A STUDY OF SOME TRANSFORMATION PROCEDURES FOR NIGERIAN GEODETIC NETWORK

P.C. Nwilo, F.A. Fajemirokun, C.U. Ezeigbo, A. M. Oyewusi & E.G. Ayodele Department of Surveying & Geoinformatics Faculty of Engineering University of Lagos, Akoka-Lagos, Nigeria. pcnwilo@yahoo.com, proffaj@yahoo.com, chrisezeigbo@yahoo.com, fun_bim@yahoo.com & geodayo@yahoo.co.uk

ABSTRACT
The connection between global and local datums is usually established by transformation parameters. In this study, two sets of transformation parameters relating the Nigerian geodetic datum (Clarke 1880) and the global datum (WGS84) were investigated using the coordinates of fourteen common points on both datums. The first set of transformation parameters (model1) are given in terms of variation in the

coordinates (

x0 , y0 , z0 ) of the center (shift parameters) of the ellipsoid, semi-major axis ( a ) and flattening

( f)

of the ellipsoid, while the second set (model 2) are given in terms of the changes in the geodetic

curvilinear coordinates

( 0 , 0 , h0 )

of the initial point, semi-major axis

( a ) and flattening ( f ) . Each set of

transformation parameters was used to transform the coordinates referred to WGS84 ellipsoid into the coordinates referred to Clarke 1880 ellipsoid. The effects of the different configurations of the data on the estimated transformation parameters were investigated. From this study, it was found that, using model 2, configuration 5, which consists of points centrally located in the geodetic network, gave the best set of transformation parameters. The best set of transformation parameters are

0 = 1.70 0.51" ,

0 = 1.93 1.16" , h0 = 17.83 1.0m .

Keywords: Datum, transformation parameters, geodetic coordinates.

INTRODUCTION The Clarke 1880 ellipsoid was adopted as the reference ellipsoid for the Nigerian Geodetic Datum to meet the requirements for mapping and engineering projects. With the advent of the Navy Navigational Satellite System (NNSS) (Doppler), and later Global Positioning System (GPS) as tools for geodetic positioning, there is often the need to transform coordinates on the geocentric systems to coordinates on the local systems, and vice versa. 1

Efforts have been made by both Nigerian and Foreign agencies to determine transformation parameters for the Nigerian Geodetic Datum (Fubara, 1995). There are various methods by which the transformations can be executed. No conclusion has been reached as to which of them is the preferred approach and no doubt this is an area where discussions will continue for some time to come (Smith, 1997). In this paper, efforts were made to investigate two types of transformation procedures relating the Nigerian Geodetic Datum (Minna Datum) and the global datum, the World Geodetic system (WGS 84), on which the GPS is based.

1.1

BASIC CONCEPT OF GEODETIC DATUM A geodetic datum is a set of parameters that defines the size and shape of a given reference ellipsoid, as well as its position and orientation with respect to the real earth (geoid). A geodetic datum is often defined by a set of five parameters, namely (Seeber, 2003): a f Semi major axis of the reference ellipsoid Flattening of the ellipsoid and

x0 , y0 , z0 Change in the coordinates of the origin of the coordinate

system of the reference ellipsoid. A geodetic datum can also be defined in terms of a, f , 0 , 0 , h0 (Fubara, 1995): Where, a and f are as defined above are changes in the latitude and longitude of the initial point of the geodetic network

0 , 0 h0

is the change in ellipsoidal height at the initial point of the geodetic network 2

Two types of unrelated datums were in the past considered in geodesy: A horizontal Datum, which forms the basis for the computation of horizontal coordiates and a vertical datum, to which heights refer. The horizontal and vertical datums were kept strictly separate, but today, because of satellite techniques, a unified global datum is often adopted for the realization of integrated geodetic procedures. In the Nigerian geodetic network, the Clarke 1880 ellipsoid was adopted as the horizontal geodetic datum, while the Lagos datum (physical location unknown), close to the East mole, was adopted as the vertical datum. With the evolution of space technology, a geocentric datum, which is used all over the world, is also in use in Nigerian geodetic network. The connection between global and local datums is established by

transformation parameters. To determine these transformation parameters, points whose coordinates are known on both datums are chosen.

