Guideline for the Adjustment

and Evaluation of Survey

Control

Special Publication 1

Version 2.2

Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping (ICSM)

Geodesy Working Group (GWG)
7 December 2020
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

Document History
DATE VERS ISSUE AMENDMENTS AUTHOR(S)
7/12/2020 2 2 Update to copyright, ICSM Geodesy Working
update of term AGRS, Group
revision of references,
Section 2.1 and Section 6.1
update datum and geoid
model references
24/09/2014 2 1 Values in Table 10 updated, ICSM Permanent
copyright statement Committee on Geodesy
updated
24/10/2013 2 0 Document available ICSM Permanent
Committee on Geodesy

© Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia) 2020.

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and where otherwise noted, this
product is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 ii

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

Table of contents

Document History .......................................................................................................... ii

Table of contents .......................................................................................................... iii
List of figures ................................................................................................................ iii
List of tables ................................................................................................................. iv
Terms and definitions .................................................................................................... v
1 About this Guideline ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Normative References ............................................................................................ 2
2 Connection to datum ............................................................................................... 3
2.1 Propagation of datum and uncertainty .................................................................. 3
3 Expression of uncertainty ......................................................................................... 4
4 Adjustment of survey control ................................................................................... 5
4.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Recommended procedure ...................................................................................... 5
5 Evaluating survey uncertainty .................................................................................. 7
5.1 Local test................................................................................................................. 7
5.2 Global (or sigma-zero) test ..................................................................................... 7
6 Example test procedure ........................................................................................... 8
6.1 Example: GNSS and terrestrial control survey ....................................................... 8
6.1.1 Minimally constrained adjustment ...................................................................... 11
6.1.2 Constrained adjustment to propagate datum and uncertainty ........................... 14

List of figures
Figure 1: Combined GNSS and terrestrial control survey ........................................................ 9

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 iii
Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

List of tables
Table 1: Station information .................................................................................................... 9
Table 2: Terrestrial measurement information ..................................................................... 10
Table 3: GNSS measurement information ............................................................................. 11
Table 4: AUSGeoid2020 interpolated values ......................................................................... 11
Table 5: Minimally constrained adjustment results .............................................................. 12
Table 6: Baseline components ............................................................................................... 12
Table 7: 95% SU values (minimally constrained GNSS-only adjustment).............................. 13
Table 8: Minimally constrained combined adjustment results ............................................. 13
Table 9: 95% SU values (minimally constrained combined adjustment) .............................. 14
Table 10: AGRS constraints (1 sigma) .................................................................................... 14
Table 11: Constrained adjustment results............................................................................. 15
Table 12: 95% PU values (constrained adjustment) .............................................................. 15

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 iv

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

Terms and definitions

For the purpose of this Guideline, the terms and definitions listed below and those listed in
the Standard for the Australian Survey Control Network – Special Publication 1, Version 2.2
apply.

Term/Acronym Definition

Confidence interval A one dimensional range within which an estimated result is

expected to fall at a particular level of confidence. It can also be
thought of as the (±) range about the expected value which
describes the level of uncertainty in a measurement or estimated
result.

Confidence range The elliptical or circular area describing the uncertainty in an

estimated result at a particular level of confidence.

Coverage factor (k) A statistical scalar used to modify a standard uncertainty to reach a
greater (or expanded) level of confidence. The value assigned to k
is chosen according to the desired level of confidence.

Critical value Used in the context of testing reliability, it is the value at the
extremity of a confidence interval or range. Estimated results
exceeding this value are deemed to have failed the particular test
of reliability.

Degrees of freedom A statistic that defines the redundancy of a least squares

(DoF) adjustment and equals the number of measurements minus the
number of unknown parameters to be estimated.

Global test An evaluation procedure performed on a least squares adjustment

to assess the quality of the survey as a whole.

Local test An evaluation procedure performed on individual survey

measurements to assess the quality of a measurement and its
assumed uncertainty.

Redundancy A least squares adjustment is said to contain redundancy if the

total number of measurements exceeds the minimum number
required to compute the unknown parameters (i.e. when the
degrees of freedom is greater than zero). When repeated
measurements are taken to estimate an unknown parameter, the
additional measurements are said to be redundant.

Sigma zero The magnitude of the sum of the squares of the weighted
measurement corrections arising from a least squares adjustment.

