See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272312768

Contribution of instrument centring to the uncertainty of a horizontal angle

Article in Survey Review · July 2013

DOI: 10.1179/1752270613Y.0000000041

CITATIONS READS

6 1,921

5 authors, including:

Antonio Miguel Ruiz-Armenteros José L. García-Balboa

Universidad de Jaén Universidad de Jaén
91 PUBLICATIONS 954 CITATIONS 76 PUBLICATIONS 378 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

José L. Mesa-Mingorance Juan José Ruiz-Lendínez

Universidad de Jaén Universidad de Jaén
10 PUBLICATIONS 120 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 265 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by José L. García-Balboa on 21 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis Group in
Survey Review on 21/01/2013, available online:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/1752270613Y.0000000041
(Green Open Access after embargo period of 12 months)
To cite this article:
Ruiz-Armenteros, A.M.; García-Balboa, J.L.; Mesa-Mingorance, J.L.; Ruiz-Lendínez, J.J. ; Ramos-Galán, M. I.
(2013). Contribution of instrument centring to the uncertainty of a horizontal. Survey Review, 45:331, 305-
314, DOI: 10.1179/1752270613Y.0000000041.

CONTRIBUTION OF INSTRUMENT CENTRING TO

THE UNCERTAINTY OF A HORIZONTAL ANGLE
A. M. Ruiz-Armenteros1,2,3, J. L. García-Balboa1,4,*,
J. L. Mesa-Mingorance1,5, J. J. Ruiz-Lendínez1,4, M. I. Ramos-Galán1,2,3

Abstract

One of the sources of uncertainty in the measurement of a horizontal angle in surveying

comes from the instrument centring. There are two ways of evaluating the uncertainty
coming from this source. One is to assume that the instrument centring uncertainty is
dependent on both directions in the angle. The second way is to assume that it is
independent on each direction. In this study, the differences between both approaches
are analysed and some examples are given. For lengths of sight longer than 100 – 150
m, these differences are minimal. For short sighting distances of 10 m and a 1 mm
centring uncertainty, a maximum positive difference of 90cc (29.1'') is derived when the
angle is close to 0 or 400 grads (360º), and a maximum negative difference of -40cc (-
13'') when the angle equals 200 grads (180º). The differences increase as the instrument
centring uncertainty increases. An accurate setting up of the instrument is, thus,
important. When assessing the effect of the differences between both approaches on the
uncertainty of a horizontal angle, other sources of uncertainty should also be taken into
account, mainly reading and pointing, target centring and target levelling. As is shown
in the examples, the differences between the two approaches become small once all
components are considered. This study is relevant and useful for the uncertainty budget
of any surveying task where the two approaches are applicable, e.g. traverses or the
assessment of tolerances in straight line traverses between two points of known
coordinates. Also, it is useful to investigate whether the differences are relevant in least
squares adjustment of survey networks of observed directions when compared to
network adjustments of observed angles.

KEYWORDS: Instrument centring. Measurement uncertainty. Horizontal angle. Total

station. Control surveys. Errors.

INTRODUCTION

The uncertainty evaluation of survey measurements is a daily and essential task in any
surveying work. The result of a measurement is, in fact, only complete when

1
Universidad de Jaén, Dpto. de Ingeniería Cartográfica, Geodésica y Fotogrametría, 23071, Jaén, Spain
2
Universidad de Jaén, Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Ciencias de la Tierra (CEACTierra), Spain
3
Universidad de Jaén, Grupo de Investigación “Microgeodesia Jaén”, Spain.
4
Universidad de Jaén, Grupo de Investigación “Ingeniería Cartográfica”, Spain
5
Universidad de Jaén, Grupo de Investigación “SIG Jaén - Ingeniería Gráfica”, Spain

*Corresponding author e-mail: jlbalboa@ujaen.es

1
accompanied by a statement of its uncertainty [10]. If a required accuracy needs to be
satisfied, the uncertainty evaluation of the measurements allows us to make a decision
about the most suitable instrument and measurement procedure. An example for the
setting out of a point can be found in [2].

According to the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) [10],

the uncertainty of any quantity derived from other quantities can be evaluated by the
law of propagation of uncertainty. In this way the uncertainties of the basic survey
measurements (distances, horizontal directions and zenith angles, etc.) are propagated in
order to evaluate the uncertainties of derived measurements (coordinates, surfaces,
volumes, etc.) in which they are used. Only so are the results of such derived
measurements complete. Therefore, the first stage is to carry out the uncertainty
evaluation of the basic survey measurements. It will determine the reliability of
subsequent results of uncertainty for derived quantities. The horizontal direction is one
of these basic survey measurements.

There are a great number of sources of uncertainty in every survey measurement. They
are classified as instrumental, personal and natural by different authors ([3], [1], [14] or
[7], among others). In practice, only some of the sources are significant when evaluating
the uncertainty of a measurement (see [6]). In the case of a horizontal angle (difference
of two horizontal directions), one uncertainty comes from the miscentring over the
survey mark when setting up the theodolite or total station. This component of the
measurement uncertainty of a horizontal angle is a function of the angle and the two
lengths of sight. It can be quite large for short distances, which emphasises the need for
carefully setting up of the instrument. The uncertainty of the centring of the instrument
sCI relates to the positional uncertainty of the bottom (lower plate of tribrach) of a tripod
mounted instrument above a ground survey mark, or of a pillar mounted instrument
about the centre mark of the pillar.