1.2

THE NIGERIAN GEODETIC DATUM Several attempts have been made to determine transformation parameters for the Nigerian Geodetic Datum, using either Doppler or WGS 84 coordinates and Clarke 1880 coordinates (Oyeneye, 1985; Fajemirokun & Orupabo, 1986; Ezeigbo, 1990a, b). Some work was done by Campagine Generalie de Geophysique (Nigeria) Limited (Fubara, 1995). The report provided coordinates of data points without relevant background information for the assessment of the data quality. The values of the datum shifts were also published without any indication on how they were derived (Fubara, 1995). Geodetic Positioning Service, in collaboration with oil producing companies in Nigeria, has also determined transformation parameters for the Nigerian National

Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) using the combination of GPS and the Transit Satellite System (Doppler) data (Fubara, 1995).

Geodetic Surveys Nigeria also determined seven transformation parameters for Shell Petroleum Development Company (SDPC), for use in the Southern Nigeria (Fubara, 1995). In most of these investigations, it was observed that the transformation parameters were determined using either Molodensky-Badekas or Bursa-Wolf Model. In this study, two transformation procedures (models) are investigated. In the first model, the set of transformation parameters are the shift in the origin of the coordinate axes ( x0 , y0 , z0 ) , changes in semi-major axis ( a ) and flattening of the ellipsoid ( f ) . In the second model, the set of transformation parameters

are the changes in geodetic coordinates

( 0 , 0 , h0 )

at the network origin,

change in semi-major axis ( a ) and flattening ( f ) . The basic transformation equations used are presented in the next section.

1.3

DATA USED FOR THE INVESTIGATIONS The data used for this investigation were obtained from the Office of the Surveyor General of the Federation (OSGOF). They consist of the geodetic (curvilinear) coordinates of sixteen coincident points on both Minna datum and WGS84. Only fourteen out of the sixteen data points were actually used for the investigation. At an average of approximately one data point per 64,000 square km, the available data are far from being adequate. The data points are equally poorly distributed over the geodetic network. Furthermore, only scanty information on the accuracy and the reliability of those data is available.

2.0

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATIONS The relevant transformation equations in terms of x0 , y0 , z0 , a, f are given by (Heiskanen & Moritz, 1967, equation (5.55)): a = sin cos x0 + sin sin y0 cos z0 + 2a sin cos f a cos = sin x0 cos y0 (2.1a) (2.1b) (2.1c)

h = cos cos x0 cos sin y0 sin z0 a + a sin 2 f

where x0 , y0 , z0 , a, f are as defined in section 1.2.

Similarly, the transformation equations in terms of variations 0 , 0 , h0 , a, f are given by (Heiskanen & Moritz, 1967, equation (5.57)):

= ( cos 0 cos + sin 0 sin cos ) 0 sin sin cos 0 0

h a + ( sin 0 cos cos 0 sin cos ) 0 + + sin 2 0 a a + 2 cos ( sin sin 0 ) f cos = sin 0 sin 0 + cos .cos 0 0 h a cos 0 sin 0 + + sin 2 0 f a a (2.2b) f (2.2a)

h = ( cos 0 sin + sin 0 cos cos ) 0 + cos sin .cos 0 0 a h a + ( sin 0 sin + cos 0 cos cos ) 0 + + sin 2 0 f a a a + ( sin 2 2sin 0 sin ) f a
where = 0

(2.2c)

0 , 0 , h0

changes in the geodetic coordinates of an initial point 5

( x0 , y0 , z0 ) parallel displacement or shift component of the origin of the

coordinate system of the reference ellipsoid

, , h a, f

changes in the geodetic coordinates at an arbitrary point changes in the parameters of the reference ellipsoid

Equations (2.2a, b & c) express the , , h at an arbitrary point in terms of

0 , 0 , h0 at the initial point of the network and a, f .

There are some similarities between equations (2.1a, b & c) and (2.2a, b & c). They are infinitesimal transformations of geodetic coordinates. However, they differ in the parameters used for the transformation (Heiskanen & Moritz, 1967).

Equations (2.2a, b & c) can also be expressed in terms of variations of deflection components o and o and of geoidal undulation N o at the initial point of the network using Vening Meinesz formulae (Heiskanen & Moritz, 1967, equation (5.58); Torge, 1980; Musa, 2003):

0 = 0 0 cos = 0 h0 = N0
Substituting equation (2.3) is into equations (2.2a, b & c), we obtain: (2.3)

= ( cos 0 cos + sin 0 sin cos ) 0 sin sin .0

N0 a ( sin 0 cos cos 0 sin cos ) + + sin 2 0 a a 2 cos ( sin sin 0 ) f f (2.4a)

= sin 0 sin 0 + cos h0

N0 a + cos 0 sin + + sin 2 0 a a f (2.4b)