Uncertainty, expanded Uncertainty expressed as a multiple of one standard deviation,

multiplied by a coverage factor to produce a higher level of
confidence.

Uncertainty, standard Uncertainty expressed as one standard deviation.

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 v

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

1 About this Guideline

1.1 Introduction
The availability of accurate and reliable information relating to the position and uncertainty
of Australia’s survey control marks is critical to the integrity of the Australian Geospatial
Reference System (AGRS). The purpose of this Guideline is to promote the adoption of
uniform least squares adjustment and evaluation procedures to achieve the highest level of
rigour and integrity in Australia’s survey control mark network.

The generation of position and uncertainty for Australia’s survey control marks relies upon
a large number of measurements to these survey control marks using a variety of
instruments, measurement techniques and processing software. Whilst a surveyor will
always endeavour to obtain the most accurate and precise measurements to survey
control marks, the true value of a survey control mark’s position can never be measured
nor derived with absolute certainty due to the inescapable presence of measurement
error. In order to determine the single, most reliable position from a range of
measurements whilst at the same time detecting and removing unacceptable
measurement errors, the technique of least squares estimation should be used.

For geodetic control surveys, the least squares technique provides a reliable means for
estimating the most probable value of survey control mark coordinates and uncertainties
from a redundant set of measurements by satisfying predefined functional and stochastic
models. The technique of least squares also provides a rigorous means for testing the
estimated values and the measurements used to derive them.

This Guideline outlines ICSM’s recommended procedures for using least squares to
estimate and evaluate the position and uncertainty of survey control marks, to evaluate
measurement uncertainty, and to evaluate network reliability. Examples are provided at
the end of this Guideline.

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 1

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

1.2 Normative References

This Guideline should be read in conjunction with the Standard for the Australian Survey
Control Network – Special Publication 1, Version 2.2 herein referred to as the Standard.

The following documents may have relevance to the application of this Guideline.

International Guidelines

JCGM 100:2008, Evaluation of Measurement Data – Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty

in Measurement, Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology – Bureau International des
Poids et Mesures, Paris, France.

SP1 Standard

ICSM (2020), Standard for the Australian Survey Control Network – Special Publication 1,
Version 2.2, Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping, Canberra,
Australia.

SP1 Guidelines

ICSM (2020), Guideline for Control Surveys by Differential Levelling, Version 2.2,
Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping, Canberra, Australia.
ICSM (2020), Guideline for Control Surveys by GNSS, Version 2.2, Intergovernmental
Committee on Surveying and Mapping, Canberra, Australia.
ICSM (2020), Guideline for Conventional Traverse Surveys, Version 2.2, Intergovernmental
Committee on Surveying and Mapping, Canberra, Australia.

ICSM Technical Manuals

ICSM (2020), Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020 Technical Manual, Intergovernmental

Committee on Surveying and Mapping, Canberra, Australia.
ICSM (2007), Australian Tides Manual – Special Publication 9, Intergovernmental
Committee on Surveying and Mapping, Wollongong, Australia.

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 2

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

2 Connection to datum
Survey control marks established for the AGRS shall be coordinated relative to the datums
set out in Section 2 of the Standard.

2.1 Propagation of datum and uncertainty

In order to rigorously propagate datum and uncertainty throughout a survey control mark
network, direct measurement to the AGRS survey control mark network is required.

For Datum Control Surveys, propagation of datum and uncertainty to new and existing
survey control marks can be achieved by including the survey within AGRS adjustments
(State, Territory and Australian Government).

For General Purpose Control Surveys, the jurisdictional agency responsible for maintaining
the survey control mark network should make available, where possible, the relevant
survey control information to facilitate the rigorous propagation of datum and uncertainty.
Such information should include, at the least, datum aligned coordinates and heights,
uncertainties and metadata for the survey control marks to which connection is being
made.

Similarly, the jurisdictional agency responsible for maintaining the Australian Height Datum
(AHD) should make available the relevant survey control information to facilitate the
rigorous propagation of AHD. Such information should include AHD heights, quality
estimates and metadata for the survey control marks to which a connection to AHD is
being made.

The preferred means for propagating datum and uncertainty throughout an adjustment is
to provide coordinates and a variance-covariance matrix which rigorously expresses the
datum and quality (absolute and relative) of the existing survey control marks. However, in
practice a full variance-covariance matrix is often unavailable. In such instances, a priori
statistical information may be derived using empirical means or estimated values.

