APPLICATION OF GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATTELITE

SYSTEM TO CADASTRAL SURVEYING: ACCURACY OF

RTK (REAL-TIME KINEMATIC) DERIVED 50M-LONG
CADASTRAL DISTANCE AND BEARING

SUBMITTED BY:

EGBUONU OBIAJULU CASMIR

2019/243618

DPR NUM: 1188

BEING A PROJECT REPORT

PRESENTED TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOINFORMATICS AND
SURVEYING
FACULTY OF ENVIRNOMENTAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA ENUGU CAMPUS,
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR
THE AWARD BSc IN GEOINFORMATICS AND
SURVEYING/GEOINFORMATICS

SUPERVISOR

SURV. KELECHI .I. NWOSU

JANUARY 2025
 CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that I, EGBUONU OBIAJULU CASMIR, with registration number
2019/243618, a student of the Department of Geoinformatics and Surveying, have
satisfactorily completed the requirement for this Project for the award of the BSc in
Geoinformatics and Surveying / Geoinformatics. The work embodied in this Project is original,
and has not to my knowledge been submitted in part or full for any other degree of this or other
University.

--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

EGBUONU OBIAJULU CASMIR DATE

II
 APPROVAL
This is to certify that EGBUONU OBIAJULU CASMIR, with registration number

2019/243618, a student of the Department of Geoinformatics and Surveying, has satisfactorily

completed the requirement for this Project for the award of the Degree of BSc in

Geoinformatics and Surveying / Geoinformatics. The work embodied in this Project is original,

and has not to our knowledge been published or submitted in part or full for any other degree

of this or other University.

--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

SURV. KELECHI NWOSU DATE

SUPERVISOR

--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

PROF. E.C. MOKA DATE

HEAD OF DEPARTMENT

--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

EXTERNAL EXAMINER DATE

--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

DEAN, DATE

III
 DEDICATION
I dedicate this project to GOD Almighty.

IV
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I want to appreciate my supervisor first and foremost for his tireless efforts and input in

ensuring that this project was a success, my heart felt gratitude also goes out to the staff of the

Department of Geoinformatics and Surveying Enugu Campus.

I also want to thank my parents for their support and loving kindness, my siblings for their

encouragement and my friends and colleagues for their immerse contribution to the success of

this project.

V
 ABSTRACT
The study aims to assess the precision of GNSS-RTK positioning in delineating cadastral

boundaries. The research methodology involves a combination of reconnaissance, data

acquisition using Differential GPS (DGPS) and Total Station, and data processing and analysis.

Field reconnaissance identified control stations, and the GNSS-RTK and Total Station

instruments were tested for reliability. Data acquisition was performed by establishing points

along 50-meter legs and collecting real-time distance data using both instruments. The acquired

data was processed, and a comparison of the precision between the RTK and Total Station

measurements was conducted.

The results revealed that the RTK model achieved centimeter-level accuracy in measuring

coordinates and distances, with maximum differences of 0.03 meters in eastings and 0.09

meters in northings. The linear misclosure for the Total Station data was calculated to determine

the survey's accuracy specification, resulting in a linear misclosure ratio of 1:4462.

The study concludes that GNSS-RTK technology can provide reliable and accurate data for

cadastral surveys over short baseline distances. However, the research recommends further

studies using GNSS receivers in static mode and comparing the accuracy of different

instrument modes to ensure higher precision for cadastral surveys.

VI
 TABLE OF CONTENT
CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................ II

APPROVAL .................................................................................................................................. III

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................. V

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... VI

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ X

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... XI

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ...................................................................................... 1

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...................................................................................................... 3

1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................... 4

1.3.1 AIM ................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3.2 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 PROJECT SCOPE............................................................................................................... 4

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY ................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER TWO: THEORITICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 6

2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 6

2.2 CADASTRAL SURVEYING................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 HISTORIC SKETCH OF CADASTRE SURVEYING ..................................................................... 7

2.3 GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEMS (GNSS) ........................................................... 10

2.3.1 COMPONENTS OF GNSS .................................................................................................. 11

2.3.1.1 SPACE SEGMENTS ................................................................................................... 11

2.3.1.2 CONTROL SEGMENT ............................................................................................... 12

VII
 2.3.1.3 USER SEGMENT ...................................................................................................... 13

2.3.2 DIFFERENCIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM.................................................................. 17

2.3.2.1 HOW DGPS WORKS:................................................................................................ 18

2.3.2.2 BENEFITS OF DGPS ................................................................................................. 18

CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 27

4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 27

4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................................................ 27

4.3 RECONNAISSANCE ............................................................................................................... 28

4.3.1 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE ................................................................................................ 28

4.3.2 OFFICE RECONNAISSANCE ............................................................................................. 28

4.4 INSTRUMENTATION ........................................................................................................ 29

4.5 RELIABILITY OF INSTRUMENT.......................................................................................... 29

4.5.1 TOTAL STATION CHECK .................................................................................................... 29

4.5.1.1 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL COLLIMATION CHECK.................................................. 29

4.5.1.2 PLATE BUBBLE TEST ................................................................................................ 32

4.5.1.3 ADDITIVE CONSTANT TEST ....................................................................................... 32

4.5.1.4 OPTICAL PLUMMET TEST.......................................................................................... 33

4.5.2 RTK RECIVERS CHECK...................................................................................................... 34

4.6 DATA ACQUISITION ........................................................................................................ 35

4.7 DATA DOWNLOADING .................................................................................................... 36

4.8 DATA PROCESSING ........................................................................................................ 36

4.9 DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 39

CHAPTER FIVE: RESULT .............................................................................................................. 40

5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 40

VIII
5.2 ACQUIRED DATA ............................................................................................................. 40

5.3 DATA COMPARISON ........................................................................................................ 40

5.3.1 COORDINATE COMPARISON ................................................................................................ 40

5.3.2 DISTANCE COMPARISON ................................................................................................. 44

5.3.3 AZIMUTH COMPARISON ................................................................................................... 45

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................ 47

6.1 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 47

6.2 RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................................................... 47

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 48

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. 50

IX
 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 4.1: HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL COLLIMATION CHECK ........................................................................... 31

TABLE 4.2: RTK CHECK .......................................................................................................................... 34

TABLE 4.3: RTK DATA CLEANING ............................................................................................................... 37

TABLE 4.4: BACKWARD COMPUTATION OF DATA ............................................................................................ 38

TABLE 5.1: ACQUIRED COORDINATES ........................................................................................................ 40

TABLE 5.2: COORDINATE COMPARISON ...................................................................................................... 41

TABLE 5.3: TABLE SHOWING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POINTS IN DISTANCE............................................................ 41

TABLE 5.3: ACCURACY CHECK ................................................................................................................. 43

TABLE 5.4: DISTANCE COMPARISON .......................................................................................................... 44

TABLE 5.5: AZIMUTH COMPARISON ........................................................................................................... 45

X
 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1: COMPARING ORBITS OF SATELLITES GPS, GLONASS, COMPASS AND GALILEO WITH ORBITS OF IRIDIUM

SATELLITES, TELESCOPE HUBBLE’S INTERNATIONAL STATION COSMIC ......................................................... 12

FIGURE 4.1: RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................................... 27

FIGURE 5.1: CHART SHOWING COORDINATE COMPARISON .............................................................................. 41

FIGURE 5.2: CHART SHOWING DISTANCE COMPARISON .................................................................................. 45

XI
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

Presently the world over, Surveying has stretched over land, sea and air into outer space where

satellites are used to determine positions of points on the surface of the earth (Didigwu, 2021).

The recent advances in Satellite technology have led to the birth of the Global Positioning

System (GPS) which has facilitated capturing of geometrically precise location of the earth’s

surface combined with RTK technology for cadastral purposes. As a breakthrough technology

in position determination, Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) has become one of the

important tools in survey and mapping. The term GNSS includes satellite positioning systems

such as GPS (Global Positioning System), GLONASS (Globalnaya Navigazionnaya

Sputnikovaya Sistema), Galileo, BeiDou and other satellite-based positioning system. In line

with its rapid growth, the interest in the use of GNSS for position determination has equally

increased tremendously and this includes; Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL), tracking system,

geodynamic monitoring, atmospheric monitoring, hazard mitigation and so on (Bramanto et

al., 2019).

The science of boundary determination, recording and keeping known as cadastral survey has

been dated back to ancient Egypt using historical facts. These records were used to re-establish

land boundaries after floods. In the realm of cadastral surveys, precision and accuracy are

crucial for delineating land boundaries, recording property ownership, and ensuring effective

land governance. Traditional survey methods like theodolites and total stations have played a

vital role in shaping property rights and land tenure systems, but they have limitations (Pranam

& Bhavsar, 2023).

