° Zones
Assuming TM mapping was accepted for the U. So, the problem
of zone spacing is bound to come up. Since the conterminous H, S.
extends in latitude from about 25° to 49°, the arguments in favor
of 3° zones are somewhat applicable. At 25° a 3° zone develops a
total scale difference of only about 3::10,000 as compared to 11:10,000
for the 6° zone. At 49° the difference is 1%:10,000 as compared to
6:10,000. Using the principle of Scale Factor Mapping, a single
subzone of ±1:10,000 scale error can be fitted clear across a 3°
zone practically anywhere in the U. S. where elevations are uniform.
The advantages of using only 10 (6°) as opposed to 20 (3°) basic
zones should be carefully weighed against the scale error advantages
of the 3° system. An analysis of how the metropolitan, and other
areas of intense surveying, lie with respect to the various central
meridians should also be made. If 3° zones were determined as
being best suited for the U. S., this would undoubtedly have an
effect on determining whether the basic world-wide system should
be based on 60 or 120 zones (page 54). It is believed that the
utilization of both 6° and 3° zones (Soviet Practice) should be
avoided for any one area insofar as possible.
Relationship of Reference System to Mapping
The state system is not a suitable basis for the general purpose
mapping of the U. S. It may serve local mapping needs but the zones
are small and stop on county and state boundaries rather than the
95
geographies on which the national map series are based. Until a
relatively broad-zoned system (such as the GTM) is introduced, the
national map series of 1:24,000 and 1:62,500 will undoubtedly conti
nue to be produced on the state projections. Once a 6° GTM system
were adopted, national and local large-scale mapping would probably
all transform to this system. The resulting advantages would be as
follows:
1. The maps would all be cast on the same projection with the
same geometric characteristics.
2. The grids would be truly uniform and accurate.
3. Map sheets would precisely fit together within any of the
broad zones (except for paper shrinkage and similar distortions).
It should be noted that this concept of broader-zoned mapping is
generally accepted and utilized outside the U. S.
Units of Measure and Map Scale
The U. S. is one of the few remaining countries of the world
that does not use the metric system. Unfortunately the metric system
retains the basic disadvantages of the decimal system in that ten is
not an even power of two. Nevertheless, the metric system is far
simpler than the British system and even England has converted its
plane coordinates to meters (45). In considering any change to another
reference system metric units should be fully considered. In the
metric system the present system of odd map scales within the U. S.
would have little meaning. Converting maps to a standard scale
series such as 1:10,000, 1:25,000, 1:50,000, 1:100,000, 1:250,000,
96
etc., would be a natural sequence even though a great deal of time
and money would be involved,, This matter has been previously dis
cussed by the author in some detail (14). Changing scales and hori
zontal reference to a metric system is relatively simple compared to
the problem of vertical reference conversion. Converting contours
from feet to meters is a formidable undertaking and the compromise
utilized by the British since World War II is worthy of consideration.
In the British system the horizontal reference grid is in meters but
vertical reference (contours) is retained in feet. In spite of the
apparent inconsistency of such a system it has worked quite well for
the British Isles and it might well be applied to the U. S. as an
interim measure. Until aircraft altimeters and altitude reporting
is converted to meters there is little chance of converting vertical
reference to meters— at least as far as general purpose mapping is
concerned.
Timing of Reference System Conversion
Assuming a decision to accept the GTM were made, the timing of
implementing such a move should be carefully considered. As a result
of modern geodetic measuring techniques (including the use of satel
lites) the geodetic nets of the U. S. are rapidly being improved, and
an overall readjustment of the system may well be justified within
the next few years. Such a readjustment should coincide with any
changes to the reference system. This same philosophy applies equally
to other countries which may face a reference system conversion. The
97
actual conversion would be a monumental task and would have to be
programmed over a good many years. Since it will affect all segments
of society, it would have to be a nationally-directed effort and
incidentally would require a very large digital computer effort.
In spite of the cost and effort involved the project should be imple
mented as soon as practicable. The lack of a uniform, generally
accepted plane coordinate reference system is a definite handicap to
any nation. Not only such basic fields as property ownership and
engineering are involved but other items like street addresses and
population analysis would be affected. The application of modern
computers requires statistical input data. Tying the national and
man-made features of the land to a uniform plane coordinate system
provides such a system. The variety and extent of the possible ap
plications are too varied and involved to cover in this paper. The
ultimate effects of using a reference and mapping system that is
universal has obviously international implications. It would facil
itate the analysis of various economic and social problems without
respect to the county, state, and national boundaries that limit the
systems now in use. '
98
APPENDIX G
DIGITAL COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR THE GENERALIZED TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION (GTM)
Computer programs designed for use with the GTM were developed at
Ohio State University (O.S.U.) during 1964.
The computer utilized was the International Business Machine (IBM)
7094 of O.S.U. Programming was done in the SCATRAN language developed
at O.S.U. Double precision, which permits the use of at least 16 signifi
cant figures, was utilized as necessary to insure desired accuracy.
Six programs with explanation sheets are submitted in this Appendix
as follows:
1. GTM "A" - Basic point and "t-T" data for central meridians based
on the IMW or UTM.
2. GTM "B" - Expanded point and line data of higher precision for
central meridians based on the IMW or UTM.
3. GTM "C" - Basic point and "t-T" data based on any central
meridian.
4. GTM "D" - Expanded point and line data of higher precision based
on any central meridian.
5. Inverse Solution, Transverse Mercator Projection. Calculation
of latitude, longitude, scale factor and meridian convergence from X and
Y coordinates.
6. Inverse Solution of the Geodesic on the Ellipsoid using Iterative
Equations of Rainsford. Calculations of length and azimuths of a geodesic
on the ellipsoid based on latitude and longitude of the end points.
99
APPENDIX G (Continued)
On each of the six above listed programs 12 test points were run
as follows:
Pt. 0 X
.1 25° N 7° E
2 26° N 8° E
3 70° N 17° E
4 71° N 20° E
5 83° N 3° E (Central Meridian)
6 84° N 6° E
7 83° N 9° E
8 84° N 12° E
9 83° N 15° E
10 84° N 18° E
11 83° N 21° E
12 84° N 30° E
Since the programs used are based on the semi-major axis ,ra'r and
the inverse flattening "l/f" ellipsoid parameters must be defined in
these terms. Such values for the various ellipsoids are as follows:
Table 16, Ellipsoid Parameters in Terms of Semi-Major Axis (a) and

_________ Inverse Flattening (l/f)
Name Where Used a (Meters) l/f Fn.
Airy British Isles 6,377,563.396 299.324964 l.:

Australian Australia 6,378,160.0 298.25
National(I.A.U)
Bessel East and Southeast Asia 6,377,397.155 299.152813 l
Clarke 1858 Australia 6,378,293.645 294.26
Clarke 1866 North America and Philippines 6,378,206.4 294.978698 l,:
Clarke 1880 South Africa 6,378,249.145 293.465
Everest India 6,377,276.3452 300.801700 l,:
Fisher Southeast Asia 6,378,155.0 298.3 3
International Other Areas 6,378,388.0 297.0
Krasovskii 1940 Soviet Bloc 6,378,245.0 298.3
1. l/f is derived from the relationship of a and b (semi-minor axis)
where f » * .
a
2. The foot to meter conversions used were those based on latest
information available to the U. S. Army Map Service.
3. The Fisher ellipsoid is tentatively scheduled to replace the Everest.
100
APPENDIX G (Continued)
Each of the six programs are covered in the following sequence;
first is the explanation sheet, next are several machine produced
sheets of statement listings which describe the actual program, and
lastly are the input and results for the examples given, also on
machine produced sheets. In the examples given the Clarke 1880
ellipsoid, central scale factor of 1.0000 and UTM (IMW) zone 31 with
a central meridian of 3° East was utilized. The first line corres
ponds to that used by Hotine (28) and A. G. Bomford (5).
No programs for direct zone-to-zone conversion were developed
although such conversion can be done indirectly through the Inverse
Solution (Appendix G-5). Suitable formulas for direct zone-to-zone
conversion are found in the work of Hristow (30, 31), Jordan (33),
and others (20). Programs for such conversion can be developed if
needed.
Formulas used were based on indicated accuracy. The basic TM
formulas appear in numerous references (30, 31, 33, 45, 49), but those
given in Thomas (55) were generally used, except for arc-to-chord cor
rection (t-T) and scale (k) for which the formulas of A. G. Bomford
and Rainsford (5) were utilized. The various series expansions were
tested on the computer to determine significance. As a general rule,
accuracy is maintained to at least one more digit than would be actually
used. X and E and Y and N are used interchangeably since both systems
are so well established for coordinate referencing.
101
APPENDIX G-l 12 February 1965
GTM "A"
GENERALIZED TRANSVERSE MERCATOR (GTM) PROJECTION AND GRID, PROGRAM A
1. Purpose. To calculate the X and Y plane coordinates, scale and con
vergence of points, and the t^ minus T^ and t2 minus T 2 corrections to
lines, derived from geodetic coordinates
2. Equations. Basic equation for X and Y are those given by Thomas,
USC&GS, sp. Publication No. 251, page 2 (55). Provision for the central
scale factor is inclqded. The meridian arc "S" was computed from for
mula 15 given in Jordan's Handbook, AMS translation, Vol. Ill, First Half,
page 68 (32). All terms involving the eccentricity "e" through the 8th
power were used.
Equation for convergence is also that given by Thomas on the top of
page 3 of the same reference publication (55).
Equations for scale and t minus T are those given by A. G. Bomford
in Article No. 125 of the Empire Survey Review, July 1962 (5). These
formulas appear to be simpler than those given by Thomas and in the case of
t minus T of a higher degree of accuracy. Basically the formulas are:

2
for tj minus T p
6RJ,! sin 1"
2 4
for scale at a point, m = mn 1 + -1— + ft...
u O n 2
2R2 O/.nl
24r 4
In above formulas N = Northings (Y) and E = Eastings (X) or distance from
central meridian.
102
APPENDIX 6-1 (Continued)
These equations otherwise utilize the notation of 6. Bomford*s
"Geodesy" (6) except that R and utilized is the mean radius of the
latitude of the point and of the mean latitude of the line respectively
rather than of the foot-point latitudes given by Bomford. Tests indi
cate that computing the foot-point latitude actually detracts from the
accuracy of the t minus T formula (6) and does not improve the scale
formula (m) sufficiently to warrant its inclusion.
Note: In A. G. Bomford's article (5) there is a typographical error
in the last term of the scale formula. It gives rather than R^ in
the denominator.
3. Statement Listing. See attached machine run. Note that program is
in double precision.
4. Functioning of the Program. See machine run. The program computes
the central meridian from the zone number. Zone numbers are defined by
central meridians and extend in even integers from 1 through 60. Zone 1
is centered on 177 vest longitude and each 6 degree interval is numbered
consecutively in an eastward direction. This coincides with the identi
fication system of the IMW and UTM. Only zones based on these 60 central
meridians can be used. This program will compute values at high lati
tudes; however, near 90° latitude the formulas do break down. Values
beyond the normal limit of 3° of longitude from the central meridian
can be computed but with decreasing accuracy.
5. Important Parameters, and their designation in the program,
follow.
103
APPENDIX G-l (Continued)
Name________________________ Name of Projection_____ _ _ _
EA Semi major axis
EFI Inverse flattening
Number of zone
KD Central scale factor
SI, LAD, LAM, FLAS, Geodetic coordinates of points - sign, degrees,

S2, LOD, LOM, FLOS minutes and seconds of latitude and sign,
degrees, minutes and secdnds of longitude.
LOZ Longitude of Central Meridian
KOUNT Point number
X, Y Plane coordinates
K Scale factor at point
S3, ND, NM, DS Convergence at point -sign, degrees, minutes and

seconds
TIMTI, T2MT2 The ti minus Tj and t£ minus T2 corrections for a

line is based on the two points between which
these values print out.
6. Input Format.
Card No. 1 - Name, EA, EFI, NOZ, KD (L6, DF12.4, DF10.6, 12, DF8.6)
Card No. 2 - SI, LAD, LAM, FLAS, S2, LOD, LOM, FIDS (Ll, DI2, DI3, DF8.5,
LI, 2DI3, DF8.5)
Additional cards are same as No. 2. Final card has an asterisk (*) in SI,
the first field and digit, which stops program.
7. Output. As shown on machine run. Basic data and results are printed
on separate sheets.
8. Time. Compilation time was &2 minutes. Execution time for 148 points
was 0.3 minutes. Total time for 148 points (without a dump) was l-.O minutes.
104
APPENDIX G-l (Continued)
9. Accuracy. Program is designed to give X and Y values accurate to
the 4th decimal of a meter. Accuracy checks on scale indicate errors
of less than 1 part in 10,000,000 within a normal (6°) zone. Convergence
and t minus T corrections generally checked to the 3rd and 2nd decimal of
a second, respectively, within a normal (6°) zone.