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 3

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

3 Expression of uncertainty
Section 4.2.1 of the Standard states that Survey Uncertainty (SU), Relative Uncertainty (RU)
and Positional Uncertainty (PU) shall be expressed in terms of the 95% confidence level
using any one of the following as appropriate:

 standard deviations;

 standard error ellipse/ellipsoid; or

 horizontal circular confidence region.

To express standard deviations for one dimensional components at the 95% confidence
level, the uncertainty value is simply computed by scaling the estimated (1 sigma) standard
deviation by coverage factor k = 1.960.

To express the (two dimensional) standard error ellipse at the 95% confidence level, the
axes of the 95% error ellipse are obtained by scaling the (1 sigma) axes by coverage factor k
= 2.448.

Similarly, the axes of the (three dimensional) 95% error ellipsoid are obtained by scaling
the (1 sigma) axes by coverage factor k = 2.796.

For the horizontal circular confidence region, the 95% uncertainty value is calculated from
the standard (1 sigma) error ellipse and is expressed as a single quantity, being the radius
of the circular confidence region. The radius (r) of the circular confidence region is
computed by:

𝑟 = 𝑎×𝐾

𝐾 = 𝑞0 + 𝑞1 𝐶 + 𝑞2 𝐶 2 + 𝑞3 𝐶 3

𝐶 = 𝑏⁄𝑎

Where:
a = semi-major axis of the standard error ellipse
b = semi-minor axis of the standard error ellipse
q0 = 1.960790
q1 = 0.004071
q2 = 0.114276
q3 = 0.371625

Values for a and b shall be derived from the full a-posteriori variance matrix obtained from
least squares adjustment.

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 4

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

4 Adjustment of survey control

4.1 Purpose
In the context of control surveys, the primary purpose of least squares adjustment is to
estimate survey control mark coordinates from a set of measurements. In addition to this,
least squares provides for the following additional outcomes:

 the uncertainty of the estimated coordinates;

 the quality of the survey control network; and

 the necessary statistics to evaluate the quality of the measurements and the
estimated coordinates.

As defined in the Standard, the quality of estimated coordinates shall be expressed in

terms of uncertainty. The following subsection outlines the recommended procedure for
undertaking least squares adjustments in SU, PU and RU contexts.

4.2 Recommended procedure

Control surveys undertaken to derive the horizontal and vertical position of survey control
marks relative to the AGRS should be adjusted in a rigorous least squares adjustment
process. The following procedures are recommended:

(a) All survey control measurements should be corrected for all known calibration
corrections and systematic error sources, and be accompanied by reliable
values of uncertainty (or weights). To test the control survey for errors,
redundant measurements sufficient to identify errors shall be used. The larger
the degrees of freedom (DoF), the greater confidence can be gained from a
survey.

(b) A minimally constrained adjustment should be tested using the local test (see
Section 5.1) and global test (see Section 5.2).

(c) If required, estimated SU and associated RU values (or other reliable statistical
methods) should be examined to assess whether the survey has achieved any
predefined uncertainty or quality thresholds.

(d) When attempting to propagate datum and uncertainty, a fully constrained and
appropriately weighted adjustment should be undertaken.

(e) The fully constrained adjustment should be tested using the local test (see
Section 5.1), to verify that the imposed constraints do not result in
measurement failure(s).

(f) The fully constrained adjustment should be tested using the global test (see
Section 5.2). If this adjustment test fails, the quality of survey measurements

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 5

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

and constraints needs to be examined to identify and rectify the cause of

failure.

(g) If required, estimated PU and associated RU values (or other reliable statistical
methods) should be examined to assess whether the survey control network
has achieved any predefined uncertainty or quality thresholds.

Whilst ICSM regards the circular form of PU as an acceptable means for simplifying the
expression of a-posteriori uncertainty at the 95% confidence level, the circular form of
uncertainty is not acceptable for use as a-priori statistical information to be used in
constraining an adjustment in procedure (d).

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 6

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

5 Evaluating survey uncertainty

Statistical tests in a network adjustment are used to assess and/or demonstrate the
reliability of a survey control network. The following two tests should be undertaken on
both minimally constrained and fully constrained adjustments to evaluate the quality of a
survey and the derived results.