1
GNSS technology, in particular GPS, has matured to the stage where it has become another

tool for the professional surveyor. Commercial products offer user-friendly hardware/software

and suggest techniques that can improve productivity at a high accuracy.

The GNSS based surveying although was predominately used for high precision geodetic

surveys and topographic surveys, the method is now being increasingly used for cadastral

surveys owing to cost benefits and ease of use. The GNSS-RTK positioning method can

achieve relative position within centimetre precision when a set of international best practices

are followed. Despite this usage and accuracy however, the use of GPS-RTK for cadastral

surveys is still under considerations by the local surveyors, more like a ‘wait-and-see’ situation.

Elsewhere, some have reported on the successful used of GPS-RTK for cadastral surveys such

as Boey et al, (1996), and Hansen, (1998).

Apart from the high initial cost of investment, one of the several issues of concern in the

implementation of GPS for cadastral works in Nigeria is the different datum in use. GNSS

derived coordinates, given in the WGS-84 geocentric-datum, are independently determined

point-by-point coordinates, which maintain its high accuracy in each determination. On the

other hand, Nigeria traverse Mercator (NTM) coordinates are based on local datum, which

accumulates errors, the further the point is situated away from the point of origin (Tan, 1997).

Development since then has been tremendous aiding to the fact that conversions are now being

made available within DGPS instruments to aid speedily coordinate transformations.

Several countries such as Austria, Malaysia, and Indonesia to name a few as adopted the use

of GNSS technology as a viable tool for use in the acquisition of precise points for cadastral

purposes and has thus adjusted their cadastral guidelines to encompass the usage of this

technology within specified boundaries. The International Federation of Surveyors (2010) also

2
approved the use of GNSS in cadastral survey accepting its accuracy in the determination of

points along boundary lines of specified distances.

The advancement of technology however has long broken its previous limitations with several

breakthroughs on shorter intervals. The previous limitations of GNSS in terms of accuracy over

distance is seen to be one of those limitations or shortcomings of the earlier versions to have

been done away with. This project thus seeks to authenticate the accuracy of the GPS in its

usage for cadastral survey spanning over long distance predominantly cadastral surveys over

50 metres in length.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Despite its high accuracy and the widespread adoption of Global Navigation Satellite Systems

(GNSS) in cadastral surveying, there remains a need to rigorously assess the accuracy of

GNSS-derived measurements for specific applications. A key concern against the approval of

GNSS is the accumulation of errors over long distances. As thus ensuring that GNSS-RTK

measurements meet the stringent accuracy standards required for legal and administrative

purposes in cadastral surveys is of keen importance.

Cadastral survey being a critical survey dealing with the delineation of property bounds require

accurate and reliable cadastral information essential for defining and enforcing property rights,

facilitating land ownership, enabling efficient land administration, guiding urban planning and

development, and supporting economic growth.

As the years go by, improvement are constantly made and each improvement is purposed to

produce better efficiency and effectiveness than previous versions.

This study therefore seeks to put to test the application of GNSS in cadastral survey specifically

in areas spanning over 50 metres in distance.

3
1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES

1.3.1 AIM

The aim of this project is to assess the accuracy of GNSS instrument for use in cadastral survey

in short baseline distance spanning over 50 metres.

1.3.2 OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of this project are to:

1. Carry out a reconnaissance visit to the site

2. Acquire coordinates of known points within the site

3. Establish points along each 50-meter-long leg to ensure consistent and accurate

measurement.

4. Perform GNSS RTK and Total station surveys at the established points to collect real

time distance data.

5. Analyse and compare the precision of both RTK and Total station measurements

1.4 PROJECT SCOPE

This project extent covers the use of GNSS for the acquisition of horizontal rectangular

coordinates for the determination of precise positioning. The project does not cover the

acquisition of topographical data for the visualisation of the terrain. This project also only uses

RTK (real time kinematic) mode on the DGPS for the acquisition of data and does not access

the accuracy of the other modes such as PPK (post-processing kinematic) and static. The

project scope also does not include the establishment of ground control points as well as

accessing the accuracy of the control points but rather uses already established control points

whose coordinates have already been determined in a previous survey.

4
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
This research holds significant value for various stakeholders within the land administration

and surveying domains.

TO THE SURVEYING PROFESSION

The findings will contribute to the refinement of GNSS-RTK methodologies specifically for

cadastral surveys, improving accuracy and efficiency in field operations. By providing

empirical evidence on the accuracy and reliability of GNSS-RTK for use in survey that falls

within 50-meter measurements.

FOR RESEARCHERS AND ACADEMICS

This study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge on the accuracy and reliability of

GNSS-RTK technology in cadastral surveying. The findings can serve as a foundation for

further research on the application of GNSS technology in various surveying contexts and for

the development of more advanced surveying techniques.

5
 CHAPTER TWO
THEORITICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter unravels the theory for which the framework of this project is anchored upon. The

chapter provides in depth understanding to the underlying theories that backs up the study and

how these individual concepts are related.

2.2 CADASTRAL SURVEYING

The term “Cadastre” refers to a land ownership information register. A cadastre as defined by

Enemark and Sevatdal (1999) is an up-to-date land information system containing a record of

interests in land (e.g. rights, restrictions and responsibilities). It usually includes a geometric

description of land parcels linked to other records describing the nature of the interests,

ownership or control of those interests, and often the value of the parcel and its improvements.

Cadastre commonly includes details of the ownership, tenure, the precise location, the

dimensions, and in some cases the value of individual parcels of land. As a result of

understanding of these benefits, in recent decades, there have been many efforts to develop

information systems based on the cadastral parcel which is the basic spatial unit of human

activity (Dale and McLaughlin, 1999).

The origin of the Cadastre belongs to the Egypt, where it was necessary to redefine land

properties after the Nile flooding. The Cadastre can be classified in different ways: urban or

rural, probative or not probative (if relevant acts have or not a juridical value), descriptive

(describing land information) or geometrical (planar representation). Main functions of the

Cadastre are: - Topographical and Mapping: recording of land boundaries - - Title registration:

recording of the ownership and relevant legal rights Property Valuation: defining land taxes

6
and property type based on land property. In many countries, Cadastre, Mapping and Land

Registry functions are separated. Surveying is carried out by surveyors, while title registration

is performed by Notaries. Cadastral Authorities at national level are under the responsibility of

different Ministries (e.g. Ministry of land and surveys). Cadastral parcels boundaries are

recorded through the establishment of a relationship between maps and survey control points

taken on the field. Points and relevant baseline measurements are taken nowadays through the

Hybridisation of EDM (Electronic Distance Measurements), Total Stations and GNSS

professional measurements. Needed measurements accuracy is in the order of 0.1-0.3 m (Dale

and McLaughlin, 1999).

2.2.1 HISTORIC SKETCH OF CADASTRE SURVEYING

2.2.1.1 Chain Surveying:

One of the oldest methods, chain surveying relies on measuring distances using a chain or tape.

This method involves establishing a series of connected lines, known as traverse lines, to map

out the boundaries of a property. Angles between lines are measured using a compass or

theodolite. Chain surveying is labour-intensive and susceptible to human error, but it provides

a fundamental understanding of basic surveying principles (Ghilani & Wolf, 2017). Based on

the materials, weights and lengths, various types of tapes are used in Chain Surveying:

Cloth or Linen Tape: This is closely woven linen or synthetic material and is varnished to resist

moisture. It is available in a length of 10 to 30 m and width of 10 to 15 mm. Cloth tape tends

to change its length when stretched. It is likely to twist and not remain straight when subjected

to strong winds.

Metallic Tape: This is a linen tape with brass or copper wires woven into it longitudinally to

reduce stretching. The wires are not visible because it is varnished. These are available in

lengths of 20 to 30 m. It is an accurate measurement device and is commonly used for

7
measuring offsets. As it is reinforced with brass or copper wires, all the defects of linen tapes

are overcome.

Steel Tape: It is more accurate than metallic tapes. They are made up of steel or stainless-steel

strips. These are available in lengths of 1 to 50 m and widths of 6 to 10 mm. A brass ring is

attached at the end of the tape, the outer end of which is the zero point of the tape. Steel tapes

cannot be used in the ground with vegetation and weeds.

Chains were often used along side other tools such as pegs, arrows and ranging rods. Chain

surveying, while fundamental, was labour-intensive, susceptible to human error due to

variations in tension, sag, and temperature during measurements, and present significant

challenges in rugged terrain.

2.2.1.2 Compass Surveying:

Compass surveying utilizes a magnetic compass to determine bearings, or the direction of a

line relative to magnetic north. This method is relatively simple and inexpensive, making it

suitable for preliminary surveys and reconnaissance work. This method however, was

susceptible to inherent limitations. Magnetic declination, the angle between true north and

magnetic north, varies over time and location, introducing errors into compass readings.