When measuring with electronic theodolites or total stations, the users observe
horizontal directions and then derive angles from the difference between two directions.
The uncertainty of a horizontal angle α can be easily evaluated from the uncertainties of
two directions (H1 and H2) by Eq. (1a). The uncertainty of each direction is evaluated
by including the uncertainty of the instrument centring independently for each direction
[8], sH1CI in sH1 and sH2CI in sH2 (Eqs. (1b) and (1c)). In this case the uncertainty of the
horizontal angle is approximate because, in fact, the instrument centring uncertainty is
dependent on both directions [3], [6], [13]; see sαCI in Eq. (2).

These two approaches (Eqs. (1) and (2)) have been known for a considerable time. They
are used for example in traverses for the uncertainty budget and the assessment of
tolerances. In more elaborate surveys (e.g. survey networks), least square adjustments
are used where, nowadays, measured directions are preferred as observations instead of
angles. In such cases each direction is assumed to be uncorrelated ([14], page 239).
Therefore, the instrument centring uncertainty is considered independent for each
direction (as in Eqs. (1b) and (1c)). Then the evaluated direction uncertainty may not be
correct, thus affecting the weights assigned by the weight matrix. On the other hand, if
angle equations are preferred, their uncertainties can be correctly evaluated from Eq. (2)
and entered in the software. However, angles are correlated when they are derived from
directions to more than two targets. The correlations should be considered and also
entered in the software. They can be computed by applying the law of propagation of
uncertainty although this may not be reliable if previous direction uncertainties have not

2
been adequately evaluated. Nonetheless, it is noted that commercial software using
angle observations rarely allows these correlations to be entered ([8], page 85).

The aim of this paper is to perform an analysis of the contribution of the instrument
centring uncertainty to the measurement uncertainty of a horizontal angle according to
the two aforementioned approaches, quantifying its difference. Analysing this
difference, the surveyor can assess the inaccuracy of considering the uncertainty of the
instrument centring as being independent for each direction. The analysis also allows to
determine when difference is not relevant in case of using independent directions (e.g.
in least squares adjustment).

Therefore, two models are considered: (i) the model assuming that the instrument
centring uncertainty is dependent on both directions of the angle (Eq. (2)), from now
referred to as the accurate model (ACC), and (ii) the model derived from directions
which assumes that the instrument centring uncertainty is independent for each direction
(Eq. (1)), the approximate model (APP).

2 2
sα =�sH1 +sH2 (1a)

2 2 2 2
sH1 =�sH1ISO
+sH1CI
+sH1CT
+sH1LT
(1b)

2 2 2 2
sH2 =�sH2ISO
+sH2CI
+sH2CT
+sH2LT
(1c)

2 2 2 2 2 2
sα =�sH1ISO
+sH2ISO
+sα2CI +sH1CT
+sH2CT
+sH1LT
+sH2LT
(2)

sISO-THEO-HZ √2
sHISO = (3)
√n
where n is the total number of observations read in both direct and reverse faces in a
single horizontal direction, to obtain an average.
s
sHCT = DCT where D is the length of sight (4)

sLT
sHLT = where D is the length of sight (5)
D

The other sources of uncertainty in Eqs. (1) and (2) are the following, all of them
independent for each direction: sISO−THEO−HZ (Eq. (3)), evaluated with the standard ISO
17123-3 [9], centring of target/reflector sCT (Eq. (4)) and levelling of target/reflector or
reflector rod (‘pole plumbing’) sLT (Eq. (5)). These sources of uncertainty are now
briefly explained:

i. The uncertainty sHISO (Eq. (3)) relates to the uncertainty in a single horizontal
direction measured n times and averaged, evaluated according to the standard ISO
17123-3 [9]. This standard is used to determine the precision (experimental standard
deviation, symbolized by sISO−THEO−HZ) of theodolites (or total stations) and their
ancillary equipment for in situ applications. It represents the uncertainty for a
direction measured in two faces (n = 2) and averaged (arithmetic mean).The field
procedure does not need special ancillary equipment and minimize the atmospheric