5.1 Local test

A local test is an evaluation procedure performed on individual survey measurements to
assess the quality of a measurement and its assumed (or a-priori) uncertainty. To validate
each measurement and assumed uncertainty, the size of each adjusted measurement
correction should be tested to verify that the correction lies within the upper and lower
limits of the specified confidence interval. Such testing should be undertaken to
demonstrate that:

 no gross errors exist within the measurements;

 all measurements are appropriately weighted;

 all measurements satisfy any predefined measurement precision criteria; and

 in the case of constrained adjustment, the imposed constraints are statistically

reliable.

Local tests should be conducted using the Normal distribution at the 95% confidence level.
A correction which exceeds the upper 95% confidence limit indicates a failure and the need
to re-evaluate the assumed uncertainty of the measurements and/or imposed constraints.

5.2 Global (or sigma-zero) test

A global test is an evaluation procedure performed on a least squares adjustment to assess
the quality of the survey as a whole. To validate the network as a whole, the sum of the
squares of the weighted measurement corrections resulting from the adjustment (the
adjustment result) should be tested against the DoF of the network. Testing should be
conducted using the Chi-square distribution.

If the adjustment result is equal to the DoF, the sigma-zero (or variance factor) will be
unity, indicating that the system of survey measurements, uncertainties and constraints is
statistically reliable. Values larger than one indicate that one or more of the a-priori
measurement uncertainties are over-optimistic, or a larger-than-expected correction has
resulted. Values less than one suggest that the measurements were better than assumed
by the combined set of measurement uncertainties. Values which exceed the upper
confidence limit indicate a failure and the need to re-evaluate the uncertainty of the
measurements (via the local test) and/or the uncertainty of the imposed constraints.

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 7

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

Whilst it is not always possible, nor essential, to achieve sigma-zero values equal to unity, a
pass for both local and global tests is a minimum requirement for demonstrating survey
control network reliability.

6 Example test procedure

To evaluate the quality of a control survey, the survey should be tested using SU, PU and
RU as appropriate, in accordance with the survey measurement Guidelines relating to the
desired level of quality.

ICSM recommends the following procedure to evaluate the coordinates and uncertainties
of marks in a survey control network using least squares:

(a) Confirm that the adopted procedures for each measurement technique are
commensurate with the desired quality outcome. Refer to the relevant survey
Guidelines for guidance on selecting survey equipment and procedures
appropriate for desired quality outcomes.

(b) Using the global test (see Section 5.2), confirm the sigma-zero value obtained
from the minimally constrained adjustment is within the upper and lower
limits of the 95% confidence interval.

(c) Confirm all measurements pass the local test at the 95% confidence level (see
Section 5.1) in the minimally constrained adjustment.

(d) When propagating datum and uncertainty from the AGRS or including a survey
within the AGRS, undertake a fully constrained adjustment using appropriate
constraints, and:

(i) Confirm the sigma-zero value obtained from the global test is within the
upper and lower limits of the 95% confidence interval

(ii) Using the local test, confirm the measurements still satisfy the expected
measurement uncertainties at the 95% confidence level

(e) As required, evaluate the standard deviations, error ellipses, PU and RU at the
95% confidence level for all survey control marks.

6.1 Example: GNSS and terrestrial control survey

Figure 1 shows a small, high precision General Purpose Control Survey comprised of GNSS
and terrestrial (horizontal angle, vertical angle, slope distance and differential levelling)
measurements. The purpose of the survey is to establish four new marks from two AGRS
marks – one survey control mark and one GNSS CORS site. The list of survey control marks
and coordinates is shown in Table 1, and the full set of measurements is shown in Table 2
and Table 3. Note that this example is intended to demonstrate a rigorous adjustment and
does not promote or infer optimal network design.

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 8

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

Figure 1: Combined GNSS and terrestrial control survey

All GNSS baseline measurements and uncertainties are based upon a two-hour observation
period and have been extracted directly from baseline processing software. Each horizontal
angle has been reduced from a set of three angle measurements.
Table 1: Station information

Station Latitude Longitude AHD Height Remarks

21 -35 58 47.8625 142 54 36.5997 103.70 New mark
22 -35 58 49.2624 142 54 48.7240 104.20 New mark
23 -35 58 51.1156 142 55 04.9316 104.10 AGRS mark
24 -35 58 59.3020 142 54 34.6274 103.60 New mark
25 -35 59 03.0482 142 55 02.8142 102.80 New mark
26 -35 59 07.5727 142 54 46.2340 112.897 AGRS GNSS CORS site