10. Notes.
a. The X coordinate has a false easting of 500,000 on the central
meridian. For values south of the equator Y at the equator has a false
northing of 10,000,000.
b. West longitude positions must be read in with a negative sign as
must latitudes south of the equator.
c. This program was prepared by Alden Colvocoresses during 1964. It
utilizes procedures and formats, particularly related to double precision,
as were developed by Richard Rapp and Francis Hanigan.
105
APPENDIX 0-1 (continued)
IN
a
x
a
o
UJ
u. a
x
<
UJ
0.
X
< >?
K
UJ
<
fr-
A UJ
dJ
o *
-J
►AA a
a
X eg
-J
h* a
>• »
w I
a
N
X
Z
u
iA
O
o *
o UJ
IN
UJ
.FORflF,(SI,L&0,LAN,FLAS.S2.LOG.LOH.FLOS)-
l
a/>
a
iA £
O
i
A
a
•
OA
X
eg *
l/> a
<A < z• o
-j a XA *1%
z• I o
N 1* zL
o
Q*
XA I KOJ IA•
-.J*■ A tod ■zA Id
uA• «s s fr- M •
Q eg -
U.Jd1
- i 4 ►A U. a
o 10
3a U. -d UA I Z
X ZAI
i N
CL J • l > J
XAA «A 9
eAgo)
U
O •►• a
•AJ IN X A* o
a s UJ
a &
« *0
c! X•e*d A
S
oc </)It a s X• f*
1 N U J 4)
«
CO
y
5j m
tod
eH a
o a ff S
IN 5 s U. >.
J► a
1 O Qb dt I• S4 *Q
Jf
E oA
1» m •t
I J>*
I eHA <
-J •A ■•d A
z
Id
N S
a Jl i :s af*
■z
N
•
«■ eid ia a 4 >- < e -j
o m a A «
Ad
I < a. 4i>• «r « < S
t
Aod Q d *l
M I»
Xa VN
) -t
I Jx
A»*d
m
U. Id
•«N -• •.
j UJ
A -
A
X
Io
t
>0
• >d
A
A
XA a
in a. in a IN <N I o
id 3 — I CO
z l/l «■*>• — >• >•» M* INd frd u sI
zs o.
A
ord
f o
&'A
INPUT
o l/> Z -l Z z z C 3L
' eJg I *
zod XJ 5e
M g
1A
^ o
dda ©od o
t o
d d M • U eg
UJ s
Ad
t U I/) Wd
)>f> id
A AVd
) Z I IL o
z frd oJ *-*a * " i
AdA «N
d u.
iA I
Z) z
UJ fN
A
?
UJ < U u o U U uJ u < o u. S z 5 fr*
s o U
eJ UJ o X
READ
UJ U J <t H tod o
-.J z-* g X ac aeg A
< u * £ Q. & S J
e g U
3 4 X at
fr» 3 §
fr
«eJ
iz)
UJ
3
s’
CALC
s
UJ
u
et 0* o mi IN m * IA
OJ N IN IN M IN
106
APPENDIX G-1 (continued) ,
CD 9
N (>
V O N m
m m
* O
O' W% o
u> y j m *
in tfS a>
1C7
0S=< OH-NM)*60
.108
I APPENDIX
84 RM«A»DS0RT.(l.-E)/<l.-E*<DSlN.<FLAn.P.2)-
89 RH2=RM«RM- 7
88 K»K0«U.*XT*XT/2./RM2«-XT.P.4/24./RM2/RM2)- _ _ J.....
87 TRANSFER TO (V2> PROVIDED (KOUNT.G.l)-
0-1 (continued)
88 FLA1»FLA-
89 XT1=XT- _________________ _________
90 YT1=YT-
91 V2 RNl=A®DSQRT.(I.-E)/(l.-E*IDSIN.tFLAl)).P.2>- '
92 FLAM=(FLA+FLAl)/2.-_____________________________________________________________ ______ _________
93 RMM=A«OSQRT.Il.-E)/{I.-E*IDSIN.(FLAM)I.P.2»-
94 RMM2«RMM*RMH-
95 TlMTl=RH0S/6./RMH2*(YTl-YT)*12.*XTl*XT)»(l.-(2.«XTl+XT>.P.2/27./RMM2)- _________ _____
96 T2MT2=RHQS/6./RMM2«(YT-YTI)*{2.*XT*XTII«{l.-(2.*XT+XH» .P.2/27./RHM2)-
97 XT1=XT-
109
98 YTI=YT- '
99 X=500000.*XT-
XOO V4 TRANSFER (V5) PROVIDED IYT.L.OJ-
101 Y*YT- _____________________________________ _
102 TRANSFER (V7J-
X03 V5 Y=10000000.-YT- ‘
X04 V7 WRITE OUTPUT ,FORMD.(TINT1,T2HT21-______________________________________________ ________________
XOS F FORHO (XH ,98X,DF10.4,XX,DFX0.4)
X06 WRITE OUTPUT »FORME,(KOUNT,SI.LAO,LAN,FLAS,S2»LOOtLON,FLOS.X,Y,K,S3.ND,NM,OSJ- -
107 F FORME C1H ,2X,I3.2X.L1,12,2X,I2,2X,F8.5,2X,Ll,I3»2X,I2,2X,F8.5,2X,DFll.4,2X,DF12.4,2X.DFI0.8,2X*l,l_, 12,2X,12
,2X,F7.4>
108 FLAi=FLA-
X09 TRANSFER ICALC)-
110 V6 CALL SUBROUTINE ()=ENDJOB>()-
111 END PROGRAM (START)-
GENERALIZED TRANSVERSE MERCATOR REFERENCE SYSTEM (GTM) PROGRAM A
CLK80 ELLIPSOID A = 6378249.1450M l/F =293.465000
ZONE NO.31 CENTRAL SCALE FACTOR = 1.000000 CENTRAL MERIDIAN = 3DEGREES
RESULTS
. NO. LATITUDE LONGITUOE X Y SCALE CONVERGENCE TIMT1 T2MT2
D M s D M s METERS METERS D M S SECONDS SCCONDS

0.0000 0.0000
I +25 0 0.00000 + 7 0 0.00000 904023.8266 2771793.3022 1.0C201575 + 1 41 33.9737
-126.8999 136.2677
2 ♦26 0 0.00000 + 8 0 0.00000 000996.7749 2886199.1105 1.00309949 + 2 11 47.1678
-6384.3174 6506.9129
3 +70 0 0.00000 ♦ 17 0 0.00000 030555.9857 7830022.0261 1.00344357 +13 11 10.1610
-191.6799 200.8329
4 ♦ 71 0 0.00000 + 20 0 0.00000 110830.5553 7966759.3971 1.00456462 + 16 7 23.9167
-1284.1122 642..7073
5 +83 0 0.00000 + 3 0 0.00000 500000.0000 9219992.8449 1.00000000 + 0 0 -0.0000
-3.3092 6.6184
6 ♦84 0 0.00000 ♦ 6 0 0.00000 535011.1763 9332591.9716 1.00001497 ♦ 2 59 0.9437
13.7846 -1870155
7 ♦83 0 0.00000 + 9 0 0.00000 581529.4162 9224233.8870 1.00008116 + 5 57 20.1587
-25.9856 ... 28.2302
8 ♦84 0 0.00000 + 12 0 0.00000 604658.2239 9339872.2158 1.00013373 + 8 57 5.3919
32.1037 -37.0738
9 ♦83 0 0.00000 + 15 0 0.00000 662191.5237 9236914.6268 1.00032120 + 11 54 47.2302
-49.0416 '50.1244
10 +84 0 0.00000 + 13 0 0.00000 673182.6692 9354358.0356 1.00036619 + 14 55 17.4142
47.5500 -53.0451
11 ♦83 0 0.00000 V 21 0 0.00000 741126.0242 9257907.9822 1.00070995 + 17 52 27.8374
1 -96.5410 104.2436
12 +84 0 0.00000 V 30 0 0.00000 803931.2403 9404276.7422 1.00112798 +<26 52 22.4277
APPENDIX G-2 12 February 1965
GTM "B"
GENERALIZED TRANSVERSE MERCATOR (GTM) PROJECTION AND GRID, PROGRAM B
1. Purpose. To calculate point and line data on the Transverse Mercator
projection with high precision.
2. Equations.
a. X and Y formulas are those of Thomas (55) page 96 except that the
cos ^ 0 terms above T]2 are omitted. Meridian arc is based on Jordan (32)
using the eccentricity "e" through the 8th power.
b. Point Scale formula is that given by A. G. Bomford (5)
as follows:
E2 E4
m mg (1 + K + ErrorinBomford (5)
where m^ = central scale factor
E = Easting or projected distance (X) from the central meridian.
R = mean radius (\J SV ) based on the mean foot-point latitude
of the line (or point), s = meridian arc radius, V = prime vertical radius.
c. t - T formulas are those of Rainsford as published by A. G. Bomford.
The t^ - T^ ( Sis ) formula is as follows:
6 „ Q.ir, i" = (N1 “ N2) (2 Ei + E2) + (E^ - E2) (2 Ex + E2)2 e sin 0 ' cos
" 6 R32 9R33
(Ni - N2)(2Ei + E2) 4(2Ei + E2)2 ( 1 - 2 ecos20')

72R34
APPENDIX 0-2 (Continued)
where: R3 is the mean radius based on 1/3 (20^1 + 02')» indicating
foot-point latitude of point 1.
e ■
2 o r e2■= when e equals the first eccentricity and e' equals
e
l-ez
the second eccentricity.
0 '- (20^ + 02') ■1/3
<621 involves the symmetrically opposite form)

»2 - »i
d. Line bearing ■ arc tan --- ±--
y2 - yi
.1 2 2
e. Line length ■ \ (X2 - Xj) + (y2 - yj)
f. Line scale ■ m^ + ra^ + 4mm (Simpson's rule)

6 .
where m^, n^, and mm are point scales at point 1, 2, and mid point,
respectively.
x. + x2
(mid point corresponds to x = — ^— —)
g. Point convergence is formula 294 of Thomas, page 97.
3. Statement Listing )
) See attached machine run.
4. Functioning of the program )
5. Important Parameters. In addition to those given in GTM "A":
LNO Line number

S4, LD, IH, BS Bearing of line - sign, degrees, minutes, seconds
DIST Line length
SC Line scale
6 . Input. Same as GTM nAn .
7. Output. Seemachine run.
8 . Time. Compilation time is 0.3 minutes. Execution time for 100
points is 0.7 minutes.

112
APPENDIX G-2 (Continued)
9. Accuracy. Program is designed to give X and Y values accurate to
the 4 decimal of a meter even for broad zones at high latitudes. A point
at 84° 0 and 27° A away from the central meridian shows only a change of
1 in the fourth decimal of a meter (Y) when compared to coordinates based
on Thomas's longest formulas (page 96), and the meridian arc based on terms
through e^-0 showed no change on this same point. A positive check would
require comparison with formulas developed beyond the cos? 0 terms of
Thomas, Point scale is within 1:100,000,000 for the same point when com
pared to Thomas's longest formulas (301, page 99) and values given by
A. G. Bomford from Rainsford (5).
Convergence— -Accuracy unknown directly but as t - T values appear to
have high accuracy, comparison with the azimuth of a geodesic on the
ellipsoid and a chord on the projection indicate accuracy to the fourth
decimal of a second in the lower latitudes. Above 80° and at large A
from the central meridian convergence accuracy deteriorates rapidly.
Line bearing is considered accurate to four decimals of a second
except for short lines and those at very high latitude.
Line length is considered accurate to the fourth decimal of a meter
based on the indicated accuracies of X and Y.
Line scale shows accuracies to 1:100,000,000 for lines lying within
500,000 meters of the central meridian beyond which the accuracy rapidly
deteriorates. This check is based on comparing the chord length on the
projection to the geodesic on the ellipsoid.
113
t - T corrections are generally accurate to the third decimal of a
second within a normal 6° zone; above 80° and at large \ from the central
meridian this accuracy deteriorates rapidly.
10. Notes;
a. Where applicable, accuracy checks were made against the correspond
ing geodesic as computed by the O.S.U. Geodetic Departments Rainsford In
verse Solution program, S9.
b. The first line of the "Results" should be disregarded as line "0"
does not exist. The scale shown on this line happens to be that of the
first point but is of no significance.
c. This program was developed by Alden P. Colvocoresses during 1964.
Dr. Richard Rapp provided essential guidance.