Furthermore, local magnetic disturbances from nearby objects, such as power lines or mineral

deposits, could significantly distort compass readings, diminishing the accuracy of the survey.

(Davis et al., 2012).

2.2.1.3 Plane Table Surveying:

Plane table surveying involves using a drawing board mounted on a tripod to directly plot

measurements onto a sheet of paper in the field. A sighting alidade, equipped with a sight and

a ruler, is used to draw lines representing the directions of various points. This method is

particularly useful for topographic mapping and small-scale surveys (Wolf & Ghilani,

8
2010). While useful for topographic mapping and small-scale surveys, the accuracy of plane

table surveys was limited by the precision of the drawing and the stability of the plane table

setup. Strong winds or uneven ground could significantly impact the accuracy of the drawings.

2.2.1.4 Leveling:

Leveling is a crucial technique for determining elevations. It involves using a leveling

instrument to establish a series of horizontal lines, or levels, across the terrain. This method is

essential for constructing roads, railways, and other civil engineering projects, as well as for

creating topographic maps (Brinker & Minnick, 2002). A graduated staff was held at different

points, and readings were taken to determine their elevations relative to a known benchmark.

Leveling is fundamental for various applications, including the construction of roads, railways,

and other civil engineering projects, as well as the creation of topographic maps and contour

plans.

2.2.1.5 Theodolite Surveying:

The theodolite, a precise instrument for measuring horizontal and vertical angles,

revolutionized surveying accuracy. It allows for the accurate measurement of angles between

points, enabling the creation of detailed maps and plans. By setting up the theodolite over a

point and leveling it, surveyors could accurately measure the angles between the instrument

and other points of interest. Combining these angle measurements with distance measurements

allowed for the precise determination of point positions. The theodolite became indispensable

in various surveying applications, including control surveys, topographic surveys, and

construction layout, enabling the creation of detailed maps and plans with high accuracy.

Theodolite surveying is still used today, often in conjunction with other modern techniques

(Bartholomew, 2008).

9
While these traditional methods provide valuable historical context and a foundation for

understanding modern surveying principles, they inherently possess limitations. Many were

labor-intensive and time-consuming, requiring significant manual effort. Human error was

inevitable in manual measurements and calculations, potentially introducing inaccuracies into

the survey results. Compared to modern technologies like GPS, traditional methods often

yielded lower accuracy, especially over long distances. Furthermore, rugged terrain could

significantly increase the difficulty and time required for some traditional methods.

2.3 GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEMS (GNSS)

There is a common misconception of the term GNSS which encompasses all satellite

navigation system and GPS (Global navigation system) which is the first of all GNSS. This is

due its wide availability and its inception at the time. GNSS is now a widely used three-

dimensional measurement system that uses radio signals emitted from satellite to determine

position.

Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) are a type of satellite-based navigation system

that provides location and time information to users on Earth (Yadav, 2023).

The meaning of GNSS is the technical interoperability and compatibility between various

satellite navigation systems such as modernized GPS, Galileo, reconstructed GLONASS to be

used by civilian users without considering the nationalities of each system in order to promote

the safety and convenience of life (GALILEO, 2003; Feng, 2003).

The European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) defined GNSS as a

constellation of satellites providing signals from space that transmit positioning and timing data

to GNSS receivers.

10
The concept of GNSS could be traced back to the mid-20th century, when the United States

Department of Defence launched the first GNSS in the 1970s for military purposes. This laid

the foundation for the development of several other GNSS developed subsequently by other

nations.

The basic concept of GNSS is the use of a network of satellites orbiting the Earth to provide

precise location and timing information to users above the Earth surface. The signals from these

orbiting satellites are received using specified devices that track the motion of the satellites

known as “receivers”, which then uses these signals to calculate the user’s position and other

navigational data.

2.3.1 COMPONENTS OF GNSS

Every satellite navigation system consists of 3 major segments or components. These 3

segments are as follows:

Space segments

Control Segments

User Segments

2.3.1.1 SPACE SEGMENTS

The space segment consists of the orbiting satellites. The basic number of satellites needed in

operation for a space segment is 24 satellites cut across different orbiting path. As of 15 August

2023, 31 GPS navigational satellite have been launched and are operational out of the 83 built,

4 are in reserve, 41 have been retired and 2 lost during launch while the GLONASS

(Global'naya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema) Launched by Russia has 24 satellites in

operation (Hendricks 2023). The Galileo on the other hand as of December, 2023 has 23

operational satellites and the BeiDou of China has 44 operational satellites, with 7 being

11
geostationary, 10 in 55º inclined geosynchronous orbits and 27 in medium Earth orbit (Galileo

Resources PLC (n.d).

Figure 2.1: Comparing orbits of satellites GPS, GLONASS, compass and Galileo with

orbits of Iridium satellites, Telescope Hubble’s International station cosmic

Source: Geo Swan, Commons repository free of charge

2.3.1.2 CONTROL SEGMENT

The control segment in a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) is a network of ground-

based facilities that are responsible for the maintenance and monitoring of the satellite

constellation. The control semen includes a network of ground stations, control centres, and

other equipment that work together to ensure the proper functioning of the satellite system

(Yadav, 2023). The control segments are responsible for several key tasks such as:

 Tracking the position and status of each satellite in the constellation

 Uploading navigation and control data to the satellite

 Downloading telemetry and control data from the satellites

 Monitoring the health and status of the satellites and identifying any issues

12
  Conducting maintenance and repairs on the satellites as necessary

 The control segments also work closely with the user segments to ensure that the system

is operating correctly and provides accurate navigation to users

2.3.1.3 USER SEGMENT

This segment consists of the GNSS receivers that are used by individuals and organisation to

receive signals from the satellites and calculate their position and time (Tualcom 2023). The

equipment used by users varies depending on the user and its application some of these

equipment’s are smartphones, handheld GPS receivers and Continuously Operating Reference

Station (CORS).

Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) is any location fixing system, based on acquiring

satellite signals (tracking) with the aid of the receiver and processing of data to obtain the three-

dimensional (3D) coordinates of the receiving station concerning a word Geodetic System

reference ellipsoid. Therefore, the Holy Grail for future high accuracy GNSS applications is to

have the maximum number of satellites, broadcasting the maximum number of signals, being

tracked by the least expensive receivers, delivering the most robust solution. The families of

GNSS include the following:

 Global Positioning System (GPS) of USA

 Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) of Russia

 The European Union's Galileo positioning system

 Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS)

 Bedouin of China

 Quasi-Zenith Navigation Satellite System (QZSS) of Japan

13
Global Positioning System (GPS)

The best known and most popular of the GNSS is the United States (US) Global Positioning

System (GPS), although the Russian GLONASS system is regaining its strength and other

systems are being developed, most notably Galileo in Europe, the Chinese BeiDou navigation

system, WAAS of United States, EGNOS of Europe, MSAS & QZSS (Quasi-Zenith Satellite

System) of Japan and Compass in China. GPS is a location fixing system initiated by the US

Department of Defence (DoD) based on acquiring satellite signals (tracking) with the aid of

the receiver and processing of data to obtain the three-dimensional (3D) coordinates of the

receiving station. GPS is a fully functional Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). At

present, it utilizes a constellation of about 31 medium Earth-orbiting satellites. These satellites

transmit precise microwave signals and enable the GPS receiver to determine its location, time

and speed (if the antenna is moving). Various Authors have discussed the system segments,

configuration, policies, implementation and applications. Apart from GPS, there are other

systems, which serve the same function as GPS but belong to other nations. They are discussed

below:

GLONASS

The recent enhancement of the GLONASS satellite system suggests the combined use with

GPS to increase satellite availability, especially in places with a lack of GPS signals; also

GLONASS measurements are affected by blocking and multipath problems. The former Soviet

Union and now Russia developed 'GLObal'naya NAvigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema'

meaning GLObal Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS). The GLONASS constellation also

reached its full operational capability of 24 satellites in 1996. Currently, only twenty satellites

are in operation with two active spares four are under maintenance. The average lifetime of the

14
satellite which was about 4.5 years was improved. Russia has announced publicly its intention

to restore the GLONASS constellation to full health status, through the deployment of longer

life satellites. The fully operational capability expected in 2010 was achieved on the 5th of

March, 2013, with the assistance of India which is currently participating in the restoration

project. With 24 satellites, Russia successfully developed its analogue of the American GPS,

named GLONASS. It is providing now complete global coverage, a Russian daily reported Dr

Andrei Ionin, who works for the operators of GLONASS explained that with 18 satellites,

GLONASS was able to provide precise navigation across Russia. With all 24 GLONASS

satellites in orbit, GLONASS receivers can pick signals from the quartets that are necessary

for precise positioning anywhere in the world.

