Reduced Level of Network Stations

REDUCED LEVELS
OF
MONITORING NETWORK STATIONS
December 1998
Reduced Levels (Monitoring)
i
REDUCED LEVELS OF MONITORING NETWORK STATIONS
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................................II
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1
2 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................. 2
3 SURVEYING NEEDS .................................................................................................... 3
4 REQUIRED ACCURACY............................................................................................. 4
4.1 CO-ORDINATE ACCURACY......................................................................................... 4
4.2 LEVEL ACCURACY..................................................................................................... 4
5 REFERENCE SURFACE FOR LEVELLING............................................................ 6
6 CONVENTIONAL SURVEYING TECHNIQUES..................................................... 7
6.1 LEVELLING METHODS ............................................................................................... 7
6.2 REFERENCE SURFACE................................................................................................ 7
6.3 ACCURACY ............................................................................................................... 7
6.4 PRACTICAL ASPECTS ................................................................................................. 8
6.5 STAFF, DURATION AND COST .................................................................................... 8
6.6 TRAINING................................................................................................................ 10
7 GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM BASED SURVEYING TECHNIQUES....... 11
7.1 LEVELLING TECHNIQUES......................................................................................... 11
7.2 REFERENCE SURFACE.............................................................................................. 12
7.3 OVERALL ACCURACY.............................................................................................. 13
7.4 PRACTICAL ASPECTS ............................................................................................... 13
7.5 STAFF, DURATION AND COST .................................................................................. 14
7.6 TRAINING................................................................................................................ 16
8 COMPARISON OF SURVEYING TECHNIQUES.................................................. 17
8.1 AVAILABLE OPTIONS............................................................................................... 17
8.2 COMPARISON OF TECHNIQUES................................................................................. 17
9 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 20
10 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 21
MANUFACTURERS AND REPRESENTATIVES........................................................... 22
ii
List of tables
Table 1: Status of RL survey, as per MIS 30 September 1998................................................ 3
Table 2: RL accuracy requirement per type of terrain............................................................. 5
Table 3: Basic reference point accuracy .................................................................................. 6
Table 4: Indicative instrument accuracy and range.................................................................. 8
Table 5: Estimation of remaining work for optical instruments .............................................. 9
Table 6: Estimation of operational and instrument cost for optical instruments ..................... 9
Table 7: Indicative accuracy and operational range............................................................... 13
Table 8: Estimation of remaining work for GPS instruments................................................ 15
Table 9: Estimation of operational and instrument cost for GPS instruments....................... 15
Table 10: Tabular summary of total costs ............................................................................... 18
Table 11: RL survey costs and duration for digital level and total station.............................. 19
Table 12: RL survey costs and duration for GPS L1 and GPS L1/L2 receivers ..................... 19
Table 13: Known GPS equipment manufacturers represented in India................................... 22
Abbreviations
CGWB Central Ground Water Board
E Easting
EGM96 Earth Geopotential Model 1996, a spherical harmonic model of the Earth's
gravitational potential
GPS Global Positioning System
GTS Great Triangular Survey
HIS Hydrological Information System
HP Hydrology Project
MIS Management Information System
MSL Mean Sea Level
N Northing
NIMA National Imagery and Mapping Agency, USA
RL Reduced Level
SGWD State Ground Water Board
SoI Survey of India
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
VP Very high precision GTS benchmark
VVP Very very high precision GTS benchmark
WGS84 World Geodetic System 1984
Reduced Levels (Monitoring) 1
1 Introduction
This note focuses on the geographical co-ordinates and Reduced Levels for observation
wells. For proper assessment of groundwater flows and interactions between aquifers,
groundwater elevation data are required. The Hydrological Information System covers a large
number of wells. At present only half of the observation wells have been levelled, which
hampers a thorough analysis of the geo-hydrological conditions of the aquifers. There is need
for a speedy elimination of the backlog in levelling and surveying. For this a number of
options are available, with differences in accuracy, staff requirements, duration and cost. The
advantages and disadvantages of conventional surveying techniques and GPS-based
techniques are being compared. Finally, conclusions are drawn and recommendations are
given for preferable options.
After an Introduction in Chapter 1, the current procedures, mostly based on map and compass
readings, are touched upon in Chapter 2. Next, Chapter 3 defines the co-ordinate and level
data requirements. Chapter 4 touches upon the accuracy requirements, both for position and
for level. Some basic aspects of the reference surface for levels are covered in Chapter 5. The
conventional surveying techniques based on levelling instruments and theodolites are
discussed in Chapter 6, whereas the new technology of GPS surveying is covered in Chapter
7. These surveying techniques are compared in Chapter 8. Chapter 9 summarises the main
conclusions. Chapter 10 gives recommendations on improvement of the levelling output.
It proved extremely difficult to obtain consistent accuracy data retaining to the reference
benchmarks. The figures given in this Note should only be regarded as best guesses.
Throughout the note, a distinction is made between survey with a high accuracy and survey
with a moderate accuracy. High accuracy is mostly associated with coastal areas and
moderate accuracy refers to hilly and upland terrain.
2
2 Background
Under the Hydrology Project (HP) a computerised Hydrological Information System (HIS)
will be established by the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) and the State Groundwater
Departments (SGWDs) in the eight participating states inducting Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala. The networks
controlled by the HIS comprise 25,000 manually monitored wells and 5,900 wells equipped
with digital water level recorders and many additional exploration wells.
Geographical co-ordinate and elevation values of observation wells are some of the
parameters that have to be accurately measured for enabling correct interpretation of the
variables measured in the field. For the present procedure to obtain the well the co-ordinates a
compass and 1:50,000 topo-sheet are required. At the well site, compass bearings are taken to
conspicuous features, e.g. buildings, in the well surroundings. The bearings are then plotted
on the topo-sheet. On the topo-sheet, the intersection of the bearings is determined and
subsequently the co-ordinates are read.