114
SOURCE LANGUAGE STATEMENTS
APPENDIX
1 FLOATING (N,K,KO>-
2 INTEGERS (SI,S2,S3,S4)~
3 PRECISION (2,FLA,FLO,RMl,RHDD,FLZ,N,A,RHOS,S,TSQ,DSIN.,DCOS.,EFI,XT,YT,X,Y,DL,ETAS,C,EA.F.E,CPI,CA,C
G-2 (continued)
B,FRH,YPl,XPl»YPL,RH,DSQRT.)-
4 PRECISION (2,FLAS,FL0S,K0,SNFLA,CNFLA,SNFLA2,CNFLA2,E2,E4,0LXCN,TSQ2,0L2,DL4lETA4,XPll,XP12>XP13,XP2
»YPI1,VP12,YP13,YP14.YP2)—
5 PRECISION (2,LAO,LAM,LOD,LOM,RH2,RMP,RHP2,FLAP,FLAlP)-
-— ■■■■ PRECISION {2,FLAl,RMH,RHM2,FLAn,K,DD,ND,HN,DS>-
.7 PRECISION (2,T1MTI,T2MT2»XTI,YT1)—
8 PRECISION (2,SC,XTH,KH,K1)— 1
9 PRECISION (2,DATAN.,B,BD,BH,BS,OIST>-
,_i0 PRECISION (2,FLA3M,RM3M,RM3M2,TMT1,FLAPT,XTT,YTT>-
11 FLOATING (Ki.KM)-
12 START READ INPUT .FORMA,(NAME.EA,EFI.NOZ.KO)-
13.F FORMA (L6,0F12,4,DF10.6,I2.0F8.6I
14 TRANSFER TO (VI) PROVIDED (N0Z.G.3G)-
15 L0Z=-(6*(30-N0Z)+3)-
_16 TRANSFER TO (Vll)-
17 VI L0Z=6»N0Z-183-
18 Vll WRITE OUTPUT ,FORMS.(NAME.EA,EFI.NOZ.KC.LOZ)-
19 F FORMS (//2SX.64MGENERALIZEO TRANSVERSE MERCATOR REFERENCE SYSTEM (GTM) PROGRAM B
//2BX.L6.10H ELLIPSOID,5X.3HA =,DF13.4,1HM,5X,5H1/F «,DF10.6//20X,8HZONE NO.
>12 .5X.23HCENTRAL SCALE FACTOR * ,F8.6,5X,
19HCENTRAL MERIDIAN =,13, 7HDEGREES)-
20 HRITE OUTPUT ,F0RMB1— •
21 F F0RMB1 (///28X.42HINPUT IS LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF POINTS.//28X .S3HLINE NO.l REFERS TO THE STRAIGHT (CHOK
D) LINE BETUEEN/28X.33HP0INTS 1 AND 2 ON THE PROJECTION.)
22 WRITE OUTPUT ,FGRWB2-
23 F F0RMB2 (/28X,47HANGULAR UNITS ARE DEGREES, MINUTES AND SEC0N0S.//28X.Z4HL(NEAR UNITS ARE MCTERS.)-
24 HRITE OUTPUT ,FORMC-
25 F FORMC (1H1,55X,7HRESULTS)
26 F FORMF (L 1.D12,DI3,DF8.5,LI ,2DI3,DF8.51
APPENDIX
27 A=EA»KO-
28 RHODES?.2957795131—
. 29. RHOS=RHOD*3600.-
0-2 (continued)
30 F=1./EFI-
___ __31 E=F«(2.-F)-
32 K0UNT=0-
~ 33 CALC READ INPUT ,FORMF,(SI,LAD,LAM,FLASiS2,LOD,LOM,FLOS)-
2 34_ PROVIDED ISi.LQ.** $), TRANSFER JO CV6)-
35 K0U.NT=K0UNT + 1-
36 FLA«=l./RHOD*aAD+LAM/60.+FLAS/3600.)-
37 PROVIDED (Sl.LQ.S- S),FLA=-FLA-
38 FLO=1./RHOD*<LOD+LOM/60.+FLOS/3600.)-
_ ^ PROVIDED IS2.LQ.i- $)»FLO=—FLO—
FLZ=LOZ/RHOD- \
S\ 41 DL=FLO-FLZ-
~~~ 42 SNFLA=OSIN.(FLA)-
43 _ '. CNFLA=DCOS.(FLA>-
. M- SNFLA2=SNFLA»SNFLA-
45 ' CNFL A2=CNFLA*CNFLA-
46 .. ........ N=A/DSQRT.(1 .-E»SNFLA,2 )-
.Jrt E2=E*E-
.MZ"r ’ E4=E2*E2-
.4? CA=l.+.75*E+45.*E2/64.+175.*£*E2/256.+11025.*£4/16384.-
50 CB=.75*E+E2*I5./16.+E*E2*525./512.+E4*2205./2048.-
~~51 CC=E2*15./64•+E*E2*105./256.+£4*2205./4096.-
52 ........... CD=E*E2«35./512.+E4*315./2048.-
53 CE=E4*315./16 384»-
54 S=A*(1.-E)*(CA»FLA-CB/2.*DSIN.I 2.*FLA J+CC/4.«SIN.14.*FLA)-CD/6*SIN.16.*FLA)+CE/8.*SIN.(8.*FLA))—

APPENDIX G-2 (continued)
CP12=2.+^.«TSa+2.*TS02*lb.*ETASt35.«ETA4-*0.*TS(3»ETA4*33.»£TAA*£TAS-
ETAS=E/(l.-tJ»CMFLA2-
m
i AOihn>uc^ o
u >9m>«o0 * '
- >*0r y'
0 0j m
'0^ '
u
0 >0o r«o^}O
* - c o oN*fo^^fN^r^A^«*^*u^ai^<fO^h B
- cfk»^>QSaococo
oO'0-^<Mfn
U7
CPl3=-6C.»rSg®erA4»E:TAS + U.*=rA<i*ET4‘i-2<i.*TSQ*eTA4«eTA4-
i
APPENDIX 0 -2 (continued)
118
109 BM=(BD-LD»*60
:ePqiMfcC
144. TMT3=TMT3l*l TMT32+TMT33)
120
165 V6 CALL SUBROUTINE ()=ENDJOB.()
APPENDIX
generalized transverse mercator reference system igtmj program B
CLK8U ELLIPSOTD A = 6 3 7 8 2 4 9 . 1450M 1/F =293.463090
ZONE N O . 31 CENTRAL SCALC FACTOR = I.OCCJCO CENTRAL MERIDIAN = 3DEGREES
G-2
(continued)
INPUT IS LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF POINTS.
LINE NO.i REFERS TO THE STRAIGHT (CHORD) LINE BETWEEN

POINTS I ANO 2 ON THE PROJECTION.
ANGULAR UNITS ARE DEGREE S i MINUTES AND SECONDS.
LINEAR UNITS ARE METERS.

121
r ^ ...J
FORM NO. I4 H 4 .P R IN T © IN U S A .
' ! i ! I i ' : !'i I ; i I .
im \S> i u wn IA
o ©
m|! « i3! < I >0 .© ! —H O 1m g n ©
©
M g
o CO }© ig r- O © ■<<v in g © ©
o ;m g O'
100
.g g .o
O'
1 ■g c\ © g ©
g
in m
o :m ©■ jg; © © Jg• °3
-■ <n o © M g
*
© io:
«’
O
• i*
fO
|os
fOl m
«
o ,© © Q
4 «
h» m
•
©
• •
©
•
!m * :<N! © ;o ■r g g
©
I 1 !g in :«4
!
in N
g
o
—4
©
i
o; | O': M
g ; t i• U\ H
;m in
N
mi •
II ;
'-4: Jnj ’ li
IN
II
<V
' II
:IN 'Ol
it
o' Iin« j
;
M
a M
<N
H
M ©
It
M .©
, .© ■© , £ iH H !*4 © © © M
+. .x •♦ X. +• X * 1X ♦ +' • ♦! X ;g X ♦ X ♦ i
u! <<M M M M M N » '
1>i
h; ;M M M M it M It I
>
Z; j » © >
z
■Si *- 5
> © > © >
Z
in
O'
u l/>
O
O
! c
o WO ,i/» iu
1 °
©
i
U)
ill. l
z
o 1
z
o o
!«->i ©
21 © in ©
o ,g '■3 :o 1 0 © mi »
o .m © •o i f !2*
: g IM iifMl M in
g
g
!wa
*
o ■rg to !* i m ,IA i© 1© I ©1 ! O g m g © m N
o O' O'! O' O 'O' © in l 0* ;M : 0" o <« © g in g
•:
lln j
rg
m
1 • t •'
«ni
O'
g Iin im g
» lp4
© ©
• g
g
• g
o
<N g
g
© s i *4 M m g ©^ gj o
©
g
©
M
in M o : i -4 T m © i —4
:
N- © m •4 o o o o IO ©!
o
o
I o S I o o o o o O
It
*•4
© © w o o o H
-4 . •;
o ;«'
©i
°•1 9
-4
IO• j
'I
© -4, © 04- © © I ;
x II’ X II ii s n H If s a M H X Hi S' II
I X 9 1
U
m © m -4 O U PH U © © m* © © © -41 © © !©' © © i i i i
</i i- i/> v> I/I in © <A © ©i >- 0)
; !!
M m m 0* © ©: m: in
«N o © CO g* © N- g M © * m ©, M N
O CSi O' g* « in © m N N
fO
• «0
o
• o •
© O'
• g .© ©
•
m
g
h-
o
© \t
i©
§1 ii!
m m N O' O' M O g* <n o M ;m
o O' m IN O' in O' © ,o m -4 M !m 1
N
o
CM
O
o
o
, m
o >o
O'
O'
o
o
©
o
«n
g
o
o
O
O'
O'
© io; 1
SO ;
o o o © ,04 © o N O o m ©
O' M • M. N • !gi |
OJ K .O' -4 O' 'm O' !g © 1g
u; II M II U H, H H It M 'il H M iH: j
UJ UJ
mi
>• > UJ >. W > |IJJ. UJ
1 ! © iH I
o uIA< O'
<
u
<
u g* u
<
o © © >
3© 'ml
I© !gi ©
< j i
|m !
I
*
<N
*
©
VI
CO
iA M
©
o
o
m wn m
IN
wo
M
;«/»
M
V) ©,
g>
1
l/ t I 00’ © O' in o M m M i
V- I X « « ■ • x; 'X 1• :Z ' • s • 1
-J
©
jo
O
* g 'O in in o !© Ol O', o ® N iO 1 © N ©
o
fO O' <N in ,m IO O; !* IN, m -m ® M o m
1/7 O O
2 i
*1 O' © in ©• © IO 0*! •g mj g © M’ ?i ©© m M g .
UJ O
CO o (N o
l • © =M •4, © g - 4' N m
C£ » © ; *
:<=» ©| :g
o m 0 ;i*1©S«|
i°
©!
i© g • IO
©
■O' •©
H
| 0*'
'in :
1in .
!M.
'M l 2; i®| © g
©
00
Uj
k!
g
O'
H
X
•in
; eo Ik
; 0* Mi !8 *t
X
% 't i IL M
S( g
it
K
r l
X|
g g* 1 © m
O' I ©
o g* o o o o O' © Oi O
. II
X
s i
Ol
©
©
H o IM © o o 01 © § Oj 9 Ol
.© o
'X! o
© ijE o
o
©
o
©
o
O;
ro;
iil § o
o
S
©
o S
O'
: o I l o o: o o o 2,
O Ol
o
o
z ;Z « iZ 3
z *.
iuj 1 * 1 ]tu © © '5
ip, O o
•
UJ Oi '
4i
o Ol 1 i o o
il/> «/t ;V>: i/> in
o ,M I !M in m o
© 1O':
O, m © 'in: m ! g © i© ©
o
O
>© uv -f m '(4 M s s
o
i* :p4: © © g
© ■m leg ' ♦! Nf ♦ •Ni g; •4 4> m o ♦
•t f ii 1 *1 M « H • H 9 It
Z' x, z z: a z *• 8 in 8
iP i ;m o o o o, g 3 g O M o
>i ©; «j © ©
‘s !Xi 'X , z X 5
o io . j© «4 o m
Ml O ;M' Ol o ;-4 o *4 o M O © o
o
© o o j| o o o o
o ig ' ©! o ioi e o o a o o o
o '«©4!j ol g o in o m o
'♦I °
’S o« O' M o« o M o
'©H !♦ • t + ♦ , «
o II Q o it
!Z :i!
—4|
>o
z
:p4
&
z 4
z
o
§
o
&
Z
o
.