3
 influences. This standard ISO is also used by manufacturers to detail the technical
specifications of the instruments.
ii. The uncertainty of the centring of a target/reflector sCT relates to the positional
uncertainty of the bottom (lower plate of tribrach) of a tripod mounted
target/reflector above a ground survey mark, of a pillar mounted target/reflector
about the centre mark of the pillar, or of the pointed shoe of a rod on a ground survey
mark in the case of a rod mounted reflector. This uncertainty sCT , normally in the
range from 0.5 to 5 mm [13], causes an uncertainty in a horizontal direction 𝑠𝑠HCT
(Eq. (4)) (see Eq. 7.8, page 108, in [6], Eq. 6.8, page 176, in [3], or Eq. 7-9, page
186, in [13]). This effect, independent for each particular direction, is maximum
when the target is misaligned at right angles to the line of sight (Fig. 1a) and does not
affect the measured direction when the target is perfectly aligned in the sight
direction (Fig. 1b).
iii. The uncertainty of the levelling of a rod mounted reflector (‘pole plumbing’) sLT
relates to the positional uncertainty of the centre of the reflector above the point of
the rod. It is produced by the uncertainty of the levelling of the reflector rod (Fig.
1e). It is considered independent of the uncertainty of the centring of the
target/reflector sCT (see page 248 in [7]) and is computed by multiplying the
levelling uncertainty β with the height of the reflector above the ground mark m (Fig.
1e) (see Eq. 9.12, page 156, in [6]). Based on experiments conducted by the authors
with hand held rods equipped with different circular levels [5], the uncertainty of the
reflector rod levelling sLT is about 3 mm (circular standard deviation, not a
maximum value). This uncertainty can be larger if the spot bubble of the rod is in
poor adjustment, the rod is bent and/or the rod does not have a circular level. In the
case of a tripod or pillar, the uncertainty of the levelling of a target/reflector sLT
relates to the positional uncertainty of the centre of the target/reflector above the
centre of the bottom plate of the tribrach, or about the centre mark of the pillar,
caused by the uncertainty of the levelling of the target/reflector. It is computed by
multiplying the levelling uncertainty with the height of the target/reflector above the
tripod/pillar. This uncertainty component is quite small and only considered in high
precision applications. This uncertainty sLT gives rise to a source of uncertainty in a
horizontal direction sHLT (Eq. (5)) that is maximum when the target/reflector is
misaligned at right angles to the line of sight (Fig. 1c) and has no effect when the
target/reflector is aligned with this line (Fig. 1d). This effect is similar to the
uncertainty of centring of the target/reflector. It is important to note that, when hand
held, the inclination of the rod varies. Therefore if the horizontal direction is
measured pointing to the target/reflector n times (to obtain an average), the Eq. (5)
should be divided by √ n like in Eq. (3).
iv. There is one more uncertainty component in each direction of the angle, the
uncertainty of the levelling of the instrument. This relates to the positional
uncertainty of the intersection of the trunnion and optical axes of an instrument
above the centre of the bottom plate of the tribrach caused by the uncertainty of the
levelling of the instrument (see Eq. 8.4, page 245, in [7]). This uncertainty is quite
small, especially when instruments equipped with a dual-axis compensator are used,
and is usually only considered in high precision applications. Because of that, it is
not included in Eqs. (1b), (1c) and (2).

4
Fig. 1. (a) Effect of target centring uncertainty σCT on a measured horizontal direction. It causes an
uncertainty sHCT that is maximum when the target is misaligned at right angles to the line of sight and (b)
does not affect the measured direction when the target is aligned with the line of sight (erroneous
direction indicated by the dashed line). (c) and (d) Effect of target/reflector levelling uncertainty sLT . It
causes an uncertainty in the horizontal direction similar to cases (a) and (b). (e) Non-vertical rod mounted
reflector. It causes the positional uncertainty sLT , which is independent of the uncertainty of centring of
reflector rod sCT .

The uncertainty of a measured angle α or a horizontal direction H due to the

miscentring of the instrument (sαCI in Eq. (2) and sHCI in Eqs. (1b) and (1c)) is
discussed in the next section.

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. The following section is dedicated
to the uncertainty of the instrument centring and its propagation to the uncertainty of the
horizontal angle in the two models (ACC and APP). Then a quantitative comparison
between the models is made. The differences (solely due to the instrument centring) are
depicted by a set of diagrams according to different angles and lengths of sight. Next,
two examples of the models in some practical situations are given, with typical values
of all the sources of uncertainty: (i) an isolated horizontal angle (with different values of
the angle and different lengths of sight), (ii) the sum of the horizontal angles of a
traverse (with three cases of geometry: closed, control-zigzag and control-linear).
Finally, some conclusions are presented.

The angular units used in this paper are the grad and the centesimal second (cc) since
these units are used by the surveying community in different countries. To assist the
readers, the corresponding values in degrees and seconds of arc are given (in brackets)
for some results. The following relationships hold: 400 grads = 360º, 1 grad = 10000cc,
1cc = 0.0001 grad, 1 grad = 0.9º, 1" ≈ 3cc (3.086cc), 1cc ≈ 0.3" (0,324").

UNCERTAINTY IN INSTRUMENT CENTRING

This section deals extensively with the effect of the uncertainty of the instrument
centring. When an instrument is set up over a survey mark, an offset from the true
station centre causes an uncertainty in the horizontal position of the instrument. This
uncertainty in the instrument centring sCI depends on: (i) the state of the plummet
system (mainly optical or laser), (ii) the quality of the tripod, and (iii) the skill of the
surveyor [7]. Different authors quantify this source of uncertainty from 0.5 to 5 mm

5
depending on the plumbing system (plumb bob, centring rod, optical plummet, or laser
plummet, see Table 1). On the other hand, for a forced (constrained) centring system,
the uncertainty is quantified below 0.3 mm. In literature, different terms are used to
refer to this source of uncertainty, mainly accuracy, standard deviation, or maximum
error. According to GUM [10], each component that contributes to a measurement
uncertainty should be represented by a standard deviation termed “standard
uncertainty”. For the sake of brevity, we use in this paper the term “uncertainty” to refer
to “standard uncertainty”. The standard uncertainty is also denoted by s, independently
if it comes or not from an empirical value.

Table 1. Terminology and values in mm suggested by some authors for the centring uncertainty of the
instrument.