N = ( cos 0 sin sin 0 cos cos ) 0 cos sin 0 a N0 a + ( sin 0 sin + cos 0 cos cos ) + + sin 2 0 f a a a + ( sin 2 2sin 0 sin ) f a 0 = 0 0' 0 = 0 0' N 0 = N 0 N0' a = a a' f = ff'
where

(2.4c)

( a ', f '; , , N )
' 0 ' 0 ' 0

refer to a local geodetic datum refer to a world geodetic datum

( a, f ;

,0 , N0 )

Equations (2.1a, b & c) (Model 1) and equation (2.2a, b & c) (Model 2) are the basic mathematical formulations used for estimating the transformation parameters in this study, since the available data for the estimation are the geodetic coordinates ( , , h ) as opposed to the geoidal undulations ( N ) and the deflection components ( , ) . 3. PARAMETER ESTIMATION The linearized models of equations (2.1a, b & c) and (2.2a, b & c) can be expressed as:
V = AX + l

(3.1)

where, X A l
V

is the vector of the correction to the transformation parameters is the design matrix is the vector of the misclosures, and is the vector of the residuals of the observations

The least squares solution of equation (3.1), which is an estimate of the parameter vector X is given by (Mikhail, et al, 1981, equation (4.38); Ezeigbo, 1990a):
1 X = ( AT PA ) AT Pl

(3.2)

The error covariance matrix, which is a measure of accuracy of the estimated vector of the parameters X , is given by (Ibid, 1990a):
2 = ( AT PA ) 0 1

where,

(3.3)

02
P 4.

is a posteriori variance of unit weight is the weight matrix of the observations

NUMERICAL INVESTIGATIONS Corrections to the approximate parameters were determined by equation (3.2). By adding them to the approximate parameters, the required parameters were obtained. The estimates derived from equation (3.2) for each set of transformation parameters were used to transform geodetic coordinates referred to WGS84 ellipsoid into geodetic coordinates referred to Clarke 1880 ellipsoid, and the results were compared with the corresponding coordinates on Minna datum.

4.1

CONFIGURATION OF STATIONS The effects of the different configurations of the common points on the estimated parameters were investigated. Five different configurations of the fourteen common points, consisting of different numbers of common points were considered (see table 4.1 and fig. 4.1). Table 4.1: Configuration of Stations
Config.
1 2 3 4 5

Distribution
All data Used North East West Central

No. of Obsn
14 11 8 6 7

Stations
A10, U81, N127, CFL56, C21, R16, CFL9, CFL62, CFM45, CFM58, CFL17, CFL20, CFL25, CFM10 N127, CFL56, R16, CFL9, CFL62, CFM45, CFM58, CFL17, CFL20, CFL25, CFM10 A10, CFL56, C21, CFL62, CFM45, CFM58, CFL25, CFM10 U81, N127, R16, CFL9, CFL17, CFL20 U81, N127, C21, CFL17, CFL20, CFL25, CFM10

Map of Nigeria Showing the Distribibution of Observation Points

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

R16
12

CFL9
$

$ CFM45

CFL17 CFL20
$$

$ CFM10

CFM58 $ CFL56
$ $
12

N127

CFL25

CFL62

10

N102
$

10

N10

A10
8 8

U81
6

C21
$

4 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
N
$

300

300

600 Kilometers Control Points

Figure 4.1: Network Configuration

4.2

CONVERGENCE OF ITERATED SOLUTIONS A number of iterative steps were taken to arrive at a particular solution. The iterated solutions investigated using either 5-parameter transformation or 3parameter transformation did not converge to specific values because of the instability of the procedure. The instability of the 3-parameter transformation is however less than that of 5-parameter transformation. Therefore, the values of the transformation parameters from the first iteration for 3-parameter transformation were adopted in this study.

4.3

ADOPTION OF THREE-PARAMETER TRANSFORMATION MODEL The estimation of five datum transformation parameters in both models were investigated but produced very unreliable results (not published in this paper). This could be due to the possible correlation between the parameters. It may also be due to the fact that the coordinate axes of Minna datum are not parallel to 10

those of WGS 84 datum. investigations in this study. 4.4 SAMPLE COMPUTATION

Therefore, because of the very high degree of

instability of 5-parameter model, 3-parameter model was adopted for further

The set of transformation parameters obtained using both models (equations (2.1) and (2.2)) were used to transform a number of WGS84 coordinates into Minna datum coordinates. The transformed coordinates were then compared with the original coordinates in Minna datum to determine which of the models gives the optimum result.
4.5 COMPUTATION OF THE DISPLACEMENTS OF THE TRANSFORMED POINTS