For each well, the accurate elevation of ground level and the Top of Casing (in m above
MSL) are to be measured. The measured values need to be verified with the elevation
contours represented in topo-sheets.
The geographical co-ordinate values are essential inputs for GIS application.
The water level elevations will form the basis for production of water level contour maps.
Based on these maps major inferences can be drawn on the hydro-geological regime in any
area such as groundwater flow paths and gradients, recharge and discharge areas and
groundwater basin boundaries, etc.
3
3 Surveying needs
At present, about half of the existing monitoring wells have been levelled. Moreover, the
newly constructed piezometers also need to be connected to MSL. The level survey work has
been slow due to shortage of survey staff and equipment. The position on level survey work,
as per MIS, 30 September 1998, is given in Table 1. Note that the numbers given in the table
are slightly higher than the actual size of the HIS network as it also includes those wells
which will be replaced or have been abandoned. The inclusion of these wells in the levelling
count is necessary as in the final processing the historical data have to be linked to the data
under HIS as well.
Table 1: Status of RL survey, as per MIS 30 September 1998
well type observation piezometer total RL pending
CGWB 8450 2176 10626 6769
Andhra Pradesh 3149 625 3774 1281
Gujarat 2068 366 2434 121
Karnataka 1540 500 2040 2010
Kerala 300 359 659 649
Madhya Pradesh 4450 665 5115 665
Maharashtra 3920 700 4620 2388
Orissa 647 305 952 853
Tamil Nadu 2174 738 2912 708
states total 18248 4258 22506 8675
states and CGWB total 26698 6434 33132 15444
Perusal of the table shows that for CGWB about 6800 and for the states about 8700 wells still
need to be connected to MSL. Hence, with the present stage of level survey work only limited
spatial quantitative analysis and interpretation of water level data is possible. It allows only
for the preparation of water level fluctuation maps and depth to water level but not for water
level contour maps.
4
4 Required accuracy
The accuracy of the geographical co-ordinates and elevation data is crucial for the
interpretation of the contour maps and other spatial products. Excessive errors in the
geographical co-ordinates affect the location of points on the map. The shift of point
locations can substantially alter the shape of the contours thus changing the perceived
gradient of flow. Further, it can shift the positions of recharge and discharge areas and alter
the shape of the drainage basin.
Likewise, when the elevation values are erroneous the groundwater perceived gradient is
affected and reversal of groundwater flow in coastal areas can go unnoticed or interpretations
may result in unnecessary alarms.
Thus, it is seen that elevation and geographical co-ordinate values can significantly affect the
nature of interpretation.
4.1 Co-ordinate accuracy
In the HP Project area, the existing network of groundwater observation wells monitors
mostly the shallow phreatic aquifer. A limited number of wells observe deeper aquifers.
For a large number of wells, geographical co-ordinates still have to be established. Many
agencies have been using 1:250,000 scale topo-sheets or village maps instead of 1:50,000
scale topo-sheets. Moreover, for many sites the well locations have not systematically been
transferred on to topo-sheet and therefore, the co-ordinate values lack accuracy. In many
states for villages with a number of wells, all wells have been assigned identical co-ordinates.
In such a situation, the contouring software can handle the data pertaining to a single well
only, thereby neglecting any variation within the village.
The co-ordinate accuracy requirements should be related to the use of the well data.
Generally, a horizontal accuracy better than 25 m is sufficient for groundwater applications.
4.2 Level accuracy
A distinction should be made between absolute and relative RL accuracy. For many
hydrogeological studies, e.g. flow analysis in aquifers, the water level gradient should be
accurately known. This dictates a high relative accuracy. Therefore, for RL measurements the
accuracy requirement is specified in relative terms, i.e. an error in mm per km.
In the non-coastal zone, an average RL accuracy of 50 mm/km is acceptable for routine and
general-purpose hydrological studies. Examples of such studies are the preparation of water
level contour maps and geological cross sections for aquifer correlation.
The areas with high accuracy requirements are mainly concentrated along the coast. In such
areas, the accuracy requirement for the elevation data is in the order of 10 mm/km. The RL
accuracy requirements, differentiated per type of terrain, are summarised in the Table 2
below. The same Table also gives the size of the related area in the Project Area and an
indication of the number of wells it concerns.
5
Table 2: RL accuracy requirement per type of terrain
terrain type accuracy area in km
2
numbers
flat coastal area 10 mm/km 348000 3300
upland, hilly 50 mm/km 1305000 30000
The accuracy of the water level measurement proper, relative to ToC, should also be
considered.
6
5 Reference surface for levelling
In hydrology, levels are commonly expressed relative to a reference surface, which
essentially is level and encompasses the entire globe.
The surface of free and static water is regarded as being level, i.e. under gravity and earth
rotation forces the free surface of entirely static water has equal potential. A special equal
potential surface is the geoid, which by definition is closely related to Mean Sea Level
(MSL). Due to gravity anomalies, the geoid is not a regular but an undulating surface.
Elevations relative to MSL are expressed as distance above the geoid.
It is quite impractical to establish a network of MSL reference points for the full Project
Area. Instead, use can be made of an existing and well-established reference network.
Virtually the only high accuracy reference network existing in the Project Area consists of
GTS (Great Triangular Survey) benchmarks. Survey of India meticulously administrates and
maintains the GTS benchmarks.
As explained in Section 4.2, for groundwater levelling the absolute accuracy of the water
level data is not as important as the relative accuracy. Consequently, the main requirement is
that the GTS benchmarks have a good relative accuracy. Their accuracy and spacing are
presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Basic reference point accuracy
reference point type relative accuracy spacing
GTS 1
st
order, VVP 1 mm @ 1 km 100 tot 500 km
GTS 2
nd
order, VP 3 mm @ 1 km 50 to 80 km
Tertiary, double run 12 mm @ 1 km 20 to 30 km
Tertiary, single run 24 mm @ 1 km 20 to 30 km
Legend: VVP Very Very Precise
VP Very Precise
The accuracy degrades with the square root of the distance in kilometre. E.g. at a distance of
4 km the GTS 2
nd
order accuracy is 6 mm.