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 9

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

Table 2: Terrestrial measurement information

Measurement Mark 1 Mark 2 Mark 3 Value Std. dev. Inst. ht. Targ. ht.
Level diff. 1 21 22 0.506 0.010 m
Level diff. 2 22 23 -0.045 0.011 m
Level diff. 3 23 25 -1.320 0.011 m
Level diff. 4 24 21 0.112 0.011 m
Level diff. 5 25 24 0.754 0.015 m
Level diff. 6 22 21 -0.506 0.010 m
Level diff. 7 23 22 0.042 0.011 m
Level diff. 8 25 23 1.318 0.011 m
Level diff. 9 21 24 -0.112 0.011 m
Level diff. 10 24 25 -0.740 0.015 m
Slope dist. 1 21 22 306.790 0.010 m 1.650 1.651
Slope dist. 2 22 23 410.031 0.010 m 1.650 1.651
Slope dist. 3 24 21 356.003 0.010 m 1.650 1.651
Slope dist. 4 25 23 371.568 0.010 m 1.650 1.651
Slope dist. 5 25 24 715.488 0.010 m 1.650 1.651
Vt. angle 1 21 22 0 05 35.651 2.0” 1.650 1.651
Vt. angle 2 22 23 -0 00 25.657 2.0” 1.650 1.651
Vt. angle 3 23 25 -0 12 20.092 2.0” 1.650 1.651
Vt. angle 4 24 21 0 01 09.908 2.0” 1.650 1.651
Vt. angle 5 25 24 0 03 20.601 2.0” 1.650 1.651
Hz. angle 1 24 21 25 91 18 43.522 1.0”
Hz. angle 2 25 24 23 88 55 20.712 1.0”
Hz. angle 3 23 25 22 89 47 58.951 1.0”
Hz. angle 4 22 23 21 180 04 31.199 1.0”
Hz. angle 5 21 22 24 89 53 25.614 1.0”

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 10

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

Table 3: GNSS measurement information

Measurement Mark 1 Mark 2 Value Precision (lower VCV)

X -514.6419 7.843397e-07
GNSS 1 26 23 Y -198.1707 -6.374967e-07 1.135554e-06
Z 415.4426 5.704006e-07 -7.829256e-07 1.083241e-06
X -296.5955 4.395123e-07
GNSS 2 26 22 Y 145.9824 -2.398766e-07 3.260701e-07
Z 461.6305 2.487716e-07 -2.461248e-07 4.525997e-07
X 61.7913 3.443994e-07
GNSS 3 26 24 Y 317.7330 -1.918564e-07 2.675435e-07
Z 211.6262 2.078026e-07 -2.246877e-07 4.216571e-07
X 218.0438 1.078977e-06
GNSS 4 23 22 Y 344.1575 -7.029027e-07 9.465813e-07
Z 46.1858 7.132949e-07 -7.109973e-07 1.097470e-06
X 358.3865 6.455877e-07
GNSS 5 22 24 Y 171.7508 -3.771552e-07 4.988322e-07
Z -250.0044 4.081710e-07 -3.921777e-07 6.773083e-07
X 576.4315 1.415800e-06
GNSS 6 23 24 Y 515.9078 -9.109323e-07 1.185005e-06
Z -203.8178 9.537250e-07 -9.403620e-07 1.468584e-06

To cater for the influence of gravity on the angle and spirit levelling measurements,
ellipsoid-geoid separations (N) and deflections of the vertical in the prime meridian (ξ) and
prime vertical (η) have been interpolated from AUSGeoid2020. The respective
AUSGeoid2020 values for all marks are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: AUSGeoid2020 interpolated values

Station N ξ η
21 4.512 -2.934 -2.535
22 4.515 -2.950 -2.541
23 4.518 -2.974 -2.576
24 4.507 -2.931 -2.513
25 4.512 -2.963 -2.544
26 4.506 -2.943 -2.508

6.1.1 Minimally constrained adjustment

In order to verify the GNSS measurement precisions, a minimally constrained adjustment

incorporating only the GNSS measurements is executed. Holding survey control mark 22
fixed, the number of measurements is 18 (three per baseline) and the number of
unknowns is 9 (three each for marks 23, 24, 26). This results in a DoF of 9. The minimally
constrained adjustment at the 95% confidence level yields the results in Table 5.

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 11

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

Table 5: Minimally constrained adjustment results

Unknown parameters 9
Measurements 18
Degrees of freedom 9
Sigma zero 1.380
Upper limit 2.114
Lower limit 0.300

Using the global test, the network adjustment is deemed a success since the sigma-zero
value (1.380) is less than the upper limit (2.114). Due to the high precision of the GNSS
baseline measurements, the SU for all coordinates is less than 1 millimetre.

Using the local test, each baseline is examined to assess whether the correction exceeds
the 95% critical value. A procedure for this test is to examine whether the normalised
residual (calculated by dividing the measurement correction by the standard deviation of
the correction) exceeds the critical value of the unit Normal distribution at 95%, which is
1.96. From this test, it is discovered that the X and Y components of baseline 1 fail (Table 6)
since the normalised residuals exceed 1.96.
Table 6: Baseline components

Baseline Part Correction Correction std. dev. Normalised residual

1 ∆X 0.00131 0.00063 2.08 (fail)
1 ∆Y -0.00275 0.00085 -3.24 (fail)

In this example, it is assumed that all GNSS observations were taken under the same set of
conditions and that these failures are most likely the consequence of over-optimistic
measurement precisions, rather than baseline 1 being a gross error. In this case, it is
appropriate to modify (i.e. scale) the a-priori uncertainties.

As a first attempt to rectify these failures, the sigma zero value (1.380) is used to scale all
GNSS measurement uncertainties. This is based on the assumption that all GNSS baselines
were derived under the same conditions and there are no gross errors. Following scaling of
all measurements, the minimally constrained adjustment produces a new sigma zero value
of unity. Repeating the adjustment yields a pass in the global test. However, the Y
component of baseline 1 still fails the local test.

On close examination, it is identified that baseline 1 is receiving a larger than expected

correction in the vertical direction. Upon scaling this baseline’s variance matrix by partial
matrix scalars of 1.0, 1.0 and 3.0, corresponding to the east-west, north-south and up axes,
the X and Y components now pass the local test and the adjustment yields a sigma zero of
0.691. As the sigma zero value is significantly less than unity, indicating that the system of
measurements is more precise than indicated by the supplied uncertainties, it is clear that
the problem lies with the estimated precisions of baseline 1.

From this analysis, a better way to deal with this problem would be to rescale the variance
matrix for baseline 1 by partial matrix scalars of 1.0, 1.0 and 5.0, and to rescale all other

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 12

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

baseline variance matrices back to their original values. Re-running the minimally
constrained adjustment leads to all GNSS measurements passing the local test, and a sigma
zero of 1.139 – which is a much more stable outcome and confirms that the precision for
baseline 1 was indeed over optimistic.

95% SU and circular radius values for all marks arising from the minimally constrained
GNSS-only adjustment are shown in Table 7.
Table 7: 95% SU values (minimally constrained GNSS-only adjustment)

Station SU (E) SU (N) SU (Up) Circular radius

22 (constrained)
23 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001
24 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001
26 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001

Having confirmed all GNSS measurements pass the local test, the remaining terrestrial
measurements are introduced in order to verify the set of network measurements as a
whole. The ellipsoid-geoid separations (N) and deflections of the vertical in the prime
meridian (ξ) and prime vertical (η) shown in Table 4 are also introduced.

Again, a minimally constrained adjustment is executed holding survey control mark 22

fixed. In this case, the number of measurements is 43 and number of unknowns is 15,
which includes the unknown coordinates of marks 21 and 25. This results in a DoF of 28.
The minimally constrained adjustment at the 95% confidence level yields the following
results in Table 8.
Table 8: Minimally constrained combined adjustment results

Unknown parameters 15
Measurements 43
Degrees of freedom 28
Sigma zero 0.778
Upper limit 1.588
Lower limit 0.547

This adjustment yields a pass in the global test and a pass in the local test for all GNSS and
terrestrial measurements. As indicated by the lower than expected sigma zero value, many
of the terrestrial measurements were better than anticipated. Whilst much time could be
spent modifying the a-priori standard deviations to achieve a more stable result, the
outcome is within the lower and upper limits and thereby deemed a success.

95% SU and circular radius values for all marks arising from the minimally constrained
combined adjustment are shown in Table 9.

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 13

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

Table 9: 95% SU values (minimally constrained combined adjustment)

Station SU (E) SU (N) SU (Up) Circular radius

21 0.004 0.002 0.004 0.004
22 (constrained)
23 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001
24 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001
25 0.004 0.007 0.006 0.007
26 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001
If, for example, project specifications require all marks to have SU values no greater than
15 mm, the values in Table 9 indicate that the survey successfully achieved this objective.

6.1.2 Constrained adjustment to propagate datum and uncertainty

Having confirmed all measurements pass the local test, constraints are imposed on the
adjustment to propagate datum and uncertainty from the AGRS. The adopted AGRS
constraints are survey control mark 23 and GNSS CORS site (mark 26). The respective
GDA2020 coordinates, AHD height and uncertainties for these marks are shown in Table
10. All uncertainties are at the 1 sigma (68.3% confidence level).

The published GDA2020 coordinates and standard deviations for survey control mark 23
have been estimated from a jurisdictional (state-wide) adjustment. The standard
deviations in seconds translate to approximately 0.025 m in the north-south and east-west
axes. Since a rigorously derived ellipsoid height value for mark 23 is unavailable, the AHD
height is introduced as an approximation. A 0.2 m standard deviation has been adopted for
AHD height for mark 23.
Table 10: AGRS constraints (1 sigma)

Constrain Mar Value Std. dev. Precision (lower VCV)

t k
-4121849.2711 1.526881e-06
GDA2020 26 3115877.9599 -5.463696e-07 1.407678e-06
-3726953.1897 3.250046e-07 -1.977427e-07 1.250715e-06

-35 58 51.1179 0.0008”

GDA2020 23
142 55 04.9337 0.0008”
AHD 23 104.1000 0.200m

The GDA2020 (Cartesian) coordinates and uncertainties for the GNSS CORS site have been
derived from routine analysis of Australia’s GNSS CORS sites. Hence, a rigorous, fully
populated variance matrix is available. As shown by the lower VCV values in Table 10, the
standard deviations are in the order of 1 mm. Since this is a rather optimistic estimate, in
this example the VCV has been scaled by 7.5 to yield uncertainties at the 3 mm level.

For the constrained adjustment, all marks are held free and the constraints are introduced
as measurements with their assumed uncertainties. The introduction of these constraints
as measurements translates to a total measurement count of 49. Setting mark 22 as free

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 14

Version 2.2
 Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

leads to 18 unknowns, resulting in a DoF of 31. The constrained adjustment at the 95%
confidence level yields the results in Table 11.
Table 11: Constrained adjustment results

Unknown parameters 18
Measurements 49
Degrees of freedom 31
Sigma zero 0.735
Upper limit 1.556
Lower limit 0.566

This adjustment yields a pass in the global test and a pass in the local test for all
measurements and constraints. As inferred from the lower than expected sigma zero value,
the system of measurements were better than indicated by the prescribed uncertainties,
and none of the constraints was shown to bias the adjustment in a significant way or to
cause any of the measurements to fail.

95% PU and circular radius values for all marks arising from the constrained adjustment are
shown in Table 12. From the foregoing analysis, the adjustment has proven to be a success.

Table 12: 95% PU values (constrained adjustment)

Station PU (E) PU (N) PU (Up) Circular radius

21 0.006 0.006 0.009 0.008
22 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.007
23 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.007
24 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.007
25 0.006 0.009 0.010 0.010
26 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.007
The preceding example has demonstrated how to evaluate coordinate and uncertainty
estimates for a typical General Purpose Control Survey. In order to achieve the most
rigorous estimates of position and uncertainty for survey control marks 21 – 25, the system
of survey measurements (excluding the constraints) should be included within the
jurisdiction adjustment.

The benefits of including the survey measurements within the jurisdiction adjustment
cannot be over emphasised. For instance, consider AGRS survey control mark 23. Prior to
this adjustment, the best published GDA2020 coordinates for mark 23 were stated as being
precise to 0.025 m, 68.3% confidence level (or 0.049 m, 95%). However, according to Table
12 the estimated uncertainty for mark 23 based on the new system of measurements is
0.003 m, 68.3% (or 0.007 m 95%). Unless this survey is integrated within the AGRS,
subsequent users of mark 23 will not be able to benefit from this increased precision.

Guideline for the Adjustment and Evaluation of Survey Control – SP1 15

Version 2.2