In order that the discrepancies between the transformed coordinates and the corresponding coordinates in Minna Datum could be plotted in a graph, the latitude and longitude components of these discrepancies were converted to displacements ( D ) . The formula used for the conversion is as given below: D=d where D
d

1 r 180 3600

(4.1)

Value in metres Value in seconds of the discrepancy in latitude or longitude Radius of the earth in metres

From the computed displacements in latitude ( D1 ) and longitude ( D2 ) and in height ( D3 ) directions, the displacement ( S ) of the transformed point is given by:

S = D12 + D22 + D32

(4.2)

By analyzing the values of S for the different transformed points, the effect of the different configurations on the transformation procedure is ascertained.

11

5 5.1

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS RESULTS The results of some of the various investigations carried out in section 4 are presented in this section. The results obtained using 5-parameter model and those from the investigations in which N10 and N102 were incorporated were not presented. This is because of the large residuals, which they produced when the parameters from them were used to transform coordinates from WGS84 to Minna datum. N102 is the origin of the Nigerian geodetic network while N10 is a point whose orthometric height is very large compared with other points. It has a height of 1396m, as against the closest height of 755m from the remaining points. Consequently, further investigations, which were based on 3-parameter model excluded these two points. In table 5.1, we present the results of the three-parameter transformation procedure, which were obtained using models 1 and 2. The three configurations A, B and C show the results using the data sets with both N10 and N102 included; only N102 included; and N10 and N102 excluded, respectively.

Table 5.1: Effect of the Inclusion of Some Points (N10 & N102)
3 TRANSFORMATION PARAMETERS
Conf. Parameters
dx0 (m) dy0 (m) dz0 (m)

Conf. A 16 obs
43.552.69 43.158.39 184.8612.53 195.16 -9.360.41 -1.240.28 23.890.64 195.16

Conf. B 15 obs
58.982.82 13.238.55 142.5512.73 184.84 -7.950.42 -0.210.28 19.230.69 184.84

Conf. C 14 obs
83.192.89 11.708.55 47.3012.98 89.39 -4.780.43 -0.070.28 11.640.71 89.39

MODELS

MODEL 1

dh

2 0

dLat (sec) dLON (sec) (m)

2 0

MODEL 2

REMARK

Inclusion of N10 & N102

Exclusion of N102

Exclusion of N10 & N102

In tables 5.2a & b, the estimated parameters and their accuracies for different configurations are presented. Only fourteen points (excluding N10 and N102) are used in the investigations. Table 5.2a presents the results for model 1, while table 5.2b presents the results for model 2. 12

Table 5.2a: Values of Estimated Parameters Using Model1

3- PARAMETER TRANSFORMATION
CONFIGURATIONS Conf.3 8 obs (East)
70.134.24 268.6217.30 -153.4118.81 33.47

Conf. Parameters
dx0 (m) dy0 (m) dz0 (m)

Conf.1 14 obs (All Data)

83.192.89 11.708.55 47.3012.98 89.39

Conf.2 11 obs (North)

52.0616.78 -13.379.19 203.3676.45 109.73

Conf.4 6 obs (West)

158.407.29 -733.8347.01 86.8219.65 73.73

Conf.5 7 obs (Central)

99.925.73 -47.6834.93 -47.6415.50 20.59

02

Table 5.2b: Values of Estimated Parameters Using Model 2

3- PARAMETER TRANSFORMATION
CONFIGURATIONS Conf.3 8 obs (East)
1.710.62 -8.490.57 29.101.54 33.47

Conf. Parameters
dLAT (sec) dLON (sec) dh (m)

Conf.1 14 obs (All Data)

-4.780.43 -0.070.28 11.640.71 89.39

Conf.2 11 obs (North)

-9.942.53 0.630.30 18.823.79 109.73

Conf.4 6 obs (West)

-6.100.65 24.511.56 15.320.94 73.73

Conf.5 7 obs (Central)

-1.700.51 1.931.16 17.831.00 20.59

02

13

Table 5.3 presents the minimum and maximum residuals (in metres) in latitude, longitude and geodetic height, for both models 1 and 2. Table 5.3: Minimum and Maximum Residuals (metre)
MODEL 1 CONF.
LAT
CONF1 CONF2 CONF3 CONF4 CONF5 70.83 229.79 -130.38 111.19 -24.62

MODEL2 MAXIMUM (metre) MINIMUM (metre)