Source Term used Type of centring Value (mm)

[2] Max error Plumb bob 5
Centring rod 2
Optical plummet 1
Forced centring (pillar) 0.2

[4] Accuracy Plumb bob 1-2

Centring rod 1
Optical plummet 1

[8] Standard Plumb bob 1-3

deviation Optical plummet 0.5-1
Constrained centring 0.1
Pillar ≤0.1

[9] Experimental Plumb bob 1-2

standard Optical or laser plummet 0.5
deviation Centring rod 1

[11] Accuracy Plumb bob 3-5

Centring rod 1
Optical plummet 0.5
Forced centring 0.03-0.1

[12] σ Laser plummet 0.75

[13] σ N/A 0.5-3

[14] Accuracy Plumb bob 3-5

Optical plummet 0.5-1
Forced centring 0.1-0.3

Fig. 2 illustrates a horizontal angle α measured from station E to targets A and B. An

error in the instrument centring does not affect the angle α when the instrument is
located in the position shown in Fig. 2a, that is on the circumference containing E, A
and B (α≅α’). In contrast, the effect is maximum when the instrument is positioned
along the angle bisector (Figs. 2b and 2c) (α≠α’) [6]. In these three cases, the source of
uncertainty in instrument centring is denoted by the uncertainty sCI .

6
Fig. 2. Effect of instrument centring on a measured horizontal angle. It causes an uncertainty σCI that does
not affect the angle in case (a), but is maximum in cases (b) and (c). Erroneous lines of sight and angle
indicated by dashed lines.

APP model

In the APP model (Eq. (1)), the two directions that form the angle are assumed to be
uncorrelated. In this case, the contribution to the uncertainty of a direction H due to the
uncertainty of the instrument centring sCI , denoted by sHCI , is evaluated as (Figure 3)
(see page 82 in [8], Eq. 7.8, page 108, in [6], Eq. 6.8, page 176, in [3], or Eq. 7-9, page
186, in [13]:
sCI
sHCI = (6)
D

Fig. 3. Effect of instrument centring over a measured direction. It gives rise to a source of uncertainty σCI
that is maximum in case (a) and minimum in case (b).

The uncertainty sHCI is maximum when the instrument is positioned at right angles to
the line of sight and minimum when the instrument is misaligned along the sight
direction. Applying the law of propagation of uncertainty, the uncertainty sαCI can be
2 2
derived from the square root of the sum of the variances sH1 CI
and sH2CI
:

2 2 �D21 +D22
s s 1 1 1 1
sαCI =��DCIA� + �DCIB � =� 2+ 2 sCI =� 2 + 2 sCI =
D D
sCI (7)
�DA �DBE � D1 D2
E E E� 1 2

Eq. (7) is analogous to the contribution of the target (reflector) centring uncertainties to
the uncertainty of a horizontal angle α [6]. The main difference is that these target
contributions are in fact independent. Eq. (7) also shows that the uncertainty sαCI is a
function of both lengths of sight and the uncertainty in instrument centring only, but it
does not depend on the angle α. Fig. 4 shows a graph which depicts the contribution

7
sαCI for lengths of sight D1 and D2 between 10 m and 250 m. For lengths of sight less
than 10 m, the isolines are too close and not shown. The contour lines are expressed in
centesimal seconds of arc (3cc ≈ 1''). A centring uncertainty sCI of 1 mm is assumed
which allows easy extrapolation to other values of sCI . Since the horizontal angle does
not appear in Eq. (7), Fig. 4 applies to any value of α.

Fig. 4. Contribution to the uncertainty of a horizontal angle α due to the uncertainty in the instrument
centring (sαCI ) for lengths of sight between 10 m and 250 m, and an instrument centring uncertainty sCI
of 1 mm for the APP model (3cc ≈ 1'').

The uncertainty sαCI is larger in this model for very short and similar lengths of both
sights or when one of them is short or very short. For example, when D1 is 200 m and
D2 25 m, and for sCI = 1 mm, the uncertainty sαCI equals 26cc (8.4''). On the other hand,
the effect for medium to long distances is minimal.

ACC model

In the ACC model (Eq. (2)), the contribution to the uncertainty of a horizontal angle due
to the uncertainty in instrument centring sCI , denoted by sαCI , can be evaluated as (see
page 185, Eq. (7-7) in [13], page 177, Eq. (6.9a) in [3], and page 113, Eq. (7.21) in [6],
among others):

��DA �2 +�DB �2 -2DA DB cosα DB D3

E E E E
sαCI = sCI = DADA B sCI = D sCI (8)
DA B
E DE E E 1 D2

The uncertainty sαCI is evaluated from the distance to both targets D1 and D2, the angle
α between them, and the uncertainty of instrument centring sCI . For a better
understanding of Eq. (8), a graphical presentation is given. Fig. 5 shows a contour graph
which depicts the contribution sαCI for an angle α of 25 grads, a centring uncertainty sCI
of 1 mm, and lengths of sight D1 and D2 between 10 m and 250 m. Similar graphs can
be developed for other angles.

8
Fig. 5. Contour graph of the uncertainty of a horizontal angle due to the uncertainty in instrument centring
(sαCI ) for lengths of sight between 10 m and 250 m, an angle α of 25 grads (22.5º), and centring
uncertainty sCI of 1 mm for the ACC model (3cc ≈ 1'').

sαCI is larger when both lengths of sight are very short and similar, or when one distance
is short or very short. For example, when D1 is 200 m and D2 25 m, and using sCI = 1
mm and α = 25 grads, the uncertainty sαCI equals 23cc (26cc in the APP model, Fig. 4).
Again, there is hardly any effect for medium to long distances. For example, when D1
and D2 are 50 m, sαCI equals 5cc (1.6'') for a centring uncertainty of 1 mm and an angle
of 25 grads (18cc (5.8'') in the APP model, Fig. 4). Obviously, the effect depends on the
angle.

COMPARISON BETWEEN ACC AND APP MODELS

This section compares the effect of the uncertainty of the instrument centring for the
two models presented. Comparing Figs. 4 and 5, we can see that there are substantial
differences between the uncertainties derived from these two models. A better
understanding of these differences is essential for assessing whether the (accurate) ACC
model could be replaced by the (approximate) APP model.

The degree of similarity between the models depends on the horizontal angle α and the
lengths of sight. A basic analysis can be performed by setting D1 = D2 = D. The ACC
model (Eq. (8)) gives for α of 0 grad, 100 grads and 200 grads uncertainties of sαCI of 0,
�√2⁄D�sCI , and (2⁄D)sCI respectively. On the other hand, the APP model (Eq. (7))
returns �√2⁄D�sCI for the three angles. It is evident that the APP model returns larger
values than the ACC model if α < 100 grads (90º) and smaller values if α > 100 grads
(90º).

Fig. 6 allows a more in-depth analysis and shows the ACC model and its difference
(APP minus ACC) for different angles and lengths of sight. When α equals 100 grads
(90º) (and its explementary angle), Eq. (8) is equivalent to Eq. (7), so both models give
the same result (see Fig. 6h). Two angles that sum to one turn (400 grads) are called
explementary angles or conjugate angles. The differences increase when α moves away
from a right angle. Figs. 6a to 6e show a set of graphs, similar to Fig. 5, which depict
the uncertainty sαCI for α between 0 and 200 grads (180º), in steps of 50 grads (45º),
and for sCI equals 1 mm, evaluated by the ACC model. Figs. 6f to 6j show the

9
difference, positive or negative, between the APP and ACC models for each angle (Eq.
(7) minus Eq. (8)). A positive difference indicates that the APP model returns a larger
sαCI , whereas a negative value means that the ACC returns a larger sαCI . The graphs
from 200 grads to 400 grads are identical to those of their explementary angles (i.e., the
graph for 250 grads is similar to that for its explementary angle, and so on).

(a) sαCI ACC model. Close to 0 grad (and its (f) sαCI APP minus ACC model (APP values larger
explementary angle, 400 grads). (3cc ≈ 1'') than ACC). Close to 0 grad (and its explementary
angle). (3cc ≈ 1'')

(g) sαCI APP minus ACC model (APP values larger

(b) sαCI ACC model. 50 grads (and its explementary
cc than ACC). 50 grads (and its explementary angle). (3cc
angle, 350 grads). (3 ≈ 1'') ≈ 1'')

10
(c) sαCI ACC model. 100 grads (and its explementary (h) sαCI is the same for the APP and ACC models. 100
angle, 300 grads). (3cc ≈ 1'') grads (and its explementary angle). (3cc ≈ 1'')

(i) sαCI APP minus ACC model (APP values smaller

(d) sαCI ACC model. 150 grads (and its explementary
cc than ACC). 150 grads (and its explementary angle).
angle, 250 grads). (3 ≈ 1'')
(3cc ≈ 1'')

11
(e) sαCI ACC model. Close to 200 grads. (3cc ≈ 1'') (j) sαCI APP minus ACC model (APP values smaller
than ACC). Close to 200 grads. (3cc ≈ 1'')

Fig. 6. Diagrams of sαCI for the ACC model, for a centring uncertainty (of instrument) of 1 mm, for
different angles α (close to 0 grad (a), 50 grads (b), 100 grads (90º) (c), 150 grads (d), and close to 200
grads (180º) (e)), and lengths of sight between 0 and 250 m. Figs. (f) to (j) depict the differences between
the APP and ACC models (Eq. (7) minus Eq. (8)) for the same angles as in (a) to (e). The sαCI curves are
given for 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 40, 60, and 80cc. Positive differences indicate that the APP model produces larger
sαCI , whereas negative values mean that the APP model produces smaller sαCI . (3cc ≈ 1'')

Fig. 6 allows surveyors to perform a quick analysis of the contribution of the instrument
centring to the uncertainty of a horizontal angle. An alternative view of the differences
between both models is depicted in Fig. 7. It represents the difference (in centesimal
seconds of arc) for the same angles as in Fig. 6 when both lengths of sight are identical
(D1 equals D2). The curves correspond to the diagonal profiles of Figs. 6f to 6j.

Fig. 7. Differences between the sαCI obtained with the APP and ACC models (in centesimal seconds of
arc) (Eq. (7) minus Eq. (8)) for equal distances D1 and D2, and for angles 0 grad, 50 grads, 100 grads
(90º), 150 grads and 200 grads (180º). The horizontal axis is in logarithmic scale.