The European Union's Galileo positioning system

Galileo was built by European Union and the European Space Agency. The first satellite was

launched in 2005 and the second in 2008. By early 2020, there were 26 launched satellites in

the constellation: 22 in usable condition (i.e. the satellite is operational and contributing to the

service provision), two satellites are in "testing" and two more not available to users. Out of 22

active satellites, three were from the IOV (In-Orbit Validation) types and 19 of the FOC types.

Two test FOC satellites are orbiting the Earth in highly eccentric orbits whose orientation

changes concerning other Galileo orbital planes. The Galileo system has greater accuracy than

GPS, having an accuracy of less than one metre when using broadcast ephemeris (GPS: three

metres) and a signal-in-space ranging error (SISRE) of 1.6 cm (GPS: 2.3 cm, GLONASS and

BeiDou: 4–6 cm) when using real-time corrections for satellite orbits and clocks. Europe’s

Galileo system (a navigation satellite system) has passed its latest milestone, transmitting its

very first test navigation signal back to the Earth. According to European Space Agency (ESA)

press statement, the different Galileo signals are being activated and tested one by one. Soon

after the payload power amplifiers were switched on and ‘outgassed’– warmed up to release

15
vapours that might otherwise interfere with operations – the first test signal was captured at

Redu. It is expected that the next generation of satellites will begin to become operational after

2025 to replace older equipment, which can then be used for backup capabilities.

Indian Regional Navigation Satellites System (IRNSS)

IRNSS is an independent regional navigation satellite system developed by India. It is designed

to provide accurate position information service to assist in the navigation of ships in the Indian

Ocean waters. It could replace the US owned Global Positioning System (GPS) in the Indian

Ocean extending up to approximately 1500 km from the Indian boundary. IRNSS is an

independent regional navigation satellite system being developed by India. It is designed to

provide accurate position information service to users in India as well as the region extending

up to 1500 km from its boundary, which is its primary service area. An Extended Service Area

lies between primary service area and area enclosed by the rectangle from Latitude 30 deg

South to 50 deg North, Longitude 30 deg East to 130 deg East. All the satellites will be

continuously visible in the Indian region for 24 hours a day. IRNSS will provide two types of

services, namely, Standard Positioning Service (SPS) which is provided to all the users and

Restricted Service (RS), which is an encrypted service provided only to the authorized users.

The IRNSS System has been providing a position accuracy of better than 20 m in the primary

service area.

BeiDou Satellite Navigation Experimental System

The BeiDou system was developed by the People's Republic of China. The first BeiDou system

was officially called BeiDou Satellite Navigation Experimental System. The system started in

the year 2000 and consists of 3 satellites called BeiDou-1, but has limited coverage and

applications mainly for customers in China and from neighbouring regions. The second

generation of the system officially called the BeiDou Satellite Navigation System (BDS) and

16
also known as COMPASS or BeiDou-2, will be a global satellite navigation system consisting

of 35 satellites that were under construction as of January 2013. It became operational in China

in December 2011.

Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS)

QZSS is owned and managed by Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). The first QZSS

satellite called 'Michibiki' was launched on the 11th of September 2010. Other relevant

information is available online on the JAXA website. Interestingly, JAXA has adopted a data

interface based on Receiver Internet Exchange "RINEX 3.01" format in "MGM Net" which

includes the participating ground stations. The idea is to know the availability, capabilities

evaluation of multipath and Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) environment of the GNSS for

the future QZSS satellites to be launched. Full operational status was IS by 2017. The

development in GNSS application is to integrate the system with other tools for various

applications. GPS and GLONASS combined have already demonstrated the benefits of extra

satellites, and Galileo brings all that and more. The benefits of the expected extra satellites and

their signals can be categorized in terms of continuity, accuracy, efficiency, availability and

reliability.

2.3.2 DIFFERENCIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

Satellite based navigation systems use a version of triangulation to locate the user, through

calculations involving information from a number of satellites. Each satellite transmits coded

signals at precise intervals. The Receiver converts signal information into position through

velocity, and time estimates. Using this information, the receiver anywhere on or near the earth

surface can calculate the exact position of the transmitting satellites and the distance (from the

transmission time delay) between it and the receiver. Coordinating current signal from four or

more satellites enables the receiver to determine its position.

17
Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) is a technique that enhances the accuracy of

standard GPS (Global Positioning System) for surveying and navigation applications. Here's a

breakdown of DGPS and its role in surveying:

2.3.2.1 HOW DGPS WORKS:

 Traditional GPS receivers utilize signals from orbiting satellites to determine location.

However, these signals can be affected by various factors like satellite clock errors,

atmospheric delays, and ionospheric disturbances, leading to inaccuracies on the order

of meters.

 DGPS introduces a network of fixed, precisely surveyed ground stations called

reference stations. These stations continuously monitor the GPS satellites and calculate

the inherent errors in the satellite signals for their location.

 The correction data is then transmitted from the reference station using various methods

like radio beacons or satellite links.

 A DGPS-enabled rover receiver, carried by the surveyor, receives the satellite signals

along with the correction data from the reference station.

 The rover receiver applies the corrections to the satellite data, resulting in a significantly

more accurate positioning compared to standard GPS, with improvements ranging from

centimetres to a few meters.

2.3.2.2 BENEFITS OF DGPS

 Enhanced Accuracy: DGPS corrects for errors in satellite signals, providing surveyors

with more precise location data. This is crucial for tasks like boundary demarcation,

construction layout, and creating detailed maps.

18
 Improved Efficiency: Higher accuracy translates to less time spent remeasuring points

or correcting data due to GPS errors. This translates to faster completion of surveying

projects.

 Reliable Data Collection: DGPS mitigates the effects of atmospheric conditions and

satellite errors, ensuring reliable and consistent data collection throughout the

surveying process.

19
 CHAPTER THREE
LITERATURE REVIEW
Archana et al (2016) conducted a project work mainly focused on the preparation of

topographic map of upland regions of KCAET, Tavanur using modern surveying equipment

such as Total Station (LeicaTS06) and DGPS (Trimble). Using the field collected data from

Total Station; a topographic map was plotted using ArcGIS10.3 software. TIN, contour map,

and slope map were generated from this topographic map. In GNSS survey, post-process

kinematic survey method was adopted. Post- processing of field collected data was done in

Trimble Business Center software. The base line report obtained by exporting the data from

the software provides the longitude, latitude, elevation, easting and northing etc. of the field

point. It was found that, in Kerala terrain (with dense canopy) working with DGPS alone does

not give good result whereas, in combination with TSS gives better and more satisfactory

results. A contour map and slope map with good accuracy and great speed were generated and

they can be used to accommodate various engineering planning requirements.

Diwakar et al. (2014) investigated the horizontal accuracy of Differential-GPS (DGPS) survey

with comparison of Total Station instrument data. In this study they investigated the effect of

observation time and the PDOP value on the accuracy obtained. The variation of accuracy with

time and PDOP value has been analysed by curve fitting technique. For this work 19 points

were established and observations were taken by using Total Station; TRIMBLE M3 and

DGPS; TRIMBLE R3. Trimble Business Centre and the GNSS solution software are used for

processing of raw data collected using DGPS. Terra Model software was used for processing

Total Station data. Distance and height between established points is calculated using Total

Station instrument using angle and distance method. Distance calculated for successive points

from DGPS data is compared with the distance calculated using Total Station. Afterward mean

error, RMSE, standard deviation of distance calculated from DGPS is estimated from Total

20
Station. The conclusion of the study was 25minute observation time is sufficient as the

accuracy in horizontal measurement for 25minute observation Standard deviation and Standard

Error is 0.013 meter and 0.003 meter respectively. Accuracy of DGPS survey is dependent

upon the observation time and PDOP value. It is found in this study that for poor PDOP even

long observation time does give better accuracy.

Jeong et al. (2013) conducted accuracy and efficiency tests for four different beach-profile

surveying methods of: (i) spot measurement using a Total Station; (ii) spot measurement using

a RTK-GNSS system; (iii) continuous walking measurement using a RTK- GNSS backpack

system; and (iv) continuous measurement using a RTK-GNSS system mounted on an all-terrain

vehicle (RTK-GNSS ATV system) at the Gosapo macro-tidal sand beach, South Korea. The

test results indicates that the RTK-GNSS spot measurement method have the lowest vertical

error of about 2 cm, which includes equipment and operation errors, while the rest of them

have similar vertical errors with a range of 3 to 6 cm. Compared to other surveying methods,

RTK-GNSS ATV system have advantages in surveying time and operational manpower with a

reasonable vertical error of about 3 cm, which increases their surveying efficiency. As a result,

The RTK-GNSS ATV system is the most suitable surveying method for examining the beach

volume and morphologic changes in a macrotidal sand beach, while the spot measurement

methods using the Total Station or the RTK-GNSS system are adequate for accurate beach

profile change.

Ehioroboa and Izinyona (2013) located the position of all major rills and gully sites and

georeferenced them using a hand-held GPS receiver. Based on severity rating and geopolitical

considerations, six of the erosion gully sites were selected for monitoring. Control points were

established around each of the gully sites by method of Differential GPS (DGPS) surveys and

detailed topographical surveys of gully sites were carried out using reflector less Total Station

instruments. In combination with GIS and Total Station data SPOT imageries were used and

21
location maps, contour maps along with DEM were generated using ArcGIS 9.2 software. The

morphological parameters of the gullies were then determined. A volumetric estimate of the

amount of soil loss from gully erosion was also carried out. Soil samples recovered from the

gully sites were used to determine their erosivity and other properties to be used for soil loss

modelling. The results of the studies were used as an indicator for determining the gully

initiation point, slope-area relationship, and threshold of gully initiation was also established.

The minimum AS2 value was 345 while the maximum was 3,267. This shows that the results

lie within the two boundary layers of 41 and 814 (m2) and 500-4000 m2 established by Poesen

et al.

Pradeep Kumar et al. (2013) made an attempt to assess the accuracy of DGPS by comparing

the data obtained from the Total Station at Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad campus. With

DGPS the maximum error of 0.013m, minimum error of 0.002m and average error of 0.004m

with standard deviation of 0.00554m was observed in Northing. In Easting maximum error of

0.017m, minimum error of zero meters and average error of 0.005m with standard deviation of

0.00674m was observed. The maximum error of 0.027m, minimum error of 0.005m and

average error 0.007m with standard deviation of 0.01526m was observed in Reduced Level.

The variation of average area from DGPS data with reference to Total Station data is 1.058m.

The DGPS provides the more reliable and accurate data which can be used for medium to small

scale maps. The accuracy of data became improved with repeated observations and it depends

on the taking of averages of data.

Connemara et al. (2011) carried out topographic survey at four historic bridges. Site survey

control was established using a Trimble Differential GPS (R6). Subsequent surveying was

carried out using both a Total Station (Leica TCR 407, Pen map Software, and Panasonic Tough

book Tablet PC) and a Trimble Differential GPS (R6). The survey data was edited in AutoCAD

to create a hachured ground plan and a single representative elevation drawing. The four

22
bridges were surveyed in three dimensions and the majority of the ground plan and

topographical details were collected using the Trimble Differential GPS (R6) and supplemented

with the Total Station and detail pole where necessary due to poor GPS signal. So, majority of

the elevation data were collected by means of the Total Station’s red laser feature.

Ortiz et al. (2010) have done comparison of regional elevation heights in the Aguascalientes

basin using DGPS technique with INEGI’s digital terrain model. The purpose of this paper is

to compare DGPS surveys using both two and three receivers, and to determine the error bar

between the DTM (Digital Terrain Model) and the DGPS technique using as an example the

city of Aguascalientes and surroundings. Two base receivers (Trimble 5700), and one portable

receiver (Trimble 5800) was used. From this control point, elevations of the other benchmarks

were determined using the TGO software. The research presented here shows that if adequate

satellite coverage is available, two DGPS receivers generate an acceptable DTM model for the

area under study. Three receivers give redundant information and allow the user to close the

polygons offering increased confidence on the measured values. DTM models are an

approximation and may be used as an initial value. Based on the results presented here, they

suggest that DTM’s may only be used for regional studies, and cannot be used to estimate the

hydraulic gradient in aquifers in Mexico.

Filjar et al. (2007) studied the DGPS Positioning Accuracy for LBS (location based services).

This study was based on experimental data analysis. A vehicle was equipped with two Garmin

GPSIII+ receivers, one working in standard and the other in differential GPS positioning mode.

Differential GPS corrections were delivered from the Prague differential station through the

EUREF-IP network and using the mobile Internet GPRS connection. Additional software was

developed inorder to support both the NMEA-0183 acquisition and the DGPS corrections

delivery using the same serial port for GPS receiver running in differential GPS mode. Every

positioning sample consists of: GPS time of sampling, Latitude, Longitude, Horizontal

23
positioning error estimate (calculated by GPS receiver), and Number of visible satellites. The

conclusion of the study was Differential GPS positioning improves the LBS positioning

performance, compared with the standard (un-assisted and un-augmented) GPS positioning.

However, general LBS positioning accuracy still cannot be improved in a way that would

satisfy high-level requirements by deployment of differential GPS positioning alone.

JUNG Rea Jung (2006) studied the method of DGPS applications for the cadastral surveying

in Korea. A DGPS beacon system was implemented at the coastal area for the marine ship

navigation purpose. The study focused on suggesting the practical possibility of DGPS in the

cadastral survey. For this, several field tests were conducted. It was found that the accuracy in

horizontal components averages 74 cm in the readjustment of arable land and 228cm in the

forest. In the forest, the rate of Differential GPS Fix of Beacon DGPS was low and HDOP

(Horizontal Dilution of Precision) was high. It was also found that DGPS doesn't cover the

cadastral boundary surveying, however it will be expected that possibility to play a role as a

part of device for the ubiquitous cadastre, such as finding control points and boundary points,

connected with PDA, RFID on the site could be obtained. And also, this study showed that

DGPS will be applicable for high-precision-position-based services like LBS (Location Based

Service), and ubiquitous cadastral surveying.

Rodriguez et al. (2010) conducted a study on comparison of GPS receiver accuracy and

precision in forest environments and practical recommendations regarding methods and

receiver selection. This study compares recreational GPS receivers (GARMIN eTrex Euro,

GARMIN 12XL, GARMIN Summit, GARMIN Geko 201) and more precise GPS receivers

(Topcon Hiper+). It was aimed to determine the most suitable method and receiver for position

assessment under different forest canopy covers, in terms of easiness of use, accuracy,

reliability, and the ratio accuracy/cost. Several positioning techniques were compared:

autonomous, real-time differential, and postprocessed differential modes, as well as the effect

24
of using an augmentation system. The test course consisted of 19 points sited under different

tree canopies and one point without any obstacle. Test procedure was identical for all twenty

points, days and receivers. GPS positioning was repeated five times at each test point using,

twenty minutes before receivers were turned on. Results showed that there were significant

differences between the receivers regarding accuracy and precision measuring coordinates;

moreover, accuracies were different depending on the canopy cover and forest characteristics.

Therefore, practical recommendations for each case were settled in order to help foresters to

select the most suitable receiver.

Lin (2004) addressed in his project: (1) performance comparisons between using RTK and total

station system on land use data capture and updating in terms of accuracy, speed, etc., (2) land

use change styles analysis on the interested regions, (3) designing an effective land-use change

spatial information collecting procedure using GPS based on the land use change styles, and

(4) converting collected land use change data to GIS compatible files. The campus of NCCU

(National Cheng-Chi University) was selected as a test region to test the performances of RTK

and total station system on land use change data collection. The cadastral maps (on different

times) of Muza district of Taipei City were analyzed to find the possible land use change styles.

Preliminary results indicated that: (1) the horizontal accuracies of RTK and total station system

are14 mm+/- 4mm and 163mm+/-63mm respectively (the coordinates of checkpoints were

determined using static GPS), (2) the time required for one point determination using RTK or

total station system are about 15 seconds and 240 seconds respectively, (3) the land use change

styles of Mu-Za district can be classified into 3 main types of polygon (each main type may

have 2-3 styles), and (4) the field surveying works can be reduced significantly if the designed

fielding surveying procedures were followed.

According to the studies conducted by Jonsson et al. (2003), RTK measurement was applied to

test the accuracy of different GPS instruments (Leica, Topcon, and Trimble). A network of nine

25
control points was established using total station. Then, the authors performed RTK

measurements on the same network and compared results with different instruments. Results

obtained from RTK measurement have shown a horizontal and vertical accuracy of 10 mm and

2 cm respectively. When comparing this result with the result of the thesis, better accuracy was

achieved in both horizontal and vertical coordinates.

Colosi et al. (2000) carried out a series of topographical surveys in the Salto Valley (Rieti-

Lazio) and provided much interesting data regarding local archaeological sites, particularly

along the southern slopes of the Breccioso Hills which rise between the Corvaro and Spedino

plain. The objective of the survey was to highlight topographic variation and to bring to light

any traces of human construction or manipulation. The survey was carried out using a DGPS

Leica SR 510, and a Total Station. The integration of these two instruments produced

satisfactory and innovative results. The processing of the Digital Terrain Model (DTM) of the

area highlighted several characteristics of the site and the consequent production of thematic

maps from this data were done, which could be used to guide future excavations at this site.

26
 CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The aim of this project was achieved via several systematic and methodological processes. In

this chapter, this process would be broken down into their various steps and expatiated upon to

provide thorough understanding of how the result was realised. The sections within this chapter

are written in other of progressive steps, and encompasses every activity that was necessitated

in ensuring accurate result.

4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

Figure 4.1: Research design

27
4.3 RECONNAISSANCE
Reconnaissance is a preliminary survey done before the actual execution of every job. This

survey is carried out to provide a general overview of what is required for the job, it also helps

in making pre-informed decision on the choice of equipment, the number of personnel that

would be needed for the execution of the Job. It is the first step in the effective execution of

every job and when carried out properly makes for a seamless process during the actual survey

as obstacles to job accuracy would have been identified and the solutions would have been put

forth before the required time.

The reconnaissance carried out for this job was done in two phases, first was a field

reconnaissance, afterwards an office recce was carried out using the information that was gotten

from the field to get more information.

4.3.1 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE

A field recce is a preliminary visit to the site to get a general overview of wat would be required

in order to successful carry out the job. During the field reconnaissance, we were able to

identify some of the control stations that were already on ground within the site location as

well as positions for possible erection of monuments that would be purposeful for the survey.

4.3.2 OFFICE RECONNAISSANCE

After returning from the site reconnaissance, using the information gotten, we selected the

instruments that would be used in establishing our intermediary points along the survey line.

Noting the beacons that were on ground, we began to search for the coordinates of the located

beacon at the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus Department of Geoinformatics and

Surveying’s repository.

28
4.4 INSTRUMENTATION
After the site, having a good understanding of the type of soil as well as the level of vegetation

activities, the following instruments were chosen

1. Differential GPS - Hi-Target V90 Dual-Frequency GNSS Receivers (Base Receiver and

Rover Receiver)

2. Total station - High Target ZTS-320R Total Station and Accessories

3. 100 meters tape

4. Cutlass

4.5 RELIABILITY OF INSTRUMENT

To establish confidence in the data collected and to give weight to them, it was appropriate to

check the precision of the Total Station and GNSS RTK Instrument for the project. The tests

were necessitated by the accuracy requirements of the project.

4.5.1 TOTAL STATION CHECK

The following tests were carried out on the total station;

1. Horizontal and Vertical Collimation Check

2. Plate Bubble Tests
3. Additive constant test
4. Optical Plummet Test

4.5.1.1 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL COLLIMATION CHECK

A Total Station's Horizontal collimation is in error when its line of sight is not perpendicular to

the trunnion axis. This error affects all horizontal circle readings and increases with steep

sightings. This error is modelled such that when the telescope is rotated about the trunnion axis,

it defines a conical surface instead of a true circle. To verify that this error existed or otherwise,

readings to a point on the left and right face would differ by about plus or minus 180 degrees

29
Likewise, a Vertical Collimation Error exists on a Total Station if the 0o vertical line in the

instrument's vertical circle is inclined and does not coincide with its true vertical axis. This

zero-point error would be present in all vertical circle readings. The presence of this error is

verified if the vertical reading to a point on the instrument's left and right faces does not sum

up to 360°

To carry out this test, the Total Station was set over a point and temporarily adjusted. Two

tripods T1 and T2 were set up and mounted with reflectors on opposite sides of the instrument

each at approximately 100 meters from the instrument on both sides.

1. The reflector on tripod T1 was sighted with the Total Station on Face Left, the

horizontal and vertical circle readings were recorded in a field book. The instrument

was rotated horizontally, to sight the reflector on tripod T2 on the opposite side. The

horizontal and vertical circle readings were read and recorded as previously done.

2. The instrument was then rotated horizontally, and the tripod transited and rotated

through 180 degrees to read the reflector on T2, but this time on face right. The same

procedure repeated, only that this time, it was to T2 first, then 270 to T1.

Below are the readings obtained:

30
 Table 4.1: Horizontal and vertical collimation check

STATION TARGET FACE HORIZONTAL DEDUCED VERTICAL

CIRCLE READING ANGLE CIRCULAR

READING

P1 F Left 0440 13’ 19”

PA P2 F Left 3120 18’ 41” 2680 05’ 22’’ 079° 50' 52"

P2 F Right 2170 27’ 10” 880 05’ 07’’ 280° 09' 00"

P1 F Right 1290 22’ 03”

Face Horizontal Circle Vertical Circle

Face L (PA1) 2680 05’ 22’’ 079° 50' 52"

Face R (PA2) 880 05’ 07’’ 280° 09' 00"

(𝐹𝑅 − 𝐹𝐿) + 180

𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 =
2

" "
=

"
=

=4.5”

360 − 79 50 52" − 280 09 00"

𝑉𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎 = 𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟
2

360 − (𝑉𝐴1 + 𝑉𝐴2)

=
2

31
 00 00 08"
=
2

= 0.4”

The above errors in horizontal and vertical circle readings show that the instrument is in good

condition and suitable for the job.

4.5.1.2 PLATE BUBBLE TEST

When the Plate and Circular Levels of a Total Station are not in the horizontal plane, an effect

is created in which an observed horizontal angle is not truly a horizontal angle. However, when

the bubbles in the plate circular levels are centred simultaneously it gives some level of

confidence that they are in the horizontal plane. If on the other hand, it is found to be off centre,

the bubble must be adjusted, to ensure that both bubbles are centred whenever the Total Station

is levelled. This test was carried out on the Total Station to be used for this project. The test

was carried out as follows;

1. The instrument was set up and levelled by ensuring that the plate and circular levels

had their bubbles in their respective bull's eyes.

2. With the instrument firmly fixed to the tribrach, the upper part was turned through 180

degrees repeatedly.

3. After turning the instrument thought its horizontal axis severally, both bubbles were

found to remain centred within their respective bull's eyes. Since both bubbles in the

circular and plate levels were centred after levelling the instrument, they were assumed

to be in the horizontal plan, and there was no need for adjustment.

4.5.1.3 ADDITIVE CONSTANT TEST

This was carried out in order to ascertain the Electronic Distance Measurement (EDM)

accuracy of the instrument. The instrument was set on a point A, while the reflector was set on

32
another point B, temporary adjustments were carried out and the reflector was bisected and

distance AB was measured three times. Furthermore, another point C was established midway

between A and B, the instrument was shifted to point C and distances AC and CB were

measured three Times each, the average of each segment was calculated as follows:

AB = 100.05m, AC= 50.06.m, CB= 49.98m

Therefore, additive constant = AB - (AC + CB)

= 100.05 - (50.06+ 49.98)

The result of the additive constant test above shows that the instrument is in good condition

and can be used for the project and results of the three tests carried out fall within allowable

accuracy of 3rd order survey hence, no adjustment or changes were required.

4.5.1.4 OPTICAL PLUMMET TEST

The optical plummet on the total station was also checked prior to the fieldwork. A piece of

plain paper was fixed to a level surface and a clear mark was made in pen on it. The instrument

was then set up on a tripod and centred and levelled over the mark. With the mark on the ground

33
in clear focus and the cross hairs centred over it, the instrument was rotated around its vertical

axis roughly 90°. If the cross hairs left the mark, then the optical plummet required calibration

(i.e. the vertical axis was not truly vertical). However, with the rotation, the instrument was

still centred over the mark. Hence it was assumed that the instrument's optical plummet was in

good adjustment.

4.5.2 RTK RECIVERS CHECK

The instrument to be used for the operation was first tested using controls of known coordinates

to ensure that they are all in good working conditions.

The instrument base was set at KIN07 reference station while the other instrument was set on

KIN08 as a rover, the instruments was turned on and the receivers were left till enough

ephemeris data were gathered on each of the station. The observation data from the receivers

were downloaded and processed using Trimble Business Center, the accuracy of the obtained

results was compared with the known values of the coordinates and clearly it was confirmed

that the instruments were in good working condition, the tables below show the result of the

test.

Table 4.2: RTK check

Pillar Coordinate Easting(m) Northing(m) Height(m)

Known 334775.455 710238.925 233.203

KIN 07 Observed 334775.389 710238.853 235.104

Difference 0.066 0.072 -1.901

34
 Pillar Coordinate Easting(m) Northing(m) Height(m)

Known 334564.054 710242.093 228.703

KIN08 Observed 334563.99 710242.031 230.74

Difference 0.014 0.062 -2.037

4.6 DATA ACQUISITION

After all the checks had been completed, using a tape 50 meters were marked at intervals

between reference stations KIN07 and KIN08. Using a well sharpen peg made on the site, each

point selected was pegged for easy recognition. The traverse was carried out following the

survey principle working from whole to part, that is working from known to unknown.

Afterwards, the instrument was set up on the reference point KIN 07 (temporary adjustments

were made to centre the instrument over the point as well as ensure that it was levelled), having

known the coordinate of the station, it’s coordinates, it was then inputted into the instrument.

A back sight was taken to the station KIN 08 with the reflector set up on it. Then a forward

sight was taken to the first point of the traverse. The instrument was then moved to the first

point, a back sight taken to KIN07 and a forward sight to point 2. The process was carried out

repeatedly until we got to KIN08 were we backed point 4 and took a forward sight to KIN07

making it a closed loop traverse.

After completion of the traverse using the total station, we then set up the base of the GNSS

receiver over the station KIN 07 and then the rover on the tracking rod. After setting up a new

project to store the project data, we began to acquire the coordinates of each point. A minimum

time of 5 minutes was used in the acquisition of data of points along the line to ensure that the

average of several satellite signals in the determination of points.

35
4.7 DATA DOWNLOADING
The data from the total station was recorded using a field sheet and afterwards transferred to a

traverse sheet for computation. The data from the RTK was extracted from the PDA

(personalised digital assistant) and extracted via a usb cable to a computer. The data was stored

in a CSV format.

4.8 DATA PROCESSING

Using the Traverse sheet, the obtained data from the total station was used to calculate the

coordinates of each point. The distances between each point obtained from face left and face

right were first computed by taking the average the distances obtained.

211.496 + 211.491 + 211.337 + 211.311

𝐾𝐼𝑁 07 − 𝐾𝐼𝑁 08 =
4

= 211.40875

= 211.409

49.849 + 49.910 + 50.033 + 50.054

𝐾𝐼𝑁 07 − 𝑃𝑂𝐼𝑁𝑇 1 =
4

= 49.9615

50.085 + 50.054 + 50.077 + 50.062

𝑃𝑂𝐼𝑁𝑇 1 − 𝑃𝑂𝐼𝑁𝑇 2 =
4

= 50.0695

49.919 + 49.919 + 50.053 + 50.029

𝑃𝑂𝐼𝑁𝑇 2 − 𝑃𝑂𝐼𝑁𝑇 3 =
4

= 49.980

36
 49.962 + 49.905 + 50.057 + 50.062
𝑃𝑂𝐼𝑁𝑇 3 − 𝑃𝑂𝐼𝑁𝑇 4 =
4

= 49.9965

11.287 + 11.288 + 11.469 + 11.432

𝑃𝑂𝐼𝑁𝑇 4 − 𝐾𝐼𝑁 08 =
4

= 11.369

The next computation was done using the forward computation method, the angle and distances

acquired from the field operation was used to calculate change in coordinates and was added

to the pervious coordinate to get the coordinate of the point. Afterwards, the forward bearing

of each point was then calculated using the data as well as the error accrued. (See appendix I)

After processing the data for the total station, The CSV file was then opened using excel and

the data was then cleaned removing the columns that weren’t need and leaving just the

necessary columns required for the analysis.

Table 4.3: RTK data cleaning

ID Name N E Z σN σE σZ

1 pt1 710239.641 334725.51 233.1041 0.006 0.005 0.012

2 pt2 710240.362 334675.428 231.3971 0.004 0.004 0.009

3 pt3 710241.121 334625.396 230.5351 0.005 0.005 0.011

4 pt4 710241.882 334575.432 230.8841 0.006 0.005 0.012

5 kin08 710242.031 334563.99 230.7471 0.005 0.004 0.01

The data was further processed using the back computation to derive the bearing and distance

of each point

37
 Table 4.4: Backward computation of data

RTK
Station Δ Δ
from Degree minute seconds Distance Eastings Northings Eastings Northings Station to
334564.054 710242.093 KIN 08
KIN 08 90 51 31 211.4247 211.401 -3.168 334775.455 710238.925 KIN 07
KIN 07 270 49 17 49.9731 -49.9448 0.7159 334725.5102 710239.6409 POINT 1
POINT 1 270 49 29 50.08123 -50.0827 0.721 334675.4275 710240.3619 POINT 2
POINT 2 270 52 9 49.99102 -50.0316 0.7586 334625.3959 710241.1205 POINT 3
POINT 3 270 52 21 50.00788 -49.9644 0.7619 334575.4315 710241.8824 POINT 4
POINT 4 270 3 45 11.37163 -11.4417 0.1481 334563.9898 710242.0305 KIN 08

TOTAL STATION
Station Δ Δ
from Degree minute seconds Distance Eastings Northings Eastings Northings Station to
334564.054 710242.093 KIN 08
KIN 08 90 51 31 211.4247 211.401 -3.168 334775.455 710238.925 KIN 07
KIN 07 270 53 44 49.9731 -49.967 0.781 334725.488 710239.706 POINT 1
POINT 1 270 49 42 50.08123 -50.076 0.724 334675.412 710240.43 POINT 2
POINT 2 270 55 42 49.99102 -49.985 0.776 334625.427 710241.206 POINT 3
POINT 3 270 50 24 50.00788 -50.002 0.767 334575.425 710241.973 POINT 4
POINT 4 270 36 17 11.37163 -11.371 0.12 334564.054 710242.093 KIN 08

38
4.9 DATA ANALYSIS
The Data analysis was done by means of comparison of data between different instruments, as

well as comparing the result of the stations acquired with the obtained coordinates thus finding

the discrepancies between known and obtained results.

39
 CHAPTER FIVE
RESULT

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The result obtained from the effective processes highlighted in the previous chapter are

presented following the specified objectives as highlight in chapter 1.

5.2 ACQUIRED DATA

The table below of the obtained coordinates from the department of Geoinformatics and

surveying at the University of Nigeria Enugu Campus

Table 5.1: Acquired coordinates

Pillar Easting(m) Northing(m) Height(m)
KIN 07 334775.455 710238.925 233.203
KIN08 334564.054 710242.093 228.703

5.3 DATA COMPARISON

5.3.1 COORDINATE COMPARISON

The coordinates of each point obtained from the two instruments were compared by taking the

differences between the two results. The total station coordinates were obtained by means of

forward computation.

40
 Table 5.2: Coordinate comparison

KIN 08 KIN 07 POINT 1 POINT 2 POINT 3 POINT 4

TOTAL
STATION EASTING 334564.054 334775.455 334725.49 334675.412 334625.4 334575.4
RTK EASTING 334564.054 334775.455 334725.51 334675.4275 334625.4 334575.4
DIFFERENCE 0 0 0.0222 0.0155 -0.0311 0.0065
TOTAL
STATION NORTHING 710242.093 710238.925 710239.71 710240.43 710241.2 710242
RTK NORTHING 710242.093 710238.925 710239.64 710240.3619 710241.1 710241.9
DIFFERENCE 0 0 -0.0651 -0.0681 -0.0855 -0.0906

The difference between the coordinates of each points obtained form both instruments were

calcuted to determine the error in distance between the points. The table below shows the

differences between the points gotten from different instruments.

Table 5.3: Table showing difference between points in distance

KIN 08 KIN 07 POINT 1 POINT 2 POINT 3 POINT 4

0 0 0.068781 0.069842 0.090981 0.090833

41
 Figure 5.1: Chart showing coordinate comparison

COORDINATE COMPARISON
710241.8824
POINT 4 710241.973
334575.4315
334575.425
710241.1205
POINT 3 710241.206
334625.3959
334625.427
710240.3619
POINT 2 710240.43
STATIONS

334675.4275
334675.412
710239.6409
POINT 1 710239.706
334725.5102
334725.488
710238.925
KIN 07 710238.925
334775.455
334775.455
710242.093
KIN 08 710242.093
334564.054
334564.054

0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000

COORDINATES

DGPS NORTHING TOTAL STATION NORTHING DGPS EASTING TOTAL STATION EASTING

From the table showing the result, the coordinates of each point were observed to have a

maximum difference of 0.03 and a minimum difference of 0.006 at the eastings Signifying a

centimetre difference along the easting. On the northings, the maximum difference was 0.09

and the minimum difference was 0.06 this also signifies a centimetre difference between the

RTK and total station instrument.

The linear misclosure of the data obtained from the Total station was calculated to find the

accuracy specification for which the job was undertaken using the formular;

1
𝐿𝐼𝑁𝐸𝐴𝑅 𝑀𝐼𝑆𝐶𝐿𝑂𝑆𝑈𝑅𝐸 =
(∆𝑁 + ∆𝐸 )
𝐿

42
Where:

ΔN = linear error in the Northing of closing coordinate

ΔE = linear error in the Easting of closing coordinate

L = Total distance traversed.