LAT LONG GEOD. HGT
-39.98 -54.92 -51.46 -111.36 -42.07

MINIMUM (metre)
LONG
1.78 -19.90 264.32 -764.89 -60.56

MAXIMUM (metre)
LAT LONG GEOD. HGT
31.32 33.60 11.60 45.13 21.38

GEOD. HGT
-40.19 -55.28 -52.45 -111.87 -42.41

LAT

LONG GEOD. HGT

180.07 88.09 339.64 66.31 -18.12 350.72 236.43 -676.36 85.02 25.75

30.93 70.78 1.80 32.94 229.78 -19.88 10.63 -130.49 264.29 44.60 111.25 -764.97 20.75 -24.67 -60.62

180.01 88.10 339.63 66.34 -18.24 350.69 236.48 -676.45 84.98 25.70

Tables 5.4a & b show the linear displacement of each of the fourteen points used for these investigations, when the five different configurations are used. Table
5.4a shows the results for model 1, while table 5.4b shows the results for model 2. Figures 5.1a & b are the corresponding graphs for the two models.

Table 5.4a: Linear Displacements of Points after the Transformation

14

(MODEL 1) Station Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A10 U81 N127 CFL56 C21 R16 CFL9 CFL62 CFM45 CFM58 CFL17 CFL20 CFL25 CFM10 Conf.1 131.0668 112.8971 172.3023 179.3320 106.3164 177.5017 182.7361 187.1176 191.8262 181.3399 198.1843 191.1687 187.9011 194.8850 Conf.2 277.9388 243.0356 332.5734 331.4029 246.3850 337.4354 341.7684 339.1097 341.7769 332.1821 342.7576 335.8909 333.3734 342.3145 Conf.3 334.6955 364.2875 267.3068 322.4634 344.7656 271.6685 267.6353 324.2925 333.7793 327.8458 355.4482 352.7893 349.3668 344.6298 Conf.4 715.2656 686.9151 793.9575 738.1162 706.682 792.409 796.4569 738.7597 738.086 738.204 712.8594 713.1283 715.9988 724.3664 Conf.5 31.4309 51.171 99.3208 75.6037 45.8373 100.3815 105.4186 83.4569 92.4607 82.8495 92.4682 86.1813 83.7006 90.9899

Table 5.4b: Linear Displacements of Points after the Transformation

15

(MODEL 2) Station Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A10 U81 N127 CFL56 C21 R16 CFL9 CFL62 CFM45 CFM58 CFL17 CFL20 CFL25 CFM10
900

Conf.1 130.9983 112.7982 172.2424 179.2999 106.2082 177.4524 182.7509 187.0812 191.7401 181.2589 198.0942 191.0776 187.8105 194.8015

Conf.2 277.8926 242.9518 332.5556 331.4024 246.3010 337.4314 341.8219 339.1060 341.7318 332.1382 342.7044 335.8357 333.3187 342.2692

Conf.3 334.6888 364.2301 267.1865 322.4767 344.7251 271.5175 267.6068 324.306 333.6841 327.7902 355.2831 352.6377 349.2272 344.5016

Conf.4 715.307 686.9845 794.0449 738.1565 706.7378 792.5183 796.5801 738.7916 738.1081 738.2196 712.932 713.1953 716.0594 724.4199

Conf.5 31.0366 50.8972 99.2354 75.4828 45.5323 100.3259 105.5379 83.3191 92.1511 82.547 92.1728 85.8721 83.3867 90.7056

800 C o n f.4 700

600

Linear Displacement (m) (Model 1)

500

400 C o n f.2 300 C o n f.3 200 C o n f.1 100 C o n f.5 0

U81

C21

A10

N127

R16

CFL9

CFL62

CFL17

CFL20

CFM58

CFL25

CFL56

CFM10

CFM45

C o n f.1 C o n f.2 C o n f.3 C o n f.4 C o n f.5

S tatio n s

16
Figure 5.1a: Linear Displacement of the Transformed WGS84 (Model 1)

17

900

800 C o n f.4 700

600

Linear Displacement (m) (Model 2)

500

400 C o n f.2 300 C o n f.3 200 C o n f.1 100 C o n f.5 0

C21

A10

U81

N127

R16

CFL9

CFL56

CFL62

CFL20

CFM45

CFM58

CFL25

CFL17

CFM10

Conf .1 Conf .2 Conf .3 Conf .4 Conf .5

S tation s

Figure 5.1b: Linear Displacement of the Transformed WGS84 (Model 2)

In table 5.5, we present the minimum and maximum linear displacements for the five different configurations. In figure 5.2, we present the graphs of these linear displacements for the different configurations and models.