’© ‘ o «4 o •4 o 0* o © o
•OCj X © £
;< .g < < <
«*
3 g
IUJ
©
uj
©
UU m
© UJ g UJ m UJ m UJ g
© h»
+
!©; © © © © a a 09
♦ + ♦ <• ♦
W
M • H
K
s 9 9 ©
It
m i- © g © ©
i! < < < g © <
© © © © ©
• • • •
- io i o o o a a
3S; © t*> z z © 8 g z © 8 M
[UJ, © ©
UJ UJ UJ UJ uj
*1 • Zi • 8 • 8 • 2 # £ •
if» M f- m © m © M ©
a © a «J © o» P»
•I
122 -
GTM ”C"
GENERALIZED TRANSVERSE MERCATOR (GTM) PROJECTION AND GRID, PROGRAM C
This program is basically the same as GTM "A" except that zones
based on any central meridian may be used,^ It provides the same type
and accuracy of data as does GTM "A" but uses a different form of input.
Input.
Card No. 1 - Name, EA, EFI, NOZ, KD, LOZ (L6 , DF12.4, DF10.6, F10.5,
DF8 .6, F10.5)
Card No. 2, etc. - Same as for GTM "A"
Notes;
a. The above terms are defined in GTM "A".
b. In this program the zone number (NOZ) is forreference only and
is notused in the computations. The central meridian (LOZ) is the
critical item. It must be described in degrees withup to five decimal
digits.
#For accurate computations only those central meridians that can be
definitely expressed in five or fewer decimals of a degree can be
used. For other central meridians a slight modification to the program
must be made.
123
APPENDIX 0 .3 (continued)
oft NL
C • UJ A
o > x
'u4 Xft z Z UJ
ft n UJ o t-
o UJ
•4
a
ft4
a
Z
a —
1 z a
o* z
u
• X» *g ••u s •* u>
ft ft
X 0X
AftU Jl
ILft N
' •4 0• i
DlC X X
<6 P-
il &
Xft X 4
© •UJ
U • «»
4ft * 4 egaco UJ US
mlx
Ui ft ft*
SIL
V ftN
X 4u
O Jj
-
oft aX <0 • A UJ
A
4 •> O• ItA• z a
USs
No .-r<* •
I4
LXo «
O"• 4 *0
X ft
Uf Jt p
UfJt o *-U.
ftO ft CO x
» O'
*X M > 4
a * il Z VO
> of1t
- u
N.
»UJ4 z 4* X
» *4
U4J4 X •
X* <N Xno4 O- *s x
&
X
X i•»AftX -»4m•
>•
w e»
g O
13US -JU
fX XJ X X
z z
Xft uw(sZ . o »«
XZQf
ftft 0-*
Z*VZ- ftj
J4
ft
u.
U J Z
o •U oc
ft X Z
^ ^•UzNz •o
UJ X
I/I
• J
a
O
-Hm NmUuj a —
X *
o
o
• U.Xft a
£ N-X
Q
+ XO * “• c
UJ LU ft A o* X 4
z a
N US o x
Itf > 4
A X
«S
iti
^Xl/l •ft
UJ * »mo A
UX x *z O
*i x o
l/l . z 1 Ul • -«x o IL
No
ft
o
ft
•ft x a
I .UJ **
»<4U
UJ 4 A
ft
US N
A
a u. o
'X
ft O X G i
us -1 z
• I NJ U A
o X L
X-*ft
p •I
N
c
z
U»
z
X
•
•si
c
1 -J
ft X
Ml — a a >
p- X A o jm*
X
ft
A
ft
c
z ft
o
X
c ^
h- UJ
4 -*a
-j * z
*j
» o
<t
ft
<
ml a
ft o
X
<
NJ u z
ZXQ
co ^ o
eg w
A 1
z u. a ft mm o X o •
ft
NI |
z
u X
«» 1 Nd
o
US
•
z UJ -*
ft X •
X• X A
*\ V x
UJ
A
X
UJ •
•J •• ft • <4 z c MM <o 4 eg oo
< IL o
u. • X X N- ft o4 u. UJ «J •I— *4 A o
IL 2 u>
• No -J 1 1 < ■ > O* IL UJ A 4 a x * • « m
o ec
Oq
Il oft
Z eg X
•J
u. •4
» u.
UJ
f
t X X
uj a
ZMX in S X v
z A a a o ft tft ft
•o
•
<
UJ > <M
• < N- A
•I * oo •J 4
x o •> fs. X < 00 ft A \ H tftir t u.
* * o • ft X ft UJ U. UJ Z ■N £ -I a Q ** IL
•4 X X * a X eg ft a X < z x •*
S X
ne »
fto4 o
us a -J
X
ft
N-
X
UJ
X us
<
z
X
e*
n <o • —n*
ft 4 X
<
ml
«* ♦
•
ft*4 o > «» t ft O
X «M < x •* .* a ft* •o
1 o a ^ • X X z o f
t a ^ • eg A >•
I -j > il m X ft a UJ M * * ** X
1 fA u. * ft*4 •J ft -4 ft IL X fg v ** z *4 ft 0 4
Cl • md a a. * •4 No < ft X w* 0 U p 4 J US '
o ft o < a < > a X X o ml a ft. X ft • « 3f
X ni ml
ft
J X ml » < -1 ft* X © IL < il U A K IA
£
X a a
ft Aft u. *
fto4
u. eg •j 'IL tft o * X a •4 « A o •j <
X
z
ft ft4
A
ft
o
z
*
04
nj a
— >•
ftr4
eg x
** >
»
•
w
ft
eg rg eg
ft
mm
u.
«
O
*4
IL
N*
a
UJ
z
UJ
i/i k •
u j *a
oc * i
a
a
u.
a
*
s«o IL
•
•
•4 ft
A ♦
1
*
» a a a us X *4J«* • m -n 1 w N
z s Z -4 Z
a *4 c
z- z a N> x • No • *n a* ml a y o
© A © O X o a * a ^ o *Z x — <M & U. X a a 2
z X 2 ft*IL ** a ftn z • o A •* x uj oo a 1 i z* UJ o X
ftM
ft-
UJ
o
ft*
No
US ft
ft* s
A >
•* ft m
A A A
M
eg
•4 UJ X
4 IL
4
m o **
a ae « in
i
se IL
UJ
•
eg
o
H
M a
M4 a
X N.
«
X UJ < o O o o u a IL »• a « o V ** too a > p- *4
c >- a U) UJ UJ UJ UJ < a M A* 0 <
z X 's. a us 2 o z 0
ml
u. **
ft!
U- a
as
&
tc
&
X
&
X
a
UJ
X <o
_i
X
3 *v
**
x
3 UJ
0
4
sas u.
a
UJ
S
X
£
X
& 6
X
4
U.
as
£ w
*- O
(A IL
O
I S
u.
t9 9» (A m A
nj nj nj
124
FLO=1./RHOD«ILOD*LOH/6C.+FLOS/360C
125
XPl2*5.-10.eTSQ+TSQ.f>.2*14.*ETAS-58.*TSQ»ErAS-
126
RM=A*0S0RT.(!.-£)/(1.-E»<DSIN.(FLA>)
APPENDIX
R M 1 = A o D S Q R T . ( l.-E)/(l.-E»(DSIN.(FLA1II.P.2)
0-3 (eestfnuad)
127
GENERAL IZED TRANSVERSE MERCATOR REFERENCE SYSTEM (GTM) PROGRAM C
CLKBu ELLIPSOID A = 6378249.1459M l/F =293.465000
ZONE NO. 31.00000 CENTRAL SCALE FACTOR = l.OCGOCO CENTRAL HER IOI AN = 3.0000CDEGRCES
RESULTS
PT. NO. LATITUDE LONGITUDE SCALE CONVERGENCE TIMT1 T2MT2
D H s D N s METERS MCTERS D H S SECONDS SECONDS
o .o c o o C.CCOO
I *2 5 C 0 .0 0 0 0 0 ♦ 7 0 G.GOOCO 9 0 4 0 2 3 .8 2 6 6 2 7 7 1 7 9 3 .3C22 1 .0 0 2 0 1 5 7 5 ♦I 41 3 3 .9 7 3 7
-1 2 6 .8 9 9 9 136.2677
2 ♦2 6 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 ♦ 8 0 0.C03CC 0 0 0 9 9 6 .7 7 4 9 2 8 8 6 1 9 9 .1 1 0 5 1 .0 0 3 0 9 9 4 9 ♦ 2 11 4 7 .1 6 7 8
-6 3 8 4 .3 1 7 4 6536.9129
3 ♦70 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 ♦ 17 0 O.COOOO 0 3 0 5 5 5 .9 8 5 7 7 8 3 0 0 2 2 .C 2 6 1 1 .0 0 3 4 4 3 5 7 ♦ 13 11 1 0 .1 6 1 0
-1 9 1 .6 7 9 9 200.8329
4. ♦ 71 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 ♦ 20 0 0.CC9CG 1 1 0 8 3 0 .5 5 5 3 7 9 6 6 7 5 9 .3 9 7 1 1 .0 0 4 5 6 4 6 2 ♦ 16 7 . 2 3 .9 1 6 7
- 1 2 8 4 .1 1 2 2 642.7073
5 ♦83 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 ♦ 3 0 C.CCCOO 5000CC.0C0C 9 2 1 9 9 9 2 .8 4 4 9 1 .0 0 0 9 0 0 CO ♦0 0 -o .o o o c
-3 .3 0 9 2 6.6184
6 ♦84 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 ♦ 6 0 c .c c c c o 5 3 5 0 1 1 .1 7 6 3 9 3 3 2 5 9 1 .9 7 1 6 1 .0 0 0 0 1 4 9 7 ♦ 2 59 0 .9 4 3 7
. 1 3 .7 8 4 6 -18.0155
? ♦8 3 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 ♦ 9 0 C.COCOO 5 8 1 5 2 9 .4 1 6 2 9 2 2 4 2 3 3 .8 8 7 0 1 .0 0 C 3 8 1 1 6 ♦ 5 57 2 0 .1 5 8 7
-2 5 .9 8 5 6 28.2302
8 ♦84 0 o .c o o o o ♦ 12 0 c .c o o o o 6 0 4 6 5 8 .2 2 3 9 9 3 3 9 8 7 2 .2 1 5 8 1 .0 0 0 1 3 3 7 3 ♦ 8 57 5 .3 9 1 9
3 2 .1 0 3 7 -37.0738
9 ♦8 3 0 0.00000 ♦ 15 0 o .c o o o o 6 6 2 1 9 1 .5 2 3 7 9 2 3 6 9 1 4 .6 2 6 8 1 .0 0 0 3 2 1 2 0 ♦11 54 4 7 .2 3 0 2
-4 9 .0 4 1 6 50.1244
10 ♦84 0 0.00000 + 18 c c .o o c o o 6 7 3 1 8 2 .6 6 9 2 9 3 5 4 3 5 8 .0 3 5 6 1 .0 0 0 3 6 6 1 9 ♦1 4 55 1 7 .4 1 4 2
4 7 .5 5 0 0 -53.0451
11 ♦8 3 0 o.coooo ♦ 21 0 c.coooo 7 4 1 1 2 6 .0 2 4 2 9 2 5 7 9 0 7 .9 8 2 2 1 .0 C S 7099S ♦1 7 52 2 7 .8 3 7 4
-9 6 .5 4 1 0 104.2436
12 ♦84 0 o .c o o o o ♦ 30 0 c .c c o c o 8 0 3 9 3 1 .2 4 0 3 9 4 0 4 2 7 6 .7 4 2 2 1 .0 0 1 1 2 7 9 8 ♦2 6 52 2 2 .4 2 7 7
GTM "D"
GENERALIZED TRANSVERSE MERCATOR (GTM) PROJECTION AND GRID, PROGRAM D
This program is basically the same as GTM "B" except that zones
based on any central meridian may be used. It provides the same type
and accuracy of data as does GTM "B" but uses the input format of GTM "C".
129
APPENDIX
1 FLOATING IN,K,KO>-
2 FLOATING (NOZ.LOZ)-
3 INTEGERS CS1,S2,S3,S4>-
0-4 (eonli.
4 PRECISION (2,FLA,FLO,RMl,RHOD,FLZ,N,A,RHOS,S,TSQ,DSIN.,DCOS.,EFI,XT,YT,X,Y,DL,ETAS.C,£A,F,E,CPI,CA,C
B,FRM,YPl,XPl,YPl,RM,DSORT.>-
5 PRECISION I2»FLAS,FLaS,K0,SNFLA,CNFLA,SNFLA2,CNFLA2,EZ,e4,0LXCN,TSQ2,DL2,DL4,ETA4,XPil,XP12,¥P13fXP2
,YPli,YP12,YPl3,YP14,YP2)-
6 PRECISION (2,LAD,LAM,L0D,L0M,RM2,RMP,RMP2,FLAP,FLA1P)-
7 PRECISION (2,FLAl,RMM,RMM2,FLAM,K,OD,ND,MN,DS>-
6 PRECISION {2.T1MT1,T2MT2»XT1,YT1)—
9 PRECISION 12,SC,XTM,fCH,Kl)—
10 PRECISION (2,DATAN.,B,8D,BM,BS,DIST)-
11 PRECISION 12.FLA3M,RM3HfRM3M2,TMTl,FLAPT,XTT,VTT)-
12 FLOATING (KltKMI-
I-*
g 13 START READ INPUT .FORMA,(NAME,EA.EFI,NOZ,KOtLOZJ-
14 F FORMA (L6,DF12.4,DF10.6 ,Fl0.5,DF8.b,FlG.5>
15 WRITE OUTPUT ,FORMB,(NAME,EA.EFI,NOZ,KC,LOZ)-
16 F FORMS (//28X,64HGENERALIZED TRANSVERSE MERCATOR REFERENCE SYSTEM IGTM) PROGRAM 0
//28X,L6,10H ELLIPSOID,5X.3HA >,DF13.4,1HM,5X,5H1/F =.DF1C.6//20X,8HZ0NE NO.