Table 5.3: Accuracy check

The linear misclosure for the total station was also calculated

Initial or Computed coordinate: 710242.093 mN 334564.054 mE

Observed or Closing coordinate: 710242.087 mN 334564.101 mE

Difference: 0.006 -0.047

Total Distance Traversed: 211.4249 m

1
𝐿𝐼𝑁𝐸𝐴𝑅 𝑀𝐼𝑆𝐶𝐿𝑂𝑆𝑈𝑅𝐸 =
(−0.047 + (0.006) )
211.4249

1
𝐿𝐼𝑁𝐸𝐴𝑅 𝑀𝐼𝑆𝐶𝐿𝑂𝑆𝑈𝑅𝐸 =
√0.002209 + 0.000036
211.42489

1
𝐿𝐼𝑁𝐸𝐴𝑅 𝑀𝐼𝑆𝐶𝐿𝑂𝑆𝑈𝑅𝐸 =
( 0.002245 )
211.42489

1
𝐿𝐼𝑁𝐸𝐴𝑅 𝑀𝐼𝑆𝐶𝐿𝑂𝑆𝑈𝑅𝐸 =
0.047381431
211.42489

Linear Misclosure = 1/0.00022410

43
 Linear Misclosure = 4462.188482

Linear Misclosure = 1 : 4462

5.3.2 DISTANCE COMPARISON

The distances between stations were also compared with each other to derive the accuracy of

RTK in terms of measuring distances along 50 metre baselines. The coordinates obtained from

the RTK were used to compute for the distance against an average of distance taken with the

total station.

Table 5.4: Distance comparison

STATION STATION
FROM DISTANCES TO
TOTAL
STATION RTK DIFFERENCE

KIN 08 KIN 07
211.4247361 211.4247 0

KIN 07 POINT 1
49.97310327 49.94993 -0.02317

POINT 1 POINT 2
50.08123353 50.08789 0.006656

POINT 2 POINT 3
49.9910232 50.03735 0.046328

POINT 3 POINT 4
50.00788231 49.97021 -0.03767

POINT 4 KIN 08
11.37163317 11.44266 0.071025

44
 Figure 5.2: Chart showing distance comparison

From the result shown, the distances between each point as observed by bot instruments are

seen to have centimetre level difference.

5.3.3 AZIMUTH COMPARISON

In the table below, the computed azimuth for both instruments is compared.

Table 5.5: Azimuth comparison

AZIMUTH STATION TO
TOTAL STATION RTK DIFFERENCE

KIN 08 KIN 07
90º 51' 31" 90º 51' 31" 0

KIN 07 POINT 1
270º 53' 41" 270º 49' 17" 4' 24"

POINT 1 POINT 2
270º 49' 34" 270º 49' 29" 5"

POINT 2 POINT 3
270º 53' 17" 270º 52' 9" 1' 8"

POINT 3 POINT 4
270º 52' 38" 270º 52' 21" 17"

POINT 4 KIN 08
270º 36' 21" 270º 3' 45" 32' 36"

45
The result shows that there is minimal difference between the azimuth obtained from both

instruments, with discrepancies reaching only minute level and not changing degrees. Although

in longer distances, this would prove an issue as the longer you move alone a bearing the further

it is from the actual point, but it can be considered negligible in shorter distances such as 50-

meter baselines.

46
 CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1 CONCLUSION
This study analyses the accuracy of the RTK by way of comparison of three different factors,

A comparison was made between coordinates obtained, distances and azimuth. This

comparison between instruments was done using points established at a selected site within the

university of Nigeria Enugu campus. The comparison showed that in short distance, RTK may

not be reliable in the provision of accurate data. This comparison was done to find out the

difference in distances between the coordinates obtained from using an RTK instrument and a

total station. The error in distances measured close to 0.1 meters. The difference in azimuth as

well had an error in accuracy of 1 minute which could not be overlooked. The accuracy of the

RTK points was also calculated to obtain its misclosure error, and the misclosure did not fall

within the specified bounds of a 3rd order survey. As such RTK may not be reliable for use in

short base lines.

6.2 RECOMMENDATION
Although this study was carried out effectively, several limitations posed a threat to the success

of achieving the aim and as thus, the following recommendations are proposed for better

accuracy assessment

For further studies, GNSS receivers should be used in static mode, during our research for

theoretical review, it was found that PPK and Static mode instruments provide higher accuracy,

although none of these modes were used in this study, we therefore recommend that instrument

have such mode should be used for further study alongside RTK and results compared in other

to determine the difference between each of these instrument modes and decide which could

be adopted as a sufficient means of obtaining high accurate survey.

47
 REFERENCES
Bartholomew, M. (2008). Land surveying and setting out for engineers. Spon Press. London,

United Kingdom.

Bramanto, B., Gumilar, I., Taufik, M., & Hermawan, I. M. D. A. (2019). Long-range Single

Baseline RTK GNSS Positioning for Land Cadastral Survey Mapping. E3S Web of

Conferences, 94, 01022. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20199401022

Brinker, R. C., & Minnick, R. (1987). Surveying Handbook. Pearson Education. Van Nostrand

Reinhold.

Colosi, F., & Gabrielli, R. (2000). Integrated Use of GNSS and the Total Station for the Survey

of Archaeological Sites: The Case of Colle Breccioso. Journal of Geomatics, 4(1), 9–

12.

Davis, R. E., Foote, F. S., Anderson, J. M., & Mikhail, E. M. (2012). Surveying: Theory and

practice. Pearson Education.

Didigwu, A. U. S. (2021). Comparative study of differential global positioning system (DGPS)

and conventional survey methods of coordinates determination. [Journal Article].

https://journalservers.com/files/bd86937f_1207.pdf

Diwakar, P. S., Kumar, A., & Katiyar, K. (2014). Horizontal Accuracy Assessment of

Differential-GPS Survey. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced

Engineering, 4(12), 357–360.

Filjar, R., Busic, L., & Kos, T. (2007). A Case Study of DGPS Positioning Accuracy for LBS.

Automatika, 48(2), 53–57.

48
Ghilani, C. D., & Wolf, P. R. (2017). Elementary surveying: An introduction to geospatial

science. Pearson Education.

Lee, J.-M., Park, J.-Y., & Choi, J.-Y. (2013). Evaluation of Sub-aerial Topographic Surveying

Techniques Using Total Station and RTK-GPS for applications in Macro-tidal Sand

Beach Environment. Journal of Coastal Research, 65, 535–540.

Jung, R. J. (2006). A Study on Method of DGPS Applications for the Cadastral Surveying.

Journal of The Institute of Navigation, 43(4).

Lin, L. S. (2004). Application of GPS RTK and Total Station system on dynamic monitoring

land use [Report]. National Science Council: Taiwan, Republic of China.

Ortiz, M., Reyna, J. A., Balcazar, M., Hernández, A., Espriu, & Marín. (2010). Comparison of

regional elevation heights in the Aguascalientes basin using DGPS technique with

INEGI’s digital terrain model. Geofísica Internacional, 49(4), 195–199.

Kumar, P., Chaudhary, S. K., Shukla, G., & Kumar, S. (2013). Assessment of Positional

Accuracy of DGPS: A Case Study of Indian School of Mines Dhanbad, Jharkhand,

India. International Journal of Advances in Earth Sciences, 2(1), 1–7.

Pranam, J., & Bhavsar, V. (2023). Study On DGPS Based Cadastral Survey. IJSRD || LDRP

Technical Conference 2023 - (LDRP TECON 2023).

https://www.ijsrd.com/articles/LDRPTCP064.pdf

Rodriguez-Solano, R., Valbuena, R., Mauro, F., & Manzanera, J. A. (2010). Accuracy and

precision of GPS receivers under forest canopies in a mountainous environment.

Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(4), 1047–1057.

Wolf, P. R., & Ghilani, C. D. (2010). Adjustment computations: Statistics and least squares.

Pearson Education.

49
 APPENDIX
APPENDIX I: COMPUTATION SHEET

Back AZ Diff E Diff N

OBS Angle CORRECTED Prov E Prov N
AZ
CORRECTION Distance Correction Correction
FORE AZ TO AZ Station Eastings Northings
KIN 08 334564.054 710242.093

211.401 -3.168
90º 51' 31" 211.377

KIN 07 334775.455 710238.925

334725.499 710239.705
270 51 31 -49.956 0.78
0 2 1 270º 53' 41" 49.962
-0.011 0.001
270 53 32 + 09" POINT 1 334725.488 710239.706
334675.434 710240.427
90 -50.065 0.722
179 55 43 270º 49' 34" 50.07
-0.022 0.003
270 49 15 + 19" POINT 2 334675.412 710240.43
334625.46 710241.202
90 -49.974 0.775
180 3 34 270º 53' 17" 49.98
-0.033 0.004
270 52 49 + 28" POINT 3 334625.427 710241.206
334575.469 710241.967
90 -49.991 0.765
179 59 12 270º 52' 38" 49.997
-0.044 0.006
270 35 34 + 37" POINT 4 334575.425 710241.973
334564.101 710242.087
90 -11.368 0.12
179 43 33 270º 36' 21" 11.369
-0.047 0.006
270 35 34 + 47" KIN 08 334564.054 710242.093

90 211.401 -3.168
0 15 1 90º 51' 31" 211.377

90 50 35 + 56" KIN 07 334775.455 710238.925

50