18

Table 5.5: Minimum & Maximum Linear Displacement of the Transformed Coordinates
MODEL 1 CONF. CONF1 CONF2 CONF3 CONF4 CONF5 MINIMUM (metre) 106.3164 243.0356 267.3068 686.9151 31.4309 MAXIMUM (metre) 198.1843 342.7576 364.2875 796.4569 105.4186 MINIMUM (metre) 106.2082 242.9518 267.1865 686.9845 31.0366 MODEL2 MAXIMUM (metre) 198.0942 342.7044 364.2301 796.5801 105.5379

800 700 600 Min & Max Linear Displacement (Model 1 & Model 2) 500 400 300 200 100 0 c onf.1 c onf.2 c onf.3 c onf.4 c onf.5
Min_ m o d 1 Ma x_ m od 1 Min_ m o d 2

Configurations

Ma x_ m od 2

Figure 5.2: Minimum and Maximum Linear Displacement for Models 1 & 2

5.2

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS From table 5.1, we observe that the inclusion of N102, the initial point of the geodetic network, and N10, the point with extreme height value, has significant effect on the 3-parameter transformation results. The residuals (not shown here), when the two points were included were very large. This can be easily explained for the case of N102, because of the singularity occasioned by the inclusion of N102, twice during the estimation, first for deriving the approximate parameters and second as observation point. However, the effect of N10 cannot be readily explained.

19

Similarly, the large distortion present in the 5-parameter estimation can be attributed to possible non-parallelism between the axes of the coordinate systems of WGS84 and Minna datum. Hence, as a result of the correlation between the shift and orientation parameters in such situations, large distortions are bound to occur. From tables 5.2a & b, we observe that the variations in the configurations of the data points affect the estimated parameters. We also observe that the configuration 5 (with 7 observation points), which is considered centrally located, gave the variance of unit weight, which is closest to unity in both models, as well as smallest absolute values of the components of the shift parameter. parameter estimation. The use of these values to compute the residuals in table 5.3 clearly shows that configuration 5 gave the best Since it gave better results than configuration 1 which consists of all the points, it shows that configuration more than the number of observation points determines the accuracy of a transformation procedure. In tables 5.4a & b, we see that U81 and C21 which are at the southernmost part of the Nigerian geodetic network suffered the least linear displacement for most of the configurations and models. These points are also among the points with least Figures 5.1a & b give more Orthometric and geodetic heights. This seems to confirm our earlier observation on the effect of height on the estimated parameters. the CFL-traverse. Equally significant is the large residuals associated with configuration 4 in both models 1 and 2. They are points located to the west of the geodetic network. There is no special feature of this configuration that can easily account for the large residuals. Finally, figure 5.2 summarizes the effects of the configurations on the computed residuals. We find that configuration 5 followed by configuration 1 gives the best results. Configurations 3 and 2 follow with configuration 4 giving the worst results. However, the graphs of models 1 and 2 coincide, showing that the difference between the two models is not significant. graphic picture of these results. Here, we observe a fairly uniform residuals along

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

20

6.1

CONCLUSIONS In this study, the results of our investigations based on the limited data used have shown that: a. The model (model 2) consisting of initial point of the geodetic network gave slightly better transformation procedure compared to the model (model 1) consisting of the shift in the origin of the coordinates system. b. The accuracies of the estimates of transformation parameters depend more on the configuration of the network than on the number of observation points. c. The configuration (conf. 5) which consists of the points centrally located in the network gives the best result. d. The inclusion of coordinates of initial point of the network in the estimation process distorts the results and should not be used in the derivation of the transformation parameters. e. The coordinates of points with extreme high orthometric heights or ellipsoidal heights should be avoided in deriving transformation parameters. f. The best set of transformation parameters obtained from this study are:

0 = 1.70 0.51" , 0 = 1.93 1.16" , h0 = 17.83 1.0m

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS a. There is a need for sufficient GPS observations to be carried out, at least on all the existing Minna datum control points to ensure a reasonable coverage of the geodetic network with coincident points. It is important to note that the office of the Surveyor General of the Federation (OSGOF), is currently collaborating with the Centre for Geodesy and Geodynamics (CGG), a centre under the National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA), to improve on the existing number and distribution of the required data points. b. c. Points on fairly level ground should be preferred when selecting common points. Further studies on the configurations will be needed to determine appropriate sