Skip to main content
Log in

A comparison of different solutions of the Bursa–Wolf model and of the 3D, 7-parameter datum transformation

  • Published:
Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present work deals with an important theoretical problem of geodesy: we are looking for a mathematical dependency between two spatial coordinate systems utilizing common pairs of points whose coordinates are given in both systems. In geodesy and photogrammetry the most often used procedure to move from one coordinate system to the other is the 3D, 7 parameter (Helmert) transformation. Up to recent times this task was solved either by iteration, or by applying the Bursa–Wolf model. Producers of GPS/GNSS receivers install these algorithms in their systems to achieve a quick processing of data. But nowadays algebraic methods of mathematics give closed form solutions of this problem, which require high level computer technology background. In everyday usage, the closed form solutions are much more simple and have a higher precision than earlier procedures and thus it can be predicted that these new solutions will find their place in the practice. The paper discusses various methods for calculating the scale factor and it also compares solutions based on quaternion with those that are based on rotation matrix making use of skew-symmetric matrix.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albertz J, Kreiling W (1975) Photogrammetric guide. Herbert Wichmann Verl, Karlsruhe, pp 58–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Awange JL (2002) Gröbner bases, multipolynomial resultants and the Gauss-Jacobbi combinatorical algorithms-adjustment of nonlinear GPS/LPS observations. Dissertation, Geodätisches Institut der Universität Stuttgart

  • Awange JL, Grafarend EW (2002) Linearized least squares and nonlinear Gauss-Jacobbi combinatorical algorithm applied to the 7 parameter datum transformation c 7(3) problem. Zeitschrift für Vermessungswesen 127:109–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Awange JL, Grafarend EW (2003a) Closed form solution of the overdetermined nonlinear 7 parameter datum transformatiotn. Allgemeine Vermessungsnachrichten 110:130–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Awange JL, Grafarend EW (2003b) Explicit solution of the overdetermined three-dimensional resection problem. J Geod 76:605–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awange JL, Grafarend EW (2003c) Polinomial Optimization of the 7-parameter datum transformation problem when only three stations in both system are given. Zeitschrift für Vermessungswesen 128:266–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Awange JL, Grafarend EW, Fukuda Y (2004) Exact solution of the nonlinear 7-parameter datum trsformaton by Groebner basis. Bul. di Geodesia e Scienze Affini 63:117–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Battha L, Závoti J (2009a) Solution of the intersection problem by the Sylvester-resultant and a comparison of two solutions of the 2D similarity transformation. Acta Geod Geoph Hung 44(4):429–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battha L, Závoti J (2009b) The intersection problem and the 2D similarity transformation. Publ Geomat 12:19–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafarend EW, Kampmann G (1996) C10(3): the ten parameter conformal group as a datum transformation in threedimensional Euclidean space. Zeitschrift für Vermessungswesen 121:68–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafarend EW, Krumm F (1995) Curvilinear geodetic datum transformations. Zeitschrift für Vermessungswesen 120:334–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafarend EW, Shan J (1997) Estimable quantities in projective networks. Zeitschrift für Vermessungswesen 122:323–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn BKP (1987) Closed form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions. J Optical Soc Am 4:629–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papp E (2013) Geodetic datum transformation by quaternion. Publ Geomat 16:17–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen YZ, Chen Y, Zheng DH (2006) A quaternion-based geodetic datum transformation algorithm. J Geod 80:233–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Závoti J (1999) Up to date mathematical methods in geodesy. Publ Geomat 2:149

    Google Scholar 

  • Závoti J (2005) The closed form soltion of 7 parameter 3D transformation. Publ Geomat 8:53–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Závoti J (2012) A simple proof of the solutions of the Helmert- and the overdetermined nonlinear 7-parameter datum transformation. Acta Geod Geoph Hung 47(4):453–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Závoti J (2013) New treatment of the solution of 2D and 3D non-linear similarity (Helmert) transformations. Publ Geomat 16:7–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Závoti J, Fritsch D (2011) A first attempt at a new algebraic solution of the exterior orientation of photogrammetry. Acta Geod Geoph Hung 46:317–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Závoti J, Jancsó T (2006) The solution of the 7-parameter datum transformation problem with-and without the Gröbner basis. Acta Geod Geoph Hung 41(1):87–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Závoti J, Kalmár J (2014) Several alternative possibilities for the solution of 3D non-linear similarity datum transformation compared to the Bursa–Wolf model. Publ Geomat 17:7–18

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to József Závoti.

Appendix: A numerical example for different solutions of the 3D, 7-parameter transformation

Appendix: A numerical example for different solutions of the 3D, 7-parameter transformation

We are considering the example in Awange and Grafarend (2002), which was also used in Závoti (2013) (Table 2). The origins of the two coordinate systems are given in VGS84 and in a local system. To verify the numerical computations, we have written a MATLAB program, which allows a choice between solutions I, II, and III (see chapter 3, formula (10), (12), (13)) for the scale-factor. Following the determination of the scale-factor, our procedure uses in all three cases our linear model. Thus the rotation and shift parameters of the Bursa–Wolf model are also determined from the linear model. The equivalence of the two solutions II and III has already been proved in Papp (2013) and Závoti (2013).

Table 2 Coordinates for local system and WGS-84 system

The rotation angles α, β and γ can be obtained from the R rotation matrix (40) using Eq. (3). It can be seen that there is no need to give a starting value, the equations have not to be expanded, there is no need for iteration, and the procedure can be used for arbitrary rotation angles. The results for the solution of the nonlinear problem using the algorithms of the present work are given in Table 3.

Table 3 Numerical results

Both methods yield, within computational precision, the following identical values for the Cardan-angles:

α = −0.9984976709[''] β = −0.8936957645[''] γ = 0.9930877298['']

Because solutions II and III yield the same numerical values, these common values are only listed once in the header of Table 3 under the entry Bursa–Wolf.

We note that the quaternions q 1, q 2 and q 3, and the parameters a, b, and c of the skew-symmetric matrix \( {\varvec{C}}^{{\mathbf{'}}} \) are equal only within computational precision. Differences in subsequent digits follow from Eq. (42). Greater differences exist between the scale-factors λ and the shift parameters of the two methods. The differences in the scale-factors are a consequence of the differences between Eqs. (10) and (12), and this may result in the relative differences in the shift parameters. The Bursa–Wolf model makes the measurement errors minimal by an exclusive use of least squares methods, while our model can also be applied not only in least squares cases.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Závoti, J., Kalmár, J. A comparison of different solutions of the Bursa–Wolf model and of the 3D, 7-parameter datum transformation. Acta Geod Geophys 51, 245–256 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40328-015-0124-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40328-015-0124-6

Keywords

Navigation