The relative accuracy of the reference points is only of importance if more than one reference
point is used within a single aquifer area. However, it is recommended to connect the
levelling network to more than one GTS benchmark point for error control purposes.
Further, it should be noted that the larger the separation between the reference points the
smaller the error per km is.
7
6 Conventional surveying techniques
Conventional levelling is executed by automatic mechanical (non-electronic) level
instruments. State-of-the-art surveying instruments comprise a lot of electronics; often a
single board personal computer is built-in to enhance the performance of the instrument and
to cater for data recording.
6.1 Levelling methods
Conventional levelling is essentially an incremental process. Each increment, the heights of
two levelling staffs are observed and annotated in a logbook. The size of the increment
depends on the magnification and the quality of the levelling instrument and the terrain
condition (slope, obstructions). Each increment may cover a distance up to a maximum of
200 m. It is estimated that on relatively flat terrain, the levelling instrument may have to be
shifted and set up about 5 to 10 times. To obtain the specified accuracy, the survey team
should be skilled and execute the work meticulously.
The levelling quality is monitored and increased by applying double run levelling, i.e. each
sub-trajectory is levelled from a reference point to a new point at some distance and back to
the reference point. The difference in level between the two runs should fall within
predefined accuracy requirements.
Recently, electronic levelling instruments, denominated digital levels, became commercially
available. Such instruments require very little adjustments by the surveyor. The digital level
automatically takes the staff reading and records it, together with administrative and
identification data. It requires a special levelling staff which has a face with a bar code
pattern precisely printed over it. To obtain a level reading, the digital level observes and
analyses the image of the bar code. The other face of the staff may have a conventional scale
to allow manual reading.
Another alternative for traditional levelling is the 'total station'; i.e. an electronic theodolite
with integrated distance meter and digital data recording. The instrument measures bearing,
vertical angle and range to a retro-reflector (prism) at a distance. The elevation of the prism is
calculated from the vertical angle and the range. The co-ordinates are calculated from bearing
and horizontal range.
6.2 Reference surface
Due to the very principle of the levelling instrument, the instrument reference plane settles
itself parallel to the local geoid surface. Height obtained by levelling (H) is orthometric
height. Levelling heights are expressed as elevation above to MSL, i.e. height above the
geoid. For at least one reference point in the area, the elevation above MSL should be known.
6.3 Accuracy
Table 4 summarises for each type of instrument the levelling accuracy in double run
engineering mode. The figures assume engineering grade levelling. For automatic level and
total station, higher accuracy is possible than indicated in the Table, but cost increases rapidly
with better accuracy. To obtain the accuracy for a certain levelling distance (L km) the
presented accuracy figure should be multiplied by L. Over distance of 9 km with an
automatic level instrument, the estimated error would be 59 =15 mm, that is less than 2
mm/km.
8
Table 4: Indicative instrument accuracy and range
instrument accuracy range
automatic level 5 mm @ 1 km 100 m
digital level 1 mm @ 1 km 100 m
total station 15 mm @ 1 km 2500 m
The listed accuracy figures apply to good quality instruments used in double-run surveying.
The accuracy of the total station is comparable with that of single-run engineering levelling,
however, the measuring range is much higher. At short range, say less then 750 m, a single
prism suffices. Larger ranges require multiple prisms. Second order effects caused by
undulation of the geoid shape, adversely affect the accuracy of the total station over larger
distances. A precise estimate cannot be made, as no geoid shape data are available to the
Consultant yet. However, it is assumed that these effects are insignificant.
6.4 Practical aspects
The methodology and use of the automatic level is rather straightforward and well
understood. Coverage is highest in flat terrain but is adversely affected in sloping terrain.
The time to set-up and take measurement with a digital level is very short; consequently, the
daily coverage primarily depends on transport efficiency. The possibility of making a mistake
is much reduced by the electronic reading and data recording.
A major advantage of the total station is its capability to cover more than 1 km per
observation. It can also measure along slopes. Much like with conventional levelling, line-of-
sight between the station and the retro-reflector is required. In urban areas and many other
terrain types, such as woodland, and along winding roads this may limit the coverage. The
possibility of making a mistake is much reduced by the electronic reading and data recording.
While taking measurements using automatic level or digital level instruments, the surveyor
and labourers are not far apart and can easily communicate with each other. In case of the
total station, much larger distances are common practice, so for effective communication
between surveyor and labourers walkie-talkies are required. The transport should also be well
organised to benefit of the speed and efficiency of the total station. The total station delivers
accurate co-ordinates as a side product.
6.5 Staff, duration and cost
For each of the instrument types a team of 4 to 6 persons can effectively execute the
levelling. The teams may comprise a surveyor with a labourer to carry the instrument and an
umbrella, and a labourer for each staff/prism. For transport, a vehicle and a driver are
required.
Table 5 summarises the estimated levelling coverage in wells per month, per team and total
team years for the Project Area. The calculations are based on average figures, between and
within states other, more dedicated, figures may be applied. The coverage assumes a working
day of 6 hours.
9
Table 5: Estimation of remaining work for optical instruments
CGWB SGWD
15.5 km/well 6800 wells 11.5 km/well 8700 wells
instrument type coverage wells/month
per team
team years wells/month
per team
team years
automatic level 6 km/day 7.7 146.6 10.4 139.2
digital level 12
km/day
15.5 73.3 20.8 69.7
total station 24
km/day
30.9 36.6 41.6 34.8
With digital levels, the daily coverage can be about twice as much as with automatic levels
provided that proper transport is available. From the figures above the total throughput time
can be calculated for a given number of teams. For example, the SGWDs would have to
deploy 42 teams to finish the levelling within one year.
The daily coverage of a total station can be quite large, in particular in flat terrain. In sloping
terrain, the coverage depends on the line of sight conditions. In flat terrain, the functioning of
the total station is not hampered by the slope but the coverage largely depends on the
transport times.