,F10.5 ,5X,23HCENTRAL SCALE FACTOR = ,F8.6,5X,
19HCENTRAL MERIDIAN =,F1C.5,7HDEGREES)-____
17 WRITE OUTPUT ,F0RMB1—
18 F F0RMB1 I///28X »42HINPUT IS LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF POINTS.//2SX ,53HLINE NO. 1 REFERS TO THE STRaT ghT T c h OR
DJ LINE 8ETMEEN/28X,33HP0INTS 1 AND 2 ON THE PROJECTION.)
19 WRITE OUTPUT ,F0RHB2- ^
20 F F0RM82 I/28X.47HANGULAR UNITS ARE OEGREES, MINUTES AND SECONDS.//28X.24HLINEAR UNITS ARE M E T E R S . ___
21 WRITE OUTPUT .FORMC-
22 F FORHC (1H1,55X,7HRESULTS) - ~ ~
23 F FORMF fL1,0I2,DI3,DF8.5«L1,2DI3,DF8.5) - .1_____
24 A=EA«KO-
25 RH0D*57.2957795131- "
131
132
ODATAN. (CPH-CP2*CP3)-
APPENDIX 0 *4 (conttauad)
133
111 DIST=DSQRT•((XT-XT1)*(XT-XT1)♦(YT-YT1)*{YT-YT1))-
113 FLA1P*FLA1+0SIN»(FLA1J/0COS.(FLAi)/2*/RMl/AMl»XTl«XTl
134
142. T2MT2=TMT1+TMT2+TMT3-
APPENDIX
143 XTM=(XT«-XTl)/2.~
;144 FLAM=(FLAP*FLAlP)/2.-
145 RMH=A»DS0RT.(l.-E)/ll.-E*(DSIN.(FLAMn.P.2)-
G-4 (continued)
146 RMM2=RMH«RMM-
147 KM=KO»<1.4XTM»XTM/2./RMM2*XTM.P.4/24./RMM2/RHM2)-
148 SC=(K*Kl»4.«KM)/6.-
149 K1*K-
150 X«500000.*XT1-
151 V4 TRANSFER (V5) PROVIDED (YTl.L.O)-
152 Y=YT1-
W 153 TRANSFER (V7)-
154 V5 V=10000000.-YT1-
155 V7 LN0=K0UNT-1.~
156 . WRITE OUTPUT ,FORMD,(LN0.S4,LD,LM,BS,DIST,SC,T1MT1,T2MT2)-
157 F FORMD (1H0.8HLINE NO.,13,2X,8HBEAR1NG=,L1,12,1HD,13,1HM.DF9.5,1HS,2X,7HLENGTH=,DF12.4,1HM,2X,6HSCALE=,DF11.9
,3X«6HT1MTI=DF10.4,1HS,2X,6HT2MT2=,DF10.4,1HS) - __
158 WRITE OUTPUT .FORME,(KOUNT,SI,LAD,LAM,FLAS,S2,LOD.LOM,FLOS,X,Y,K,S3,ND,NM,DS>-
159 F FORME IIHO,3HPT.,13,2X,4HLAT=,L1,12,13,1X,F8.5,2X,4HL0N=,L1,13,13,IX,F8.5,2X,2HX=,DF12-4,2X,2HY=,DF12.4,2X,3
HSC-.DF11.9,2X,5HC0NV=,L1,12,13,IX,F7.4) -
160 FLA1=FLA- “
161 TRANSFER ICALC 1-
162 V6 CALL SUBROUTINE I)=ENDJOB.{)-
APPENDIX
GENERALIZED TRANSVERSE MERCATOR REFERENCE SVSTEM (GTM) PROGRAM D
CLK60 ELLIPSOID A = 63782A9.1450H l/F *293.A6SC0G
ZONE NO. 31.00000 CENTRAL SCALE FACTOR = I.000000 CENTRAL MERIOIAN = 3.0000CUEGREES
0-4 (coRtinuod)f
INPUT IS LATITUDE AND LQNGITUOE OF POINTS.
LINE NO.I REFERS TO THE STRAIGHT CCHORDJ LINE BETWEEN

POINTS 1 AND 2 ON THE PROJECTION.
ANGULAR UNITS ARE DEGREES) MINUTES AND SECONDS.
LINEAR UNITS ARE METERS.
U
0*
RESULTS
APPENDIX
LINE NO. 0 BEARING** OO OM O.OOOOOS LENGTH* O.OOOOM SCALE=1.002015725 T1MT1= O.OOOOS T2MT2= O.OOOOS
PT. 1 LAT**25 0 0.00000 LON=+ 7 0 0.00000 X* 90*023.8266 Y=2771793.3022 SC=1.002015725 C3NV=* 1 *1 33.9737
LINE NO. 1 BEAR1NG»**0D 17M 7.30962S LENGTH* 1*997*.803*M SCALE=1.002538221 T1MT1* -126.923*5 T2MT2* 136.337*S
0-4 (continued)
PT. 2 LAT**26 0 0.00000 LON=+ 8 0 0.00000 X=1000996.77*9 Y=2886199.1105 SC*1.003099*35 CQNV=+ 2 11 *7.1678
LINE NO. 2 BEARING** 00 20M 33.2*658S LENGTH=*9*3911.2826M SCALE=1.003269658 T1HT1=-6715.9681S T2HT2* 6820.933*S
PT. 3 LAT»*70 0 0.00000 LON** 17 0 0.00000 X*1030555.9879 Y=7830022.0263 SC=1.003**3291 C0NV=*13 11 10.1*8*
LINE NO. 3 BEARING=+30D 2*M 57.*8636S LENGTH* 158559.5035M SCALE=1.003990551 T1MT1* -191.6800S T2MT2* 200.8976S
PT. * LAT*+71 0 0.00000 LON=+ 20 0 0.00000 X=1110830.562* Y=7966759.3981 SC=1.00*56*11* C0NV=+16. 7 23,8446.
LINE NO. * BEARlNG=-250 59M 5.18365S LENGTH*!39*169.30*0H SCALE*1.001520*15 T1HT1*-1288.9570S T2MT2* 6*3.9*71S
PT. 5 LAT=*83 0 0.00000 LON** 3 0 0.00000 X* 500000.0000 Y=9219992.8**9 SC=1.C0000000C CDNV.= + 0 0 -0.1)066
UJ LINE NO. 5 BEAR1NG=*170 16H 20.55125S LENGTH* 117916.6900M SCALE=1.00000*988 T1HT1* -3.3093S T2HT2* 6.6185S
■vl
PT. 6 LAT?*8* 0 0.00000 LON=+ 6 0 0.00000 X* 535011.1763 Y=9332591.9716 SC=1.00001*965 CONV=* 2 59 0.9*37
LINE NO. 6 BEAR1NG*-23D 1*N 2.035*6S LENGTH* 117921.2*97M SCALE*1.0000*3657 T1MT1* 13.78*6S T2MT2* -18.0161S
PT. 7 LAT»*83 0 0.00000 LON=* 9 0 0.00000 X* 581529.*162 Y=922*233.8870 SC=1.000081157 CDNV=* 5 57 20.1587
LINE NO. 7 BEARING**!10 18M 37.71552S LENGTH* 117928.6*30H SCALE=1.00010635* T1MT1* -25.9863S T2MT2* 28.23lOS
PT. 8 LAT**8* 0 0.00000 LON=+ 12 0 0.00000 X* 60*658.2239 Y=9339872.2158 SC=1.000133728 CONV=* 8 57 5.3916
LINE NO. 8 BEAftlNG=-290 11M 48.16595S LENGTH* 1179*2.1287M SCALE*1.000220722 T1MT1* 32.1023S T2MT2*_ -37.0751S
PT. 9 LAT=+83 0. 0.00000 LON** 15 0 0.00000 X* 662191.5237 Y=923691*.6268 SC=i.000321193 CONV**11.5* *7.226V
LINE NO. 9 BEARING'* 50 20M *7.58783S LENGTH* 117956.6C03M SCALE=1.0003*3**2 T1MT1* -*9.0*27S T2MT2* 5oTl25*S
PT. 10 LAT=+8* 0 0.00000 LON** 18 0 0.00000 X* 673182.6693 Y=935*358.0356 SC=1.000366183 CDNtf**!* 55 17.3893
LINE NO. 10 BEARING*— 350 9N **.7*650S LENGTH* 117978.**00M SCALE*1.000528661 T1HT1* *7.5*56S T2HT2* -53,0*67.S
PT. 11 LAT**83 0 0.00000 LON** 21 0 0.00000 X* 7*1126.02*3 Y=9257907.9823 SC=1.0007099* 1' C0NV=*i732 27^JJ6T
LINE NO. 11 BEAR1NG**230 13M 2 5 .0 9 0 * 0 S LENGTH* 1 5 9 2 7 * . 3207H SCALE=1 .0 0 0 9 1 0 9 1 2 T 1 HT 1* -9 6 ,5 3 9 * $ _Jr2 MT 25 i o *^ 2 5 *2 S
PT. 12 LAT**8* 0 0.00000 LON=+ 30 0 0.00000 X* 803931.2*12 Y=9*0*276.7*25 SC=l.0011279*2 CnNy=+26 5217, 9 3 2 * 1
I
INVERSE SOLUTION
TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION
1. Purpose. To calculate the latitude, longitude, scale factor, and
meridian convergence from the X and Y coordinates of the Transverse
Mercator Projection.
2. Equations. "Conformal Projections in Geodesy and Cartography" by
Paul D. Thomas, USC&GS Special Publication No. 251(55) modified for a
central scale factor other than 1.
a. Longitude ~ modified form of equation 314, p 101 given on page 2.
b. Latitude - equation 324, p 104 as given on page 2.
c. Meridian Convergence - equation 330, p 105 as given on page 3.
d. Scale Factor - equation 342, p 106 as given on page 3.
The equation used to calculate the meridian arc distance was that given
by Jordan's Handbook, AHS translation, Vol III, first half, page 68(32).
3. Statement Listing. See the computer sheet. This is a DOUBLE
PRECISION program.
4. Functioning of the Program.
a. Read in the ellipsoidal parameters, number of points for which
the calculation is to be done, longitude of the central meridian and
central scale factor.
b. Calculate all constants needed in the program.
c. Enter the main loop and read in the X and Y coordinates of the
desired points. (Note: This program is based on an origin at the
equator and central meridian with no false X or Y value.)
138
APPENDIX Gr5 (Continued)
d. Enter a sub loop for the calculation of the foot-point latitude
based upon the given value of the Y coordinate. This quantity is required
in the calculation of the latitude.
f. Write output - see below.
g. A subroutine (DEGRE. ( )) is used to convert radian angles to
degrees, minutes, and seconds.
5. Important Parameters. Those In addition to the ones listed in para
graph 4 are as follows:
AE Semi-major axis
F Inverse flattening
N Number of points for which the calculation is desired
IXJCMD, LOCMM, Longitude of the central meridian in degrees, minutes,

FLOCMS and seconds
LAMCM Longitude of the central meridian in radians
FEE, LAM, GAM As given in paragraph 4 are in radians. The subroutine

is used to convert them to degrees, minutes, and
seconds before the write output occurs.
CSF Central scale factor
6. Input.
Card No. 1 - AE and F - 2DF12.1
Card No. 2- N - 15
Card No. 3- CSF - DF8.6
Card No. 4 -MS, LOCMD,LOCMM, FLOCMS - Ll, 2D13, DF8.4
Card No. 5, etc. - X, Y -2DF15.4
139
7. Output. All output is heeded as follows:
First page Transverse Mercator Projection
Reference Ellipsoid
A -
F »
Longitude of the Central Meridian **
Central scale factor -
Second page This heading only appears the first time.
X Y LATITUDE LONGITUDE MER CON SCALE FACTOR
DF20.4 DF20.4 3(2X,Ll,2l3,DF9.5) DF20.9
8 . Special Notes:
a. The program will work for X =■ 0, and/or Y » 0,
b. Total time for 6 points with a dump was 0.8 minutes; however, the
execution time was only 0.1 mln.
c. I/DNGITUDE IS TAKEN AS NEGATIVE TO THE WEST. The minus sign must
be read in with the central meridian. X is negative West of the central
meridian and Y is negative South of the Equator.
d. An example from the Department of the Army TM5-241-8, page 47,
was run for an accuracy check. The same example was checked against a
program for the direct TM Solution. The checks indicate accuracy to at
least the 4th and probably the 5th decimal of a second for 0 and X
Accuracy of convergence and scale is believed to be ofa similar high order.
e. This program was written by Francis Hanigan in February 1964.
Alden Colvocoresses modified same in June 1964, adding the central scale
factor and altering format to insure double precision.

140
APPENDIX
1 C PROGRAM FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE FROM TRANSVERSE MERCATOR RECTANGULAR COORDI
NATES.-
2 C PROVIDES FDR INTRODUCTION OF CENTRAL SCALE FACTOR.-
0-5 (conlinuedjf
3 C INPUT DATA - ELLIPSOIDAL PARAMETERS (SEMI-MAJOR.AXIS = AE, INVERSE FLATTENING = F),NUMBER OF POINTS,
THE LONGITUDE OF THE CENTRAL MERIDIAN, AND RECTANGULAR COORDINATES(X , Y).-
4 C ■ ADDITIONAL INPUT DATA-GENTRAL SCALE FACTOR.-
5 C OUTPUT - RECTANGULAR COORDINATES, LATITUDE, LONGITUDE, MERIDIANCONVERGENCE AND SCALEFACTOR.-
6 PRECISION (2,X,Y,CON,ES,E4,C6,E8,E10,AC,BC,CC,DC,EC,FC,FAC,AY,FEE1,YDIF,AAY,W,RI,N1,T,T2,T4,T6,ETA2,
ETA4,ETA6,ETA8,XN,T2E2,T2E4,T4E2,T4E4,T2E6,T2F8.FEEDIF,XN3,XN5,XN7,LAMDIF,GAM,SK,FEE,LAMCM,LAM,D
SIN.,DCOS.,FT1,FPT1,FPT2,FT2,FPT3,FT3»TL1,TLP1,TLP2»TL2»TLP3»TL3,GT1,GTP1,GTP2,GT2,GT3,FEESIN,FE
ECOS,XN2,XN4,XN6«SQRT•,DE3RE.,DD,DM,FS,RAD,F,SKI,SK2,SK3)-
7 PRECISION (2,AE,DSQRT.,FLOCMS,FLATS,FLONS., FGAMS) -
8 PRECISION (2.CSFJ-
9 PRECISION (2,LOCMD,LOCMM)-
10 INTEGERS (GAMD.GAHMJ-
141
11 FLOATING (N 1,LAMDIF,LAMCM,LAM)—
12 START READ INPUT ,OATA1,(AE,F,N )-
13 READ INPUT ,DATA11,ICSF)-
14 READ INPUT ,UATA2,(MS,LOCMD,LOCMM,FLOCMS)-
15 WRITE NO HEADING .HEAOl, (AE,F,MS ,LOCMD,LOCMM,FLOCMS)-
16 WRITE NO HEADING ,H E A D H , (CSF )-
17 WRITE NO HEADING ,HEAD2-
18 AE=CSF»AE-
19 C0N=57.295779513082321-
20 ES=2./F-1./(F*F|-
21 E4=ES*ES- ' ‘ •
22 E6=E4*ES- .. ____. _ ... J. - ..
23 E8=E4*E4-
24 . ' E10=E6*E4- ■ • -...... -................................ --.....
.
25. AC=l. + .75*ES+E4»45./64.+E6«l75./256.+E8* 1.1,025./163.84«.+£ 10*43659./65536.- .
....... ...
26 BC=(.75*ES+E4*15./16.+E6*525./512.+E8*2205./2048.+E10»72765./65536.)/2.-
27 CC=(E4»13./64.+l 6»105./256.*E8*22C5./4C96.+E10»10395./16384.1/4.-

28 DC = <E6»35./512.+E80315./2C48.+E1C»31165./131072.1/6-
29 EC=(E8*3li./l63B4.+£l0»3465./65536.1/8.-
30 FC=( El0*693./131072.I/I 0.-
31 FAC=A£»(l-ESI-
32 LAKCM=ILOCMD+LOCMM/60.+FLnCMS/j60C.I/CON-
33 PROVIDED INS.LO.*- : SI,l a m c m =-l a m c m -
I
34 1=0-
35 TEST PROVIDED (I.L.N), TRANSFER TO (LOOPI-
36 CALL SUBROUTINE (I=ENDJOB.(I-
37 LOOP READ INPUT .DATA3,IX,Y )-
38 PROVIDED (Y.NC.O.I, TRANSFER TO (YNO)-
39 ‘ FEE1=0.-
40 TRANSFER TO 1GUI-
41 YNO AY=Y-
42 FEE 1=AY/ (FAC« AC I-
43 AGAIN AY=FAC*(AC*FEE1“8C*DSIN.(2.*FCEU+CC*DSIN. (4. *F.FE1)-OC«US IN. (6. *FEE 1) +EC*OS IN. (8. »FEE1)-FC»DSI N. I 1G»F
EE 11)-
44 YOIF=Y—AY-
45 PROVIDED I.ABS.YDIF.L..C001)j TRANSFER TO (GOI-
46 AAY=YOIF/(FAC«ACI-
47 FEE1=FEC1+AAY- '
*. . .
48 ^ TRANSFER TO (ACAINI-
49 GO FEESIN=DSIN.(FEE1I-
50 FEECPS=DCOS.(FEElI-
51 ri=DSORT.Il.-ES»FEESIN»FEESINI-
'52 Nl=AE/P-
53 R1=N1*(1.—ES)/(W«W)—
54 T =FEESIN/FEECOS-
55 T2=T*T- ^
1
i
: 1 !
!
|
j
i
»; • ; i ;
C
\J cv
LLf tm.
O
U
>i
•o
o mo >«* in
o*
n- >o 00 m
CO cm O' o cm m in
in o CM
vf> >o >o •o >0 K h- r- n 00 co
143
LAM=LAMCM+LAMDIF-
110
144
PROVIDED (GAM.L.O.),MGAM=$- $-
APPENDIX
115 CALL SUBROUTINE (LATD,LATM,FLATS)=DESR£.(FEE)-
116 CALL SUBROUTINE (LQND,LONM,FLONS)=DEGRE.(LAB)-.....
CALL SUBROUTINE (GAMD.GAMM,FGAMS)=DEGRE.(GAM)-
0-5
118 WRITE OUTPUT ,ANS,(X,Y,MLAT,LATD,LATM,FLATS,MLON,LQND,LONM.FLONS,MGAM,GAMD,GAMM,FGAMS,SK)-
(continued)
119 1=1+1-
120 TRANSFER TO ITEST)-
121 F OATA1 (2DF12.1/I5)-
122 F DATAll (DF8.6)
123 F OATA2 <L1,2DI3,DF9.5) -
124 F DAT A3 (2DF15.4)
125 F HEAD1 11H0,45X,30HTRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECT ION//50X.19HREFERENCE ELLIPS0ID//53X.4HA = ,0F13.4//53X,6HF = 1

/,DF10.6//40X,32HL0NGITUDE OF CENTRAL MERIDIAN = ,LI,213,F7.3)
.145
126 F HEAD11 ( 1H0, 48X i22HCENTRAL SCALE FACTOR. = tDF8,6)_-_____
127 F HEAD2 <1H1,16X,1HX,18X,1HY,11X,8HLATITUDE,9X,9HL0NGITUDE,9X,7HHER CON,11X,12HSCALE FACTOR)-
128 F ANS (1H0,2X,2DF20.4,3(2X,L 1»213,DF9.5 ),DF20.9/) -V _
129 SUBROUTINE t ID, IM, F S )=DEGRE. (RAD) - ..... ............ .............. ..... .
13.0 PRECISION (2,FS,RAD,DD,DM,FS)-
131 ■ UNIVERSAL (CON)-
132 DD= I.ABS.RAD) *CON- . . . . . . . .._...
133 ID=DD-
134 DM=(OD-ID)* 6 0 " , .. .’ ~
135 IM=DM- ........... _ .
136 FS=(0M-IM)*60.-
137 NORMAL EXIT - '.’ - .— .
138 END SUBPROGRAM- ' ... .' ........... ... .

TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION
REFERENCE ELLIPSOID
APPENDIX
A = 6378249. 1450
. F = 1/293.965000
LONGITUDE OF CENTRAL MERIDIAN = 3 0 0.000
OS
CENTRAL SCALE FACTOR =1.000000
(continued)
X Y .LATITUDE . LONGITUDE MER CON SCALE FACTOR
409023.8266 2771793.3022 25 0 0.00000 6 59 60.00000 1 41 33.97372 1.002015740
500996.7749 2886199.1105 25 59 60.00000 8 0 O.OCOOC 2 11 47.16779 1.003099470
530555.9879 7830022.0263 70 0 0.00146 16 59 59.93229 13 11 10.09349 1.003443293
610830.5624 7966759.3981 71 P 0.01034 19 59 59,57795 16 7 23.49544 1,004564114
0.0000 9219992.8449 82 59 60.00000 3 0 0.00000 0 0 0.00000 1.0000.00000
35011.1763 9332591.9716 83 59 60.00000 6 0 0.00001 2 59 0.94370 1.000014965
81529.4162 9224233.8870 82 59 60.00000 8 59 59.99997 5 57 20.15870 . 1.000081157 . .
104658.2239 9339872.2158 84 0 0.00000 11 59 59.99861 8 57 5.39051 1.000133728 7.L
162191.5237 9236914.6268 83 0 0.00012 14 59 59.98085 11 54 47.21104 1 .0 0 0 3 2 1 1 9 3 . ..
173182.6693 9354358.0356 84 0 0.00100 17. 59 59,84840 14 55 17.26264 1,000366183. 7
241126.0243 9257907.9823 83 0 0.00774 20 59 59.16716 17 52 27.00465 1.0007Q994Q ___
303931.2412 9404276.7425 84 0 0.51043 29 59 16.89419 26 51 39.32189 1 .0 C 1 1 2 7 9 4 1

APPENDIX 6-6 12 February 1965
INVERSE SOLUTION OF THE GEODESIC ON THE ELLIPSOID

USING ITERATIVE EQUATIONS OF RAINSFORD
This program was notdirectly involved in the development of the
GTM and was used only foraccuracy comparisons.
The program computes the length and azimuth of a geodesic on the
ellipsoid. It is based on the procedure and equations set forth by
H. Rainsford in the September 1955 issue of Bulletin Geodesique.
For a line falling within a GTM zone the length (distance) is
generally accurate to the fourth decimal of a meter and azimuth to the
fifth decimal of a second. This accuracy determination is based on in
dependent checks not covered herein.
The nine lines computed by this program correspond to the principal
lines tested with the GTM programs. They are all based onthe Clarke
1880 ellipsoid. James Green wrote this program during 1964. It is
identified as program S9B of the Geodetic Science Library Computer
Programs of the Ohio State University.
147
I
•Q
T »
OO
O U
O CO
QO
X -*
•x to
_J O
Ui i
*z<*
N O <
a: -» t-
« 00.j
i— ftUJ x
oo o a a
Xto*—
< o <M
O
0i— as •*
0 *s}" X o
UJ
. ft < <
W O ft m
x
X
OJ h <
CNJ
UJ U_ * ft
ftcOH-
to t- o
cm ft<
< cm »
-J >- O
LL ftnx
to
f
tpX WO o
0
O < -X • o
a
3 JZO a
ILUJm
X
a
*»>- co
O *<NJ
m
CO
CO U* CO Q
UJ
o
NOSCO O
UJ UJ * o (M
X
0.
• N(
•u-O t_
o
) a
uj
»- a •• X
u. N- x CM
•• * * <
a f
*-lQ
lHcO0 o
ui
o u. o u a
o •t— ft CM
C-
M*
* #X
(\j
U. Z O
ft < W0 «}•
I
1
nX
w- <
C- U
ft
cO
•
WO cO
■X CM
u. a ia CM CM < <
ft • X CO nX
O' • UJ •> I • 3
Q CO cO W- V-
<
O Z -J
UJ
u. o *
-o <
o Q
H4
« U. X
CO X » CM
o u. 3 M* CM ft X <
• ft o <0 -J «x o «x -J
X
a
CM • ft
*x z <
3
•
UJ ft II <
u. 1 © X a a
Ql m N * PM II 3 H CM
ft CO O 3 CO * 1 NX Z < <
X — o * • o CO 1 ft
o a » a. CM -J ft IL CM x4 < ft ft
►N J 3 UL CO s X NX 9 ft ftfjt NX CM
O < < • I CO 3 X nX WO CO
4 h t/l CO o ft Z o K I 9 R NX ftft
o
X UJ •>
ft (0 O
«■
•
■X
WO z
• CM
WO
»- < C
M
m
Oft
u.
Z WO
ftp
ft
u>
•»
<0 3 <o
1 . U. ft *x z to < ft •» ft ft CM 1 Z ft X X
X wo o ft NX nX nX CM fO X ® 9 ft * X X
p"» •> «c «• o o a CO X X X o O n4 - .ft* X o o
CM O k O < X < ft X X X "0 1 1 ft« a X u. u.
X H < UJ -x X
ft X X X o o a X CM 9 * N. z O •i ft
ui «■» » CO «/) ft 3 u. IL u. u> *0 * xft Ui u.
> X CM » < PM CM <N Z © o •s. NO o 1 ft* ft A- w
z •X w u. »- w «pp W H f
N. 1 nX CO •ft
xX * •M 3 1 3 3
z z a t
1 V- b- L- a. A* o • u. *s 9 1 u. UL X u> a. a
z — z z 3 3 3 m 3 CM • 1 1 o 3 h- K
o < »-
< 1 * +
o a O 3 o o CO a. a X e* X NX NO • CO P0 * u. 9 3 X 3 3
X **N ft X NX ft NX NX X z z z CM X CM 1 1 nX U. •s « •>4 a Z Q O
a wo wo wo ar WO -* wo WO Ui NX NX • 9 « U. u. NX • O
N*
a • ft# X NX
u. z nx o wo NX CM NX NX 3 Ax • o • o X * 0 • CO wo CM 0 X Ui UJ
x
Ui u a o o uj Q o o in to CM CM N* u. u. IL u. ftx o w o »-
uj
X
NX
UJ
X
UJ
X
UJ
X
UJ
X
a»
z
<
UJ
<
UJ
-1
UJ
H
o n
M
CM
u
nX
• n
O'
ft n
nX CM
0
CO
If n <
H
< NX
< o a. a X X X X X NX NX S
X tt WO h
CM
O
o
o
UJ
X
X X
3
x < k X z
X a. X X u. u. U. u. U. Up UJ X
UJ
<
3
O X
z <
<
Ui
o
x O •* <M «t 9» CM
O CM P0 in u>
3
O <M CM CM CM CM CM
cO
148
26 WRITE OUTPUT tF0RH7,tS3,LOD,LOM,FLOSI-
29 WRITE OUTPUT .FORM7AttS4fL002,LCN2»FLOS2l-
1
Z
B
30 stari *r a d ia n .ilaio ,l « im (f la i $>- s
31
32
STAR2*RAD|AN.ILA2D>LA2M.FLA2SI-
ELiRO*RADlAN.ILOD'LON,FLOSI-
z
33 PROVIDED tS3.LO.8- * I,ELlRD=-tLlKD- a
c
34 EL2R0«KADIAN.IL0D2.L0M2 »FL0S2)- s.
35 PROVIDED (S4.L0.S- *>,EL2RD*-EL2RO-
36 ELIR0*EL2RD-EL1R0-
37 PROVIDED tSl.LO.t- »), TRANSFER TO (NCXIl)-
38 TRANSFER TO INCXT2I—
39 NEXT I STARl— STARl-
40 LAIO— LA ID-
-p- 41 LA1H— LAIH-
VO
42 FLA1S— FLAIS-
43 NEXT2 PROVIOED tS2.L0.8- 8), TRANSFER TO INEXTJI-
44 TRANSFER TO INEXT4I-
45 NEXT3 STAR2«-STAK2-
46 LA2DS-LA2D-
47 LA2H=—LA2M—
48 FLA2S”—FL42S-
49 NEXT4 DDSLA2D-LAID-
50 DH»LA2N—LAIN—
51 DS»FLA2S—FLA1S-
52 AOIF«(DD»DH/6O.+OS/36O0.)/RAD-
53 BETA1*DATAN.(f1-FIMDSiN.ISTAR11/OCOS.ISTAKl)11-
54 BET A2SDATAN»(11—F)»fDSIN.fSTAR2)/OCOS.ISTAK2I))-
55 TCOl*STARl-BETAi-
56 TC02=STAR2-BETA2-
BUIF=AOlF-[rCOZ-TCOl)
150
PRECISION (Z,FT5,FT6,Fr7,Fra,C6A,A6,U8)-
FT5=-2i.»FSu«F/12d
151
112 82=-.2i»U2»U^/16.-15.»U6/512
115 U8*U4«U4~
lift B0T=B0T-17S.*U8/16384.-
117 B2~B2+35.»U8/2048.-
lie B4-B4-3S.«U8/6192.-
119 B6*B6*5.«U8/6144.-
120 TED1*B0T*SJG-
121 TED2=SSIG®CSG2M«B2-
122 TE03*S2SIG<>CSG4M«B4-
123 TED4=»S3SIG»CSG6Mo86-
124 DIST1=80»ITED2*TED3*TE04)—
125 0IST»0IST1+B0»TE01-
126 WRITE OUTPUT .F0RM10,(OISTI-

127 TEH2=DSIP4.( SLON/2. ).P.2-
152
128 TEH3s0Si N.ISLONI-
129 TA12®T£M3*T4/1TEH1*2 .»T4*Tl*TEM2)-
130 TA2l»TEH3*T3/lTEMl-2.*T3*T2»TEH2I-
131 A12*0ATAN.l.A8S.TA12J-
132 A21*>0ATAN.t .A8S.TA21)-
133 PROVIOEO (EL1RO.GE.O..AND.TA12.L.O.),A12=PI-A12-
134 PROVIOEO 1EL1RD.GE.0..AND.TA21.G.0.),A21*PI*A21-
135 PROVIOEU IELlR0.GE.0..AND.TA21.LE.0.)tA21=PI2-A21
136 PROVIOEO (EL1RD.L.O..ANO.TA12.G.O.),A12*PI+A12-
137 PROVIDEO (EL1KU.L.0..AND.TA12.L.0.),A12=PI2— A12-
138 PROVIOEO tELIRD.L.O.•AND.TA2l.L.O.),A21=PI—A21-
139 CALL SUBROUTINE (LO.LM,S)=RACON.(A12)-
140 WRITE OUTPUT ,F0KM11,(LO.LM,S>-
141 CALL SUBROUTINE (LO.LM,S)=RACUN.(A211-
142 WRITE OUTPUT ,F0KHI2,(LO.LM,SI-
143 ENO CONTINUE -

APPENDIX
144 CALL SUBROUTIWt <>-ENDJOB.()-
145 F F0RM1 (12) -
G-6 (continued)
146 .F F0RM2 (20F15.7) -
147 F F0RM3 (L2L6I-
148 F FQRM4 (4(L1>2I3.0F9.5)) -
149 F F0RM5 (1H1«32HTHE LATITUOE OF THE FIRST POINT =,L2,12 ,13,DF9.5)
150 F F0RM6 (1H0>33HTHE LATITUDE OF THE SECOND POINT3,L2,12,13,0F9.a)
151 F FORM 7 (lHOt36HTHE LONGITUDE OF THE FIRST POINT = L2,213.UF9.a )
152 F F0RM7A (lHOt36HTHE LONGITUDE OF THE SECOND POINT = L2,213,UF9.a)
153 F FORMS (lHOi21HTHE VALUE OF LAMDA— L=,14,I3,DF9.5,8H AFTER ,I3,L2H i t e r a t i o n s )-
154 F FORMIO I1H0,14HTHE DISTANCE =,0F16.4)-
155 F F0KM11 (1H0.24HTHE AZIMUTH FROM I TO 2 = ,14,I3.2X,UF8.a)-
156 F F0RM12 (IH0.24HTHE AZIMUTH FROM 2 TCI 1= 11 4,13,2X, DFH. 5) -
157 SUBROUTINE {LU.LH,S)=RACON.(UI-

153
1S8 PRECISION (2,RAD,U,ARAD,FLM,S)-
159 UNIVERSAL IRAD 1-
160 ARAOsU*RAO-
161 LD3ARAD-
162 FLM=(.ABS.ARAD-.ABS.LDU60.-
163 LM=FLM-
164 S=(FLM-LM)»60.-
165 NORMAL EXIT -
166 END SUBPROGRAM -
167 FUNCTION (UUM)=KAU1AN.(LD.LM.SX)-
168 PRECISION (2fDUMvSXfRADl-
169 UNI VERSAL (RAD)-
170 DUM=LD/RA0FLM/(RAU»60.)+SX/(RAD*36C0. )-
171 NORMAL EXIT -
172 END SUBPROGRAM -
173 ENO PROGRAM (START)-

>
PPENDIX
EXAMPLES FOR TM TESTING
0-6 (continued]
THE LATITUOE OF THE FIRST POINT=+ 25 0 O.OOGOO
THE LATITUOE OF THE SECOND POINT=* 26 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUDE OF THE FIRST POINT = ♦ 7 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUDE OF THE SECOND POINT = * 8 0 0.00000
THE VALUE OF LAHDA—L= 0 0 10.03063 AFTER 5 ITERATIONS
THE DISTANCE = 169595.0988
THE AZIMUTH FROM I TO 2= 62 0 68.20776
THE AZIMUTH FROM 2 TO 1= 222 26 58.13916
THE LATITUDE OF THE FIRST P01NT=+ 70 0 0.00000
THE LATITUDE OF THE SECOND POINT=* 71 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUDE OF THE FIRST POINT = + 17 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUDE OF THE SECONDPOINT = + 20 0 0.00000
THE VALUE OF LAMOA-L= 0 0 6.11669 AFTER 6 ITERATIONS
THE DISTANCE = 157929.2725
THE AZIMUTH FROM 2 TO 226 29 0.50557
THE LATITUOE OF THE FIRST POINT=* 83 0 0.00000
THE LATITUDE OF THE SECOND POINT=+ 86 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUDE OF THE FIRST POINT = ♦ 3 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUDE OF THE SECONOPOINT = + 6 0 0.00000
THE VALUE OF LAMDA—L= 0 0 0.67102 AFTER 6 ITERATIONS
THE DISTANCE = 117916.1018 •

THE LATITUDE UF THE FIRST P01NI=* 89 0 O.ODCOC
THE LATITUDE OF THE SECOND PUINT=t 83 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUOE OF THE FIRST. POINT = ♦ 6 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUDE OF THE SECONO POINT = ♦ 9 0 O.OCOOO
THE VALUE OF LAHDA—L= 0 0 0.97102 AFTER 9 ITERATIONS
THE OISTANCE = 117916.1018
THE AZIMUTH FROM I TO 2= 15999 95.12359
THE AZIMUTH FROM 2 TO 1= 39293 36.13999
THE LATITUDE OF THE FIRST POINT=» 83 0 O.OOOCO
THE LATITUDE OF THE SECOND PtlINT=* 89 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUOE OF THE FIRST POINT = + 9 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUOE OF THE SECONO POINT = ♦ 12 0 0.00000
THE VALUE OF LANOA—L= 0 0 0.97102 AFTER 9 ITERATIUNS
THE AZI&JTH FROM 2 TO 1= 20015 19.87696
THE LATITUDE OF THE FIRST POINT=+ 89 0 C.00000
THE LATITUOE OF THE SECOND POINT=+ 83 0 C.00000
THE LONGITUOE OF THE FIRST POINT = ♦ 12 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUDE OF THE SECONO POINT = + 15 0 0.00000
THE VALUE OF LANDA—L= 0 0 0.97102 AFTER 9 ITERATIUNS
THE DISTANCE * 117916.1018

>>
THE LATITUOE OF THEFIRST POINTS 83 0 0.00000 T
T5
m
Z
THE LATITUOE OF THESECOND P(JINT=+ 64 0 0.00000 o
5
THE LONGITUDE OF THEFIRST POINT = + 15 0 0.00000 01
THE LONGITUOE OF THESECOND POINT = + 18 0 0.00000 o>
THE VALUE OF LAMDA-L= 0 0 0.47102 AFTER 4 ITERATIONS
THE AZIMUTH FROM 1 TO2° 1716 23.86056
THE AZIMUTH FROM 2 TO1= 20015 14.87646
THE LATITUOE OF THEFIRST POINT=* 84 0 0.00000

THE LATITUOE OF THESECONO PQINT=+ 83 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUOE OF THEFIRST POINT = ♦ 18 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUOE OF THESECONO POINI = + 21 0 0.00000
THE LATITUOE OFTHE FIRST P01NT=«- 83 0 0.00000

THE LATITUDE OFTHE SECONO POINT=+ 94 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUDE OF THE FIRST POINT = * 21 0 0.00000
THE LONGITUDE OF THE SECOND POINT = + 30 0 0.00000
THE OISTANCE * 159129.3494
THE AZIMUTH FROM 2 TO 1* 230 4 3.23191
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) Army Map Service. "USSR - Unified Coordinate System and .

Standarized Mapping,” Translated Excerpts of Selected
Documents and Papers. Washington: Army Map Service,
1965. (Unpublished.)
(2) Berry, Ralph M. "Local Control Systems," The Canadian Surveyor,

September, 1963.
(3) Berry, Ralph M. "The New Michigan Plane Coordinate System"

(paper presented at Region Convention of the American
Congress on Surveying and Mapping, Kansas City,
September,*1964) .
(4) Blackie, W. V. "Legal Surveys for Oil and Gas Right in the
Yukon and Northwest Territories," The Canadian Surveyor,
November, 1961.
(5) Bomford, A. G. "Transverse Mercator Arc-to-Chord and Finite

Distance Scale Factor Formulae,” Empire Survey Review,
July, 1962.
(6) Bomford, Brigadier G. Geodesy, Second Edition. London:

Oxford University Press, 1962.
(7) Bowie, William, and Adams, Oscar S. Grid System for Progressive
Maps in the United States. U. S. Coast and Geodetic
Survey Special Publication No. 59. Washington:
Government Printing Office, 1919.
(8) Churchill, Ruel V. Complex Variable and Applications. New York:

McGraw Hill, 1960.
(9) Clark, David. Plane and Geodetic Surveying. Vol. I, Plane Surveying,
Fifth Edition. London: Constable and Company, 1957.
(10) Clark, David. Plane and Geodetic Surveying. Vol. II. Higher Sur-
veying, Fourth Edition. London: Constable and Company, 1954.
(11) Coast and Geodetic Survey. "Classification and Standards of

Accuracy of Geodetic Control Surveys." Washington: .
Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1958. (Multilithed.)
(12) Coast and Geodetic Survey. Plane Coordinate Projection Tables,

Hawaiian Islands. Special Publication No. 302.
Washington: Government Printing Office, 1954.
157
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
(13) Coast and Geodetic Survey, The Alaska State Plane Coordinate
System. Washington: Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1961.
(Multilithed.)
(14) Colvocoresses, A. P. "A study of the Needs and Specifications

for a National City Mapping Program,11 unpublished
Master's Thesis, The Ohio State University. Columbus,
Ohio: 1959. (Multilithed.)
(15) Corps of Engineers, Army Map Service. Map Intelligence,

Edition 2. Washington: Army Map Service, 1954,
(16) Dept.of the Army. Foreign Maps. TM5-248. Washington: Dept.

of the Army, 1963.
(17) Dept, of the Army. Grids and Grid References. TM5-241-1.

„_Washington: Dept, of the Army, 1962.
(18) Dept, of the Army. Topographic Surveying. TM5-441.

Washington: Dept, of the Army, 1962.
(19) Dept,of the Army. Universal Polar Stereographic Grid Tables

for Latitude 79°30' - 90°, International Spheroid.
TM5-241-9. Washington: Dept, of the Army, 1958.
(20) Dept.of the Army. Universal Transverse Mercator Grid.

TM5-241-8. Washington: Dept, of the Army, 1958.
(21) Dietz, C. H. Cartography. U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey,

Special Publication No. 205. Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1936.
(22) Dietz, C. H., and Adams, Oscar S. Elements of Map Projection

U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Sphcial Publication
No. 68. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1944.
(23) Driencourt, L., and Laborde, J. Traite Des Prolections Des

Cartes Geographiques. Paris: Hermann et Cie,, 1932.
(24) Federation Internationale Des Geometres. Dictionarie

Multilinque de la F.I.G. Amsterdam: Argus, 1963.
(25) Greenhood, David. Mapping. Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press, 1964.
158
(26) Helmert, F, R. Mathematical and Physical Theories of Higher

Geodesy„ Translation by U3AF Aeronautical Chart and
Information Center. St. Louis: 1962. (Unpublished.)
(27) Hosmer, George L. Geodesy. Second Edition. New York:

John Wiley and Sons, 1956.
(28) Hotine, Brigadier M. “The Orthomorphic Projection of the

Spheroid," Empire Survey Review. Oct. 1946; Jan. 1947;
April, 1947; July, 1947. (Four parts.)
(29) Hough, Floyd W. “A Conformal and World-Wide Military Grid

System," Transaction, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 121, 1956.
(30) Hristow, W. K. The Gaussian and Geographic Coordinates on

the Ellipsoid of Krasovskiy. Washington: Unpublished
translation of 1955 edition.
(31) Hristow, W. K. The Gauss-Kruger Coordinates on the Ellipsoid.

Washington: Army Map Service, Unpublished translation
of 1943 edition.
(32) Jordan-Eggert. Handbook of Geodesy. Vol. Ill, First Half.

Washington: Army Map Service Translation, 1962.
(33) Jordan-Eggert. Handbook of Geodesy. Vol. Ill, Second Half.

Washington: Army Map Service Translation, 1962.
(34) Karo, Rear Admiral H. Arnold. "Progress in International

Cartography," Surveying and Mapping, September, 1964.
(35) Landolt - Bornstein. Zahlenwerte Und Funktionen. Berlin:

Springer Verlag, 1952.
(36) Lauf, G. B. “Conformal Transformations from One Map Projection

to Another Using Divided Difference Interpolation,"
Bulletin Geodesique No. 61, 1961.
(37) Lee, L. P. "The Transverse Mercator Projection of the Entire

Spheroid," Empire Survey Review. January, 1962.
(38) Lilly, J. E. “Plane Coordinates for Surveyors," The Canadian

Surveyor, March, 1960,
159
(39) Maling, D. Ho "A Review of Some Russian Hap Projections,"

Empire Survey Review, January, 1960; April, 1960;
July, 1960. (Three parts.)
(40) Maxson, Robart 0. "Topographic Surveys for the American

Economy," Surveying and Mapping, March, 1963.
(41) Melluish, M. A. The Mathematics of Map Projections. London:

Cambridge University Press, 1931.
(42) Michell, Hugh C., and Simmons, Lansing G. The State Coordinate
Systems, U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Special
Publication No. 235. Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1945.
(43) Ohio State University, Engineering Experiment Station. An

Investigation of the Means to Establish Survey
Control for Highway Engineering and Right-of-Way
Acquisition. Report No. EES 217-2. Columbus, Ohio:
The Ohio State University, 1963.
(44) O ’Keefe, John A. "The Universal Transverse Mercator Grid and

Projection," The Professional Geographer, September,
1952.
(45) Ordnance Survey. Constants, Formulae and Methods Used in

Transverse Mercator Projection. London: His Majesty's
Stationery Office, 1950.
(46) Polezhayev, A. P. "Cartography in the U.S.S.R." The Canadian

Surveyor, March, 1962.
(47) Pryor, William T. "Adjustment of State Plane Coordinates,"

Highway Research Board Bulletin 199'. Washington:
Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences,
1958.
(48) Rainsford, Hume F. Survey Adjustment and Least Squares.

New York: Fredrick Ungar Publishing Company, 1958.
(49) Redfearn, J. C. B. "Transverse Mercator Formulae." Empire

Survey Review. No. 69, 1948.
(50) Rune, G. A. "The Length of a Geodetic Line as a Function of

the Plane Gauss Coordinates of its End Points."
Rekets Allmanna Kartverk Meddelande Nr 15, Stockholm,
1951: :
160
(51) Saastamoinen, J. "A Canadian Grid System in 3° Transverse

Mercator Zones," The Canadian Surveyor, June, 1964,
(52) Schmid, Erwin. "Plane Coordinate Systems and Map Projections,"

Journal of the Surveying and Mapping Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, July, 1964.
(53) Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. Standard Symbols

For Use on Topographic Maps of Antarctica. Ca berra:
Division of National Mapping, 1961.
(54) Szava-Kovats, Gabor S. Map Projections. Notes on Lectures

by Dr. Ivan I. Mueller, Manuscript. Columbus, Ohio:
The Ohio State University, 1964.
(55) Thomas, Paul D. Conformal Projections in Geodesy and Cartog

raphy, U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Special
Publication No. 251. Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1952.
(56) U. S. Air Force. Air Navigation, Manual 51-40, Vol. I.

Washington: U. S.. Air Force, 1959.
(57) Van Atta, Ward H. "From Cross Staff to Satellite: Surveying

the World," Surveying and Mapping, December, 1964.
(58) .Whitmore, George D. Advanced Surveying and Mapping. Scranton,

Pennsylvania: International Textbook Co., 1952.
(59) Zakatov, P. S. A Course in Higher Geodesy. Translation

from Russian. Washington: Office of Technical
Services, Dept, of Commerce, 1962.
161

6601765#general Transverse Mercator

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

6601765#general Transverse Mercator

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

6601765#general Transverse Mercator

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This dissertation has been

microfilmed exactly as received

The Ohio State University, Ph.D ., 1965

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Alden P. Colvocoresses, B.S., M.Sc.

The Ohio State University

This dissertation was prepared while the author was pursuing

graduate studies at The Ohio State University. Although attending

expressed herein represent solely those of the writer.

A list of individuals and agencies contributing to this paper

is presented as Appendix B. The author is particularly indebted

Service. Without the combined facilities of these two organizations

the preparation of this paper could not have been accomplished.

Dr. Ivan Mueller of the Geodetic Science Department of The Ohio

State University served as adviser and provided essential guidance

September 23, 1918 Born - Humboldt, Arizona

1941 o o . o o . o BoS. in Mining Engineering, University of

1941-1945 .... Military Service, European Theatre

1946-1950 o . . o Mining Engineer, Magma Copper Company,.

1951-to date . . . Military Service

1959 o . o o . o o M.SCo in Geodetic Science, The OhioState

1959 ......... . M.SCo in Civil Engineering, The Ohio State

"Flood Prediction in Korea," Military Engineer, 1954

"Map Reliability," ARMY, 1958

"Engineering Data for Disaster Planning Purposes," thesis, The

"Unity of Effort?" Military Review, June, 1963

Major Fields: Geodetic Science (Topographic Engineering)

Scope and Purpose

II. PHILOSOPHY OF PLANE COORDINATES .......... 4

III. ANALYSIS OF SUITABLE PROJECTION SYSTEMS ....... 7

IV. SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR REFERENCE SYSTEMS ..... 11

Military Reference Criteria

V. CURRENT STATUS AND DESCRIPTION OF REFERENCE

Military Reference Systems

VI. SELECTION OF PROJECTION AND SCALE TOLERANCE ... 24

VII. SCALE FACTOR MAPPING........ 28

Projection Scale Factor

VIII. ZONE WIDTH AND DESIGNATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

IX. GRIDS AMD COORDINATES . . . . . . . ....... ..... 56

X. THE GENERALIZED TRANSVERSE MERCATOR REFERENCE SYSTEM. . 58

Specifications of the GTM

XI. POLAR REGIONS ......... 62

XII. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GTM . ...................... 67

XIII. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . ^ ..... ........... 74

A. DEFINITION OF TERMS AS USED IN THIS PAPER . . . . . . . 78

B. LISTING BY COUNTRY, AGENCY AND NAME OF THOSE

C. SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL PROJECTION IN USE BY VARIOUS

D. SELECTED ELEVATION DATA OF THE WORLD. ........ 84

E. TABULATION OF POLAR DISTANCE (r) AND SCALE FACTOR (k)

F. APPLICATION OF THE GTM TO THE UNITED STATES ........ 92

G. DIGITAL COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR THE GENERALIZED

1 Elevation Increments of the Earth . . .. . . .. . . . . 31

2 TM Combined Scale Factor Based on Central Scale

3 TM Combined {icale Factor Based on Central Scale

4 TM Combined Scale Factor Based on Central Scale

5 Width of Subzones of ±1:10,000 Scale Error.. . . . . . 41

6 No. of ±1:10,000 Scale Error Subzones in a 6° TM Zone . 43

dimensions. Thus the science of map projections has developed pro

location of any point on or related to the earth's surface. Un

.necessarily of relatively large scale. The small-scale depiction

was in the form of correspondence and interviews with concerned in

pertinent organizations. A list of the agencies and personnel answer

Digital Computer of the Ohio State University. These programs, ex

positions on the earth's surface. The concept of latitude and longi

as valid today as it was at its inception (57, 32). However, geo

surface than a sphere or ellipsoid, and plane coordinates were there

fore introduced at an early era. Although plane coordinates are sub