Figures 6 and 7 indicate that the APP model returns much larger values of sαCI than the
ACC model for angles between 0 and 100 grads (and their explementary angles). On the
other hand, the APP model returns smaller values of sαCI , but to a lesser extent, than the

12
ACC for angles between 100 and 200 grads (and their explementary angles). The
maximum positive difference (about 90cc (29.1'') for a centring uncertainty of 1 mm) is
obtained when α tends to zero (and the explementary angle to 400 grads) at short
distances (i.e., 10 m) (Fig. 7). On the other hand, the maximum negative difference
(about -40cc (-13'') for a centring uncertainty of 1 mm) is obtained when α equals 200
grads, also at short distances.

The absolute differences are larger for α between 0 and 100 grads (and their
explementary angles) than between 100 and 200 grads (and their explementary angles)
(see Fig. 7). This means that the positive differences (when the APP values are larger
than those of the ACC) are larger in absolute value than the negative differences (when
the APP values are smaller than the ACC ones). If a required accuracy needs to be
satisfied, the use of the APP model will imply a risk for α between 100 and 200 grads
(and their explementary angles). However, the accuracy would be assured for α
between 0 and 100 grads (and their respective explementary angles). A detailed look at
this figure also indicates that differences are quite steady for α between 150 and 200
grads (and their explementary angles). In contrast, they change quickly for α between 0
and 50 grads (and their respective explementary angles).

Fig. 6 also shows that the contour lines evolve from a pointed shape at 0 grad (Fig. 6f)
to a nearly linear shape at 200 grads (180º) (Fig. 6j). The pointed shape indicates larger
differences between models when distances are similar than when they are not, whereas
the linear shape means similar results when distances are not similar. Thus, for example,
for an α of 50 grads (Fig. 6g), when D1 and D2 equal 50 m, the difference between the
models is 13cc, but 5cc (a difference of 8cc) when D1 equals 90 m and D2 equals 10 m.
On the other hand, for an α of 150 grads (Fig. 6i) the difference is -5cc when D1 and D2
equal 50 m and -4cc (a difference of 1cc) when D1 equals 90 m and D2 equals 10 m. Let
us finally indicate that the asymptotic shape of the curves in Fig. 7 shows that the
differences are very small for lengths of sight of 100 – 150 m and more, independent of
the angle.

CASE STUDIES

Two examples of practical situations are presented to provide an overview of the

differences between the angular uncertainty obtained by the APP and ACC models. The
first example compares the uncertainty of a horizontal angle evaluated with both
models. The following values are assumed for the sources of uncertainty (assuming
optical plummet for instrument and target centring) for the data of Table 2: sISO-Hz 10cc
(3.2'') with double-face observations, instrument centring sCI 1 mm, target centring sCT
1 mm, sLT negligible). Values are calculated for the following angles and sighting
distances: 25, 50, 100 (90º), 150, and 200 grads (180º), and 20, 50, 100, and 250 m.

Table 2 shows the differences in centesimal seconds of arc (cc) between the uncertainty
of a horizontal angle evaluated with the APP and ACC models (Eq. (1) minus Eq. (2)).
It can be seen that these differences are minimal for lengths of sight of 100 m and more.
For lengths less than 100 m, the differences are not large for the sources of uncertainty
assumed. For sighting distances of 20 m, for example, the difference is just 10cc (3.2'')
for an angle of 25 grads (22.5º) (and its explementary angle) and -14cc (-4.5'') for an
angle of 200 grads (180º). For an angle of 100 grads, the difference is always zero.

13
Note the effect of a change of the uncertainty of the instrument centring sCI on the
uncertainty sαCI . For a sCI of 2 mm, the differences between both models are
considerably larger (Table 3), always for short lengths of sight. This represents a risk
when the uncertainty evaluation of the horizontal angle is carried out by the APP model
and the instrument is not set up with proper care.

Table 2. Difference in centesimal seconds of arc (cc) between the uncertainty of a horizontal angle
computed using the APP and ACC models (Eq. (1) minus Eq. (2)) for different angles (25, 50 (45º), 150
and 200 grads (180º)) and lengths of sight (20, 50, 100 and 250 m). The following uncertainty
components are assumed: σISO-Hz = 10cc (3.2'') with dual face observations, instrument centring sCI = 1
mm, target centring sCT = 1 mm (plumbing with optical plummet assumed for instrument and target
centring). (3cc ≈ 1'').

D2 (m)
20 50 100 250 20 50 100 250 20 50 100 250 20 50 100 250
D1 (m) 25 (375) grads 50 (350) grads 150 (250) grads 200 grads
20 16 8 4 2 12 6 3 1 -10 -5 -3 -1 -14 -7 -4 -2
50 8 6 3 1 6 4 2 1 -5 -4 -2 -1 -7 -5 -3 -1
100 4 3 2 1 3 2 2 1 -3 -2 -1 -1 -4 -3 -2 -1
250 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 0 -2 -1 -1 0

Table 3. Same as Table 2, but with sCI = 2 mm.

D2 (m)
20 50 100 250 20 50 100 250 20 50 100 250 20 50 100 250
D1 (m) 25 (375) grads 50 (350) grads 150 (250) grads 200 grads
20 48 22 11 4 34 16 8 3 -25 -14 -7 -3 -34 -19 -10 -4
50 22 18 10 4 16 13 7 3 -14 -10 -6 -3 -19 -13 -8 -4
100 11 10 7 3 8 7 5 2 -7 -6 -4 -2 -10 -8 -6 -3
250 4 4 3 2 3 3 2 1 -3 -3 -2 -1 -4 -4 -3 -2

Since a horizontal angle is measured at each station of a traverse, a second example

compares the uncertainty of the total sum of angles in a traverse. Three traverses of
different shapes have been selected (Fig. 8): closed (polygon) (Case a), control-zigzag
(Case b), and control-linear (Case c). All three traverses consist of five stations and 50
m long lines. Short leg lengths are used for this example because the differences
between the APP and ACC models are very small for longer traverse sides. For the
closed (polygon) traverse, the interior angles are assumed measured. For the other two
cases, the direction of measurement is to the right. The closed traverse is shaped like a
regular pentagon, so all five interior angles are 120 grads (108º). In the control-zigzag
traverse, three angles are 150 grads (135º), and two are 50 grads (45º). Finally, in the
control-linear traverse, all five angles are 200 grads (180º). The different sources of
uncertainty are taken as follows (assuming optical plummet centring for the instrument
and a hand held reflector rod with a circular level): σISO-Hz =10cc (3.2'') with double-
face observations, sCI (instrument) = 1 mm, sCT (target centring) = 2 mm, and sLT
(levelling of reflector rod) = 3 mm.
The differences between the APP and ACC models (Eq. (1) minus Eq. (2)) for the
uncertainty of the total sum of angles are -1cc (Case a), -1cc (Case b), and -5cc (-1.6'')
(Case c). In Case (a), the difference in the uncertainty of the total sum of angles is not

14
significant because the five angles are 120 grads, close to 100 grads where both models
give identical results (see Fig. 4h). In Case (b), the difference is again not significant
because positive differences (from the 50 grads angles, Fig. 4g) are compensated by
negative ones (from the 150 grads angles, Fig 4i). Finally, in Case (c), the difference is
more significant because all five angles are 200 grads (Fig. 4j is applicable to this case).
In any case, the differences of the uncertainty of the sum of the traverse angles for the
three traverse types are not very large if sCI = 1 mm is assumed.

If sCI increases to 2 mm (uncertainty of angular measurement σISO-Hz =10cc (3.2''),

uncertainty of target centring sCT = 2 mm and uncertainty of levelling of reflector rod
sLT = 3 mm), the differences between the APP and ACC models for the uncertainty of
the total sum of the traverse angles are -6cc (-1.9''), -1cc, and -18cc (-5.8'') respectively.
Therefore the control-linear traverse (Case (c)) shows the largest difference between the
models (-18cc). When the allowable angular misclosure (tolerance) is computed and the
uncertainty of the sum of angles is expanded to a certain coverage probability, particular
care should be taken when the APP model is applied to straight line traverses. The APP
model gives a smaller uncertainty and the tolerance would be smaller too (when
compared to the ACC model). If sCI = 2 mm and a coverage factor of 3 (probability of
99.7% in the standard normal distribution), the tolerance would be 54cc (17.5'') smaller
than that derived from ACC model, therefore more restrictive. This is a risk that needs
to be considered because an angular misclosure accepted with a tolerance derived from
the ACC model, could be rejected if the tolerance is derived from the APP model.

Fig. 8. Three types of traverses selected in the second example. Closed (polygon) (6a), control-zigzag
(6b) and control-linear (6c) traverses.

CONCLUSIONS

One of the sources of uncertainty in the measurement of a horizontal angle is the

instrument centring. This component can become large for short lengths of sight. The
instrument centring uncertainty sCI causes an uncertainty in a horizontal angle sαCI
which is a function of the angle and the two lengths of sight (Eq. (8)). Some authors
assume that the instrument centring uncertainty affects both observed directions in an
angle independently. In such a case, the uncertainty sαCI is evaluated applying the law
of propagation of the uncertainty to sHCI (Eq. (6)), the contribution of the instrument
centring to the uncertainty of each direction, obtaining Eq. (7). As a consequence, a

15
quantitative difference in the uncertainty of a horizontal angle exists (Eq. (8) versus Eq.
(7)).

This paper analyses two models for the contribution of sαCI to the total uncertainty of a
horizontal angle. The models are called “accurate” and “approximate” (denoted by ACC
and APP). The ACC model assumes that the uncertainty sCI is dependent on both
observed directions in an angle. In contrast, the APP model assumes that sCI is
independent for each direction. A set of diagrams depicts the differences (Eq. (7) minus
Eq. (8)) between both approaches for sαCI assuming sCI equals 1 mm, angles α between
0 and 200 grads (the results for angles α between 200 and 400 grads are identical to
their explementary angles), and lengths of sight between 10 and 250 m. The differences
between the two sαCI models are minimal for lengths of sight of 100 – 150 m and more,
independently of the angle (Fig. 7). However, the APP model overestimates sαCI (APP
values larger than ACC) when α is less than 100 grads (and its explementary angle). A
maximum of 90cc (29.2'') is obtained when α is close to 0 or its explementary angle, and
D1 and D2 are equal to 10 m. The APP model underestimates sαCI (APP values smaller
than ACC) when α is between 100 and 200 grads (and their explementary angles)
(maximum of -40cc when α equals 200 grads, and D1 and D2 are equal to 10 m).

In order to fully assess the effect of the differences between both models on the
uncertainty of a horizontal angle, all other sources of uncertainty should also be taken
into account, mainly those of the standard ISO 17123-3, target centring and
target/reflector levelling. A first simple example has been presented for an isolated
horizontal angle with typical values of these sources of uncertainty assuming a small
value of instrument centring (modelling an accurate set up of the instrument) (σISO-Hz
=10cc (3.2''), optical plummet for centring instrument and target, sCI = 1 mm and sCT =
1 mm, and target levelling sLT negligible). The results indicate that the difference
between the APP and the ACC models is not large for the sources of uncertainty
assumed, and minimal for lengths of sight larger than 100 m. For shorter lengths of
sight, the differences between both models increase quickly as the uncertainty in the
instrument centring sCI increases.

A second example compares the uncertainty of the sum of the angles of a five-station
traverse (three cases: closed, control zig-zag and control-linear) also assuming typical
values of the sources of uncertainty, an accurate instrument set up (σISO-Hz =10cc (3.2''),
optical plummet for centring instrument sCI = 1 mm), and a hand-held reflector
provided with a circular level, sCT (target centring) = 2 mm, and sLT (levelling of
reflector rod) = 3 mm. The results show how the differences between the APP and the
ACC models are conditioned by the geometry of the traverse, larger in the case of the
control-linear, but not very significant (5cc (1.6'')). However, as the differences increase
if the uncertainty in instrument centring sCI increases, it is crucial to accurately set up
the instrument.

Many problems of the instrument centring stem from a careless attitude of the surveyor
and especially a failure to test the plummet and ensure that the instrument is carefully
levelled. If a required accuracy needs to be satisfied, the underestimation of sαCI (APP
values smaller than ACC for angles between 100 and 200 grads, and corresponding
explementary angles) causes a risk which must be considered.

16
The two models have been known for a considerable time and the results of this study
are applicable for any survey with horizontal angle measurement such as traverses.
When three or more directions are measured on a station, measured directions rather
than angles are preferred as observations. Then, each direction is assumed as
independent (all directions from a station are supposedly uncorrelated) which is not
true. For example as in the APP model, the uncertainty of the instrument centring is not
independent for each direction. However, our results show that this problem has no
special relevance if the distances are relatively large and the set up of the instrument is
accurate.

Acknowledgments

This research has been partially supported by projects BIA2011-23271 and AYA2010-
15501 from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. The authors also wish to
thank the Regional Government of Andalucía (Spain) for the financial support of their
research groups “Ingeniería Cartográfica” (PAIDI-TEP-164), “Microgeodesia Jaén”
(PAIDI-RNM-282) and “SIG Jaén – Ingeniería Gráfica” (PAIDI-TIC-159) since 1997.
The authors also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

References

1. Anderson, J. M. and Mikhail, E. M., 1998. Surveying: Theory and Practice. 7th
Ed., WCB McGraw-Hill, New York.

2. Baykal, O., Tari, E., Coskun, M. Z. and Erden, T., 2005. Accuracy of point
layout with polar coordinates. Journal of Surveying Engineering, 131(3): 87-93.

3. Buckner, R.B., 1991. Surveying Measurements and their Analysis. 3rd Ed.,
Landmark, California, USA.

4. Cooper, M. A. R., 1987. Modern Theodolites and Levels, 2nd Ed. BSP
Professional Books, Oxford.

5. García, J. L., Ruiz, A. M. and Mesa, J. L., 2011. Evaluación de la incertidumbre

de medida de ángulos, distancias y desniveles medidos con instrumentación
topográfica. Mapping, 149: 6-27 (in Spanish).

6. Ghilani, C. D., 2010. Adjustment Computations. Spatial Data Analysis. 5th Ed,
John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

7. Ghilani, C. D. and Wolf, P. R., 2012. Elementary Surveying. An Introduction to

Geomatics. 13th Ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

8. Harvey, B. R., 2006. Practical Least Squares and Statistics for Surveyors, 3rd
Ed. School of Surveying and Spatial Information Systems, The University of
New South Wales, Sydney.

9. ISO, 2001. International Standard ISO 17123-3: 2001. Optics and optical
instruments – Field procedures for testing geodetic and surveying instruments –

17
 Part 3: Theodolites. International Standardization Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland.

10. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, 2008. JCGM 100:2008. Evaluation of
measurement data — Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement
(GUM). Working Group 1 of the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology
(JCGM/WG1). 〈http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html〉
(accessed April 1, 2012).

11. Kahmen, H. and Faig W., 1988. Surveying. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin.

12. Leica Geosystems AG, 2010. Leica TS11/TS15 User Manual. Version 1.0.
English. Leica Geosystems AG, Heerbrugg, Switzerland.

13. Mikhail, E. M. and Gracie, G., 1981. Analysis and Adjustment of Survey
Measurements. Van Nostrand Reinhold , New York.

14. Schofield, W. and Breach, M., 2007. Engineering Surveying. 6th Ed. Elsevier
(Butterworth-Heinemann), Oxford, UK.

18

View publication stats