Table 6: Estimation of operational and instrument cost for optical instruments
CGWB SGWD
6800 wells 8700 wells
instrument
type
investment
in Rs lakhs
operational
cost in
Rs/well
instrument
cost in Rs/well
per instrument
operation
al cost in
Rs/well
instrument
cost in Rs/well
per instrument
automatic
level
0.5 4786 7.4 3555 5.7
digital level 1.8 2393 26.5 1777 20.7
total station 6.0 1196 88.2 889 69.0
The cost components of the levelling comprise:
1. instrument investment costs
2. operational costs including:
cost of staff
cost of transport
It is assumed that the investment costs for the instruments are entirely written-off, though if
properly handled, at the end of the project the instruments may still be operational and could
be used for other work then. The operational costs are based on a monthly staff cost of Rs
37,000 per team including vehicle, driver, surveyor, labourers, daily allowance, board and
lodging. The average travel speed, which largely affects the daily coverage, is assumed to be
35 km/hour. The productivity calculations are based on 20 working days of 6 hours per
month and 6 months per year.
The operational costs depend on the cost of staff, labour, and transport. The larger the speed
of levelling, i.e. the daily coverage, the lower the cost per well. The instrument cost per well
is calculated for a single instrument only, e.g. for the 8700 wells of the combined SGWDs
10
investment cost for one instrument is shared by all wells. As can be concluded from Table 5,
it would take 147 team years to level all remaining SGWD wells with a single automatic level
or 35 years with a total station.
To speed up progress, more teams should be deployed. To calculate the instrument cost per
well, the related instrument cost figure should be multiplied by the number of instruments. If
18 total stations were deployed by the SGWDs, then the instrument cost per well would be 18
x 69.0=1242 Rs per well. In this example the combined operational and instrument cost
would amount to 2131 Rs per well.
6.6 Training
It is assumed that little or no training is required for the use of the conventional automatic
level instruments.
Although not complicated in its application, a few days of training may be required for the
introduction to digital level instruments. In particular the concept of the instrument, the use of
digital technology and data transfer to a PC should be addressed.
The same applies for the use of the total station. It is expected that the surveyors are familiar
with the methodology. The surveyors may benefit from training in the operation of the total
station and data transfer to a PC. The accuracy aspects should also be covered, in particular
the effect of meteorological conditions on level reading accuracy.
11
7 Global Positioning System based surveying techniques
The Global Positioning System (GPS), delivers x,y,z co-ordinates and time, worldwide. The
GPS comprises satellites in orbit (the space segment), a control system (the control segment)
and the user's equipment (the user segment), that is the GPS receiver. At any instant of time,
the co-ordinates and velocity of each of the satellites are accurately known relative to an earth
bound co-ordinate system. Each satellite transmits its co-ordinates, precise time and other
data to the receiver.
From the received data, the GPS receiver can calculate its distance (pseudo range) to each
satellite. Pseudo ranges to at least four satellites are required to calculate the receiver's co-
ordinates and elevation. Position data are expressed in the WGS84 system. Co-ordinates in
the WGS84 system can be accurately transferred to e.g. UTM.
The positioning accuracy is adversely affected in many ways, e.g. by the functioning of the
control system, the satellites and during radio wave propagation to the receiver. In this
context, it should be noted that the GPS system supports two accuracy classes, one for
military and another for civilian use. The civilian accuracy is purposefully degraded by
manipulation of transmitted data. The propagation speed of electromagnetic waves from the
satellites to the receivers is not constant but varies with amongst others the amount of free
electrons in the ionosphere and the content of water vapour in the troposphere/atmosphere.
For civilian use, the accuracy of a single measurement is about 100 m horizontally, and 150
to 200 m vertically.
A differential GPS technique that largely improves accuracy deploys two (or more) receivers
concurrently. One receiver, the reference or base receiver, is operated at a benchmark with
known co-ordinates. The other receiver, the mobile or roving receiver, is used to measure at
the unknown points. By combining the data obtained from both (or more) receivers, many of
the errors that are common to both receivers, e.g. fluctuations of wave propagation speed, can
be largely reduced. Further, the effects of the civilian accuracy degradation can be virtually
completely removed. Both receivers should have at least four satellites in common. This
combination of GPS receivers can be implemented in real time, e.g. in Differential GPS
(DGPS), or static. In real time mode, a data communication system is required to deliver the
data from reference receiver at the mobile receiver. In static mode, the GPS receivers are
equipped with data loggers to record the received data for later analysis. In particular in static
differential mode, very high accuracy can be achieved.
7.1 Levelling techniques
GPS can offer several accuracy grades, depending on the receiver technology. Below, three
frequently applied receiver technologies are summarised. In all three technologies, two or
more receivers are deployed in a kind of static differential mode. The reference receiver is
installed at a point with known co-ordinates and height above MSL. The mobile receiver is
deployed at the point of interest. Both receivers are operated in a data-logging mode,
concurrently receiving and recording data. For best accuracy and reliability, as many
satellites as possible have to be observed. Both receivers should have at least four satellites in
common. The receiving and data recording process may be continued for a few minutes up to
several hours, depending on the required accuracy and receiver characteristics.
12
Subsequently, the recorded data are retrieved from the receivers and processed at a
convenient time and place. The processing yields co-ordinates and heights of the measured
points and quality indicators. Applying a proper geoid model, the heights can be converted
into RL values for the observation wells.
The basic receiver technologies are summarised on the following.
1. Travel time or code phase receiver.
This type of receiver merely measures the travel time of the coded satellite data
messages, i.e. the time between transmission by the satellite and the reception by the
receiver. In differential mode (DGPS) the accuracy is about 1 m horizontally and 1.5 to 2
m vertically.
2. L1 receiver.
The L1 receiver not only measures travel time but also the phase of the L1 radio carrier
wave. This significantly enhances the accuracy both horizontally and vertically. The
height accuracy is in the order of 20 mm plus several ppm over distance, (1 ppm is equal
to 1 mm/km). As a rule of thumb, the maximum baseline length (distance between base
station and mobile station) should not be more than some 15 km. Beyond that distance
accuracy will decrease rapidly, amongst others due to unresolved phase ambiguity; at
large separations the system cannot reliably distinguish between successive L1 wave
lengths. Longer baselines could be split into practical sections and intermediate
measurements could be taken. Measurements at intermediate positions cost extra time for
set-up and receiving. Moreover, accuracy is adversely affected.
3. L1/L2 receiver.
This receiver type measures phases of the L1 and the L2 carrier waves. This combination
gives the receiver a much larger operational range without the non-resolvable phase
ambiguity restriction. At short baselines, the observation time can be a few minutes or
less. At larger baselines, beyond 15 km, observation time increases to say 15 minutes to
1 hour. Accuracy improves to sub centimetre levels plus about 1 ppm (1 mm/km) over
distance. The L1/L2 receivers are most expensive.
7.2 Reference surface
GPS height (h) is not relative to MSL but relative to an ellipsoid, the aforementioned
WGS84, and it does not reflect any gravity effect. For conversion from ellipsoid height (GPS)
to geoid height (MSL) the local separation (N) between the geoid and the ellipsoid is to be
known. Commonly, the following equation is used to convert from ellipsoid height to geoid
height:
H = h N.
h = ellipsoid height
H = geoid height
N = separation
The value of N varies with the location on earth. Presently, major efforts are being made,
world wide, to model the geoid as accurately as possible as a function of place. Advanced
models yield a relative accuracy in the order of 1 to 4 mm/km. In absolute terms, very good
models have estimated errors of 0.3 m. Both error components, absolute and relative, are
being further improved by better modelling, better data, etc. Such models e.g. those of USA,
Europe and Australia are based on millions of point gravity measurements.
13
A worldwide geoid model relative to WGS84 (EGM96) is available from NIMA, USA. The
model grid has a spacing of 0.25 degree (N and E). Its accuracy is insufficient for levelling
purposes, however, the EGM96 model could be used to assess the separation between geoid
and ellipsoid (WGS84).
It appears that for peninsular India no accurate and comprehensive models are available, yet.
However, SoI maintains an extensive network of primary and secondary GTS (Great
Triangular Survey) geodetic points which could be used as reference points for GPS assisted
levelling, see Chapter 5.
7.3 Overall accuracy
The accuracy requirements of RL values, which depend upon the application of the data,
were explained in Chapter 4. Depending upon the implemented technology, GPS survey can
yield level accuracy better than 10 mm/km. High accuracy receivers (GPS L1/L2) and precise
methodologies can deliver an accuracy of 10 mm plus 1 mm/km (1 ppm). Moderate accuracy
receivers (GPS L1) may have an accuracy of 20 to 50 mm plus 2 to 5 mm/km (2 to 5 ppm). In
the following example, the relative accuracy for the 50 mm GPS L1 receiver is calculated.
Example: if the reference receiver and the mobile receiver are 10 km apart, then the accuracy
would be 50 mm + 10 x 5 mm = 100 mm, i.e. 10 mm/km. Most GPS L1 receiver types would
deliver better accuracy and the GPS L1/L2 receivers would deliver a much better accuracy.
Standard DGPS receivers may deliver an accuracy in the range of 1 m, very low cost
receivers 3 to 5 m (see Table 7). Simple hand held GPS receivers deliver, for a single
measurement and without combination with a reference receiver, an accuracy of about 100 m
horizontally and 150 m to 200 m vertically. It should be noted that the stated accuracy is
relative to the ellipsoid WGS84.
Table 7: Indicative accuracy and operational range
instrument accuracy indication
(relative to ellipsoid)
range
DGPS 1 m 1000 km
GPS L1 20 mm + 5 mm/km 15 km
GPS L1/L2 8 mm + 1 mm/km 100 km
The horizontal positioning accuracy of the GPS receivers is better than the elevation accuracy
and for use under HP, it does not need enhancement. The conversion from ellipsoid to UTM
is rather straightforward and formulae, constants and software are readily available from
many sources. It should be noted that accuracy pertains to the measurement relative to the
base station.
7.4 Practical aspects
After a geoid model has been established, levelling by GPS can be fast, but it is currently not
in vogue in the country.
For conversion of GPS heights to MSL, the separation between ellipsoid and geoid datum is
to be established by taking GPS observations at reference points. If the ellipsoid and geoid
surfaces are parallel to each other, at least within a small margin, then one GPS observation at
a precisely known GTS benchmark point would suffice to establish the height difference.
14
However, in India the surfaces are tilted, hence, the height correction has a spatial variation.
A simple local approximation of the geoid would be a (flat) plane with known elevation and
tilt (East and North).
To establish such a plane, GPS observations from three precisely known (co-ordinates and
elevation relative to MSL) reference points are needed. The reference points, e.g. GTS
benchmark points, should be chosen at the corners of a triangle of approximately equal sides.
For each of the reference points, the separation between geoid and ellipsoid is calculated.
These three separation values define a planar geoid model.
Having established such a separation/correction model, the GPS observations, collected in the
area enclosed by the GTS benchmark points, can be converted to geoid levels by linear
interpolation. It should be noted that the GPS observations have to be collected at the point of
interest, e.g. at the observation wells while simultaneously the base station is operated at a
GTS benchmark point.
In coastal areas, this methodology could be feasible for groundwater application if the local
geoid gradients along N and E directions are relatively constant over the area covered by the
GTS benchmarks. As an indication, the geoid gradient should not vary by more than 5
mm/km. If GPS data and MSL levels from more than three GTS benchmarks would be
available, then a more complex model could be developed to achieve more accurate level
conversion.
Generally, GPS elevations (h), relative to the ellipsoid, have an accuracy that is 1.5 to 2 times
worse than the horizontal accuracy (E, N). The main reason is that for elevation data, only
satellites above the observation point can be received. The other satellites are below the
horizon and consequently the radio signals are obstructed by the earth.
The satellite geometry, that is the number of visible satellites and their relative position in the
sky, must be adequate to ensure accurate results. The receivers and/or the post processing
software can detect the quality of the geometry and may neglect data of poor geometry. The
geometry can also be affected by local conditions, e.g. the receiver is surrounded by high
buildings, covered by tree canopy etc. For best results, each receiver should have an
unobstructed view to the sky. GPS measurements are hardly affected by weather conditions,
however, during thunderstorms data loss may occur.
Given the high accuracy of the GPS readings, the final accuracy of level data, relative to
MSL, largely depends on the accuracy of the model that is used to convert from ellipsoid data
into geoid data.
The accuracy of the GTS benchmark points directly affects the final results.
7.5 Staff, duration and cost
A team of about 2 persons can effectively apply the GPS equipment in the field. During the
data collection by the GPS receiver, the ToC level of the well and possibly other points/bench
marks may be connected to the GPS receiver. For that and depending on the site conditions, a
simple levelling instrument might be useful. As large distances have to be covered daily, a
vehicle and a driver are required.
The instrument costs are directly related to the accuracy of the equipment.
15
Next Table 8 summarises estimated levelling production in wells per month. The calculations
are based on average figures, between and within states other more precise figures may be
applied.
Table 8: Estimation of remaining work for GPS instruments
CGWB SGWD
15.5 km/well 6800 wells 11.5 km/well 8700 wells
Instrument type range wells/month
per team
team years wells/month
per team
team years
GPS L1 15 km 83 13.6 90 16.1
GPS L1/L2 100 km 101 11.3 111 13.0
The GPS L1 receiver has an effective range of about 15 km. To cover larger ranges an
incremental approach should be adopted, much like with levelling. The increments can be 10
to 15 km. This range is measured as a straight line from the reference receiver to the mobile
unaffected by intermediate obstructions. Obviously, the intermediate measurements take
more time.
The GPS L1/L2 receiver has a much larger operational range and hence very few
intermediate measurements are required. It is estimated that, given the prevailing terrain and
transport conditions, the daily coverage of a GPS L1/L2 receiver set is about 33% higher than
that of the GPS L1 receiver set.
Table 9: Estimation of operational and instrument cost for GPS instruments
CGWB SGWD
6800 wells 8700 wells
instrument
type
investment
in Rs lakhs
operational
cost in
Rs/well
instrument
cost in Rs/well
per instrument
operational
cost in
Rs/well
instrument
cost in Rs/well
per instrument
GPS L1 15 445 221 410 172
GPS L1/L2 24 368 353 333 276
It is assumed that the investment costs for the instruments are entirely written-off, though if
properly handled, at the end of the project the instruments may still be operational and could
be used for other work then. The operational costs are based on a monthly staff cost of Rs
37,000 per team including vehicle, driver, surveyor, labourers, daily allowance, board and
lodging. The average travel speed, which largely affects the daily coverage, is assumed to be
35 km/hour. The productivity calculations are based on 20 working days of 6 hours per
month and 6 months per year.
For the GPS L1 receiver it is assumed that the maximum time on site is 1 hour and for the
GPS L1/L2 receiver the onsite time is set at 45 minutes. The base receiver is set-up at the
beginning of the day and recovered at the end of the day. Only a guardsman should stay with
the base receiver.
16
It should be noted that the presented investment costs are at the conservative side. The
technology is rapidly being enhanced with new features, increased accuracy, etc. As a result
GPS receivers of present day state-of-the art are quickly replaced by more advanced receivers
which reduces the prices of old technology receivers.
The operational costs depend on the cost of staff, labour, and transport. The larger the speed
of levelling, i.e. the daily coverage, the lower the cost per well. The instrument cost per well
is calculated for a single instrument only, e.g. for the 8700 wells of the combined SGWDs
investment cost for one instrument is shared by all wells. As can be concluded from Table 8,
it would take 13 team years to level all remaining SGWD wells with a GPS L1/L2 receiver
system. To speed up progress, more teams should be deployed.
To calculate the instrument cost per well, the related instrument cost figure should be
multiplied by the number of instruments. If 7 GPS L1/L2 receivers were deployed by the
SGWDs, then the instrument cost per well would be 7 x 276= 1932 Rs per well. In this
example the combined operational and instrument cost would amount to 2265 Rs per well.
7.6 Training
Recent developments in the GPS industry resulted in accurate, reliable and easy to use
instruments. Taking measurements virtually has come down to setting up of the receivers and
switching them on in data logging mode. Because of this ease of use, only limited GPS
knowledge is needed for field operation. Hence, training requirements for field operation are
rather limited.
Planning, quality control and data processing require a rather detailed understanding of the
GPS system, geodesy and in particular the shift from ellipsoidal heights to geoidal height.
These activities should be executed by geodetic staff.
The geodetic staff requires in-depth training, covering of GPS principles, planning, data
processing and datum shift e.g. to UTM and geoid. Such training, covering theory and
practice, may take about 1 month.
17
8 Comparison of surveying techniques
8.1 Available options
High accuracy surveys
The requirements for the high accuracy surveys can be met by using the automatic level or
digital level equipment without special measures. Also a total station featuring a vertical
angle accuracy of 2" or better could meet the requirements if it is carefully used.
With GPS, the feasibility depends on the local spatial distribution of the separation between
the ellipsoid and the geoid. In case the separation has a constant slope, then a simple linear
interpolation (plane surface) would deliver an accurate local geoid model. Unfortunately, a
geoid model or detailed separation data are not available. Consequently, a proper error
assessment is not possible. A rough estimate is that at any point in the Project Area the
separation gradient is less than 40 mm/km.
Hence, starting form a reference point with known level, e.g. a GTS benchmark, the added
error due to the uncertainty in the separation gradient is expected to be less than 40 mm/km.
A geoid separation model could be developed by surveying a (large) number of GTS
benchmarks in the Project Area. Based on these data a model could be developed. Assuming
that such a model is available with sufficient accuracy, the GPS L1 receiver could deliver the
required data provided that the surveyed points are at least several kilometres apart and
within a distance of not more than 15 km from the reference point. In many cases,
intermediate measurements are needed because the average distance between GTS
benchmarks in the Project Area is about 21 km. In quite a few cases, the distance between
GTS benchmarks is in the range of 30 to 50 km. The GPS L1/L2 receiver could deliver the
required accuracy at short and long distance.
Moderate accuracy surveys
The accuracy specification for the moderate accuracy surveys is 50 mm/km. Technically, all
the three discussed surveying instruments (auto level, digital level and total station) can meet
the accuracy requirements. Assuming that geoid separation slope is less than 40 mm/km it
can be concluded that both geodetic GPS receiver types (L1 and L1/L2 receivers) can deliver
the required accuracy without difficulty. Still, a simple separation model would enhance the
data quality against little effort.
8.2 Comparison of techniques
Conventional surveying is a well-understood technique, which can meet the accuracy
requirements. A disadvantage is the relatively small coverage.
Application of digital levels would increase the obtained accuracy at a significantly higher
coverage. A digital level though, is more vulnerable, costlier and requires training in its use
and understanding of some automation aspects. Investment costs are higher than for the
conventional levels and staffs. Personnel requirements are similar to conventional levelling.
18
A total station offers less accuracy than properly executed conventional levelling. Daily
coverage can be much higher though. The instrument is more vulnerable, costlier and
requires training in the basic concepts, instrument use and meteorological effects on
accuracy. Further, understanding of some automation aspects has to be obtained by the
surveyor. Investment costs are considerably higher than for the conventional automatic levels
and levelling staffs. Personnel requirements are similar to the conventional automatic levels.
Levelling by GPS is a totally different technology. It does not deliver elevation relative to
MSL/geoid but height relative to the WGS84 ellipsoid instead. The ellipsoidal heights have to
be converted to geoid heights. For that, a geoid model is required. Presently there is no
national Indian geoid model available to the CGWB and SGWDs of the Hydrology Project.
Consequently, such a model should be established for each area where GPS levelling is
applied. That model can be very simple for moderate and low accuracy application.
Daily coverage can be much higher though. The receivers are rather rugged but costly.
Training is required to familiarise operators and surveyors/engineers with the basic concepts,
deployment and data processing. Investment costs are high. The engineer, who is responsible
for data processing, planning and quality assurance should have a high level of education and
training. The field teams could consist of a surveyor and an assistant. Further, a vehicle is
required.
A summary of the various instruments, accuracy and costs is presented in Table 10. The
figures are based on 6800 pending wells for CGWB and 8700 for SGWDs respectively. It
should be noted that in the table the stated GPS accuracy is instrument accuracy relative to
WGS84. RL accuracy, relative to MSL, depends on the applied geoid model, i.e. the
modelled separation between ellipsoid and geoid.
Table 10: Tabular summary of total costs
instrument accuracy units
operational
costs in
Rs lakhs
Instrument
costs in
Rs lakhs
total costs
in Rs
lakhs years
Central Groundwater Board
automatic level 5 mm @ 1 km 74 325.47 37.00 362.14 1.98
digital level 1 mm @ 1 km 37 162.74 66.60 229.34 1.98
total station 15 mm @ 1
km
19 81.37 114.00 195.27 1.93
GPS L1 20 mm +5
mm/km
9 30.27 135.00 165.27 1.51
GPS L1/L2 8 mm +1
mm/km
9 25.03 216.00 241.03 1.25
State Groundwater Departments
automatic level 5 mm @ 1 km 70 309.32 35.00 344.32 1.99
digital level 1 mm @ 1 km 35 154.66 63.00 217.66 1.99
total station 15 mm @ 1
km
18 77.33 108.00 185.33 1.94
GPS L1 20 mm +5
mm/km
7 35.67 105.00 140.67 2.30
GPS L1/L2 8 mm +1
mm/km
7 28.96 168.00 196.96 1.86
19
The displayed costs are in Rs lakhs. The number of units (instruments) is optimised for
completion of the levelling in about two years time. For the CGWB, the minimum number of
instruments was limited to 9, i.e. the number regions. For the SGWDs, a similar limit was
applied. Each state should have at least one unit of the chosen instrument. However, it is
assumed that Gujarat can finish the levelling without investment in new total station or GPS
instruments. Consequently, the total duration in some of the GPS cases fell short of two
years. As mentioned under Sub-Section 7.5, the applied GPS receiver costs are on the
conservative side.
Further refinements of the cost and time calculations, based on the number pending wells, are
summarised in Table 11 and Table 12. The number of teams/instruments is optimised for
costs and workload. The estimates are based on the data of the following Tables:
Table 1: Status of RL survey, as per MIS 30 September 1998
Table 5: Estimation of remaining work for optical instruments
Table 6: Estimation of operational and instrument cost for optical instruments
Table 8: Estimation of remaining work for GPS instruments
Table 9: Estimation of operational and instrument cost for GPS instruments
Automatic levelling instruments are not included in the tables because of the large number of
teams/instruments and the excessive costs involved.
Table 11: RL survey costs and duration for digital level and total station
digital level total station
state RL
pending
teams costs in
Rs lakhs
years teams costs in
Rs lakhs
years
Andhra Pradesh 1281 5 32.31 2.05 3 29.05 1.71
Gujarat 121 1 3.05 0.97 1 2.74 0.48
Karnataka 2010 8 50.70 2.01 4 45.58 2.01
Kerala 649 3 16.37 1.73 1 14.72 2.60
Madhya Pradesh 665 3 16.77 1.77 2 15.08 1.33
Maharashtra 2388 9 60.23 2.12 5 54.16 1.91
Orissa 853 4 21.51 1.71 2 19.35 1.71
Tamil Nadu 708 3 17.86 1.89 2 16.06 1.42
states total 8675 36 218.80 1.93 20 196.74 1.74
Table 12: RL survey costs and duration for GPS L1 and GPS L1/L2 receivers
GPS L1 GPS L1/L2
state RL
pending
teams costs in
Rs lakhs
years teams costs in
Rs lakhs
years
Andhra Pradesh 1281 1 25.13 2.37 1 36.06 1.92
Gujarat 121 0 2.37 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Karnataka 2010 2 39.43 1.86 2 56.59 1.51
Kerala 649 1 12.73 1.20 1 18.27 0.97
Madhya Pradesh 665 1 13.04 1.23 1 18.72 1.00
Maharashtra 2388 2 46.84 2.20 2 67.23 1.79
Orissa 853 1 16.73 1.57 1 24.01 1.28
Tamil Nadu 708 1 13.89 1.31 1 19.93 1.06
states total 8675 9 170.16 1.78 9 244.23 1.45
20
9 Conclusions
1. All of the assessed instruments can deliver the required accuracy, both for coastal and
upland/high relief terrain.
2. Whatever instruments are used, benchmark reference data are required. Therefore, the
agencies should have access to the benchmark co-ordinates and elevations above MSL of
the GTS benchmark points of SoI.
3. To execute the levelling work with automatic and digital levelling instruments an
excessive number of instruments and teams are required.
4. If labour, transport and investment costs are taken into account, then the GPS L1
equipment appears to be most cost and time efficient. One GPS receiver per agency,
would suffice to level the remaining wells). in the Project Area in about two years (in
November 1998 about 60% CGWB wells and 40% of SGWD wells were not yet
connected to MSL).
5. Further, use of GPS, and to a lesser extent the total station, would free several vehicles for
other work.
6. GPS delivers x,y,z, data, i.e. not only heights above a datum but also accurate co-
ordinates.
7. GPS brings a rather different way of surveying. In India, levelling by GPS is not yet
applied on a large scale. It may take some practical use to become fully familiar with the
methodology. On a worldwide scale, more and more levelling projects make use of GPS
technology. Eventually, GPS levelling will become the only methodology for engineering
levelling where accuracy demands are not extremely high.
8. A simple geoid model would be sufficient to deliver level data of sufficient accuracy for
upland and sloping areas. The geoid model could be based on the second order GTS
benchmarks.
9. For the surveyors/engineers, in particular those who are responsible for planning and GPS
data processing, considerable training is needed. Because the GPS receivers manufactured
nowadays are rather easy to use, the field teams need only limited training.
10. GPS receivers are rather costly, hence, not only the training effort is large also the
investment costs are substantial.
11. Introduction of digital levels or total stations would not require a significant adaptation of
the surveying teams and/or methodology. After a relatively short training, the surveyor
and his/her assistant would be capable to execute the levelling in an accurate and effective
way.
12. The total station also delivers co-ordinates as a side product.
21
10 Recommendations
1 Continue levelling by traditional means and first concentrate on coastal areas where
accuracy requirements are highest.
2 The number of wells to be levelled is too large to be done by conventional levelling. An
alternative method should be adopted.
3 It is recommended to introduce GPS based levelling, in particular for upland areas. One
set of GPS L1 receivers per agency/region would be sufficient to cover all the remaining
wells within two years.
A proper training of the personnel selected for handling GPS equipment is
mandatory, so that thoroughly trained procedures and methodologies can be
implemented in conducting surveys and correct data are obtained.
For conversion of GPS heights to MSL, the separation between ellipsoid to geoid
datum is to be estimated. This requires GPS observations from at least three
precisely defined (co-ordinates and elevation relative to MSL) reference points. The
three reference points should be approximately at equal distances from each other,
i.e. in a equal sided triangle. If more reference data points are available, then
modelling of these on a geoid surface would improve the conversion accuracy and
reliability. Possibly, the whole state/basin, or even the full Project Area, could be
covered in a single geoid model.
For purposes of quality control, one or more verification points, with precisely
known co-ordinates and elevation above MSL, should be included in the observation
program. Further, for GPS verification measurements could be made along at least
two levelled reference lines.
The major issue with GPS levelling is the conversion from ellipsoid heights to
MSL/geoid heights. Most likely, the applied geoid model can be considerably
improved when more geodetic data come available over the years. Then, the results
of the GPS levelling campaign could be reprocessed while using the improved geoid
model. This would result in more accurate piezometer levels. Hence, the GPS levels
will be beneficial in the future. Therefore, it is recommended to carefully archive all
GPS and other relevant data, properly described, annotated and reported.
As only one GPS receiver set per agency is recommended, a contingency plan is
required for the event that the Agency's GPS receiver set fails.
While planning the first survey, assistance may be sought from experts, e.g. the
equipment vendor, SoI, or others.
A pilot project with GPS L1/L2 receivers could be started, possibly in co-operation
with the training institute of SoI in Hyderabad.
4 As an alternative to GPS, total stations might be considered for levelling and position
fixing. The total station approach is slightly costlier than GPS L1 technology and
requires many instruments, which makes co-ordination and logistics more complicated.
To facilitate communication between the surveyor and the prism men of the total station,
walkie-talkies are needed.
5 Co-ordinate levelling activities between state and central agencies, to optimise the
levelling process.
6 In some cases, digital levels may be introduced to accelerate the levelling coverage and
to improve the accuracy and reliability of the data.
22
Manufacturers and representatives
Table 13 lists GPS equipment manufacturers, which are represented in India. This table may
not be complete. Some of the representatives also have survey equipment in their product
line, which is regarded as an asset.
Table 13: Known GPS equipment manufacturers represented in India
Manufacturer Local representation Survey
instruments
Ashtech Scientific Instrument Co. Ltd. no
Leica Elcome Technologies yes
Trimble Mekaster yes
Sokkia Toshni-Tek International yes

Reduced Level of Network Stations

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Reduced Level of Network Stations

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

REDUCED LEVELS

Você também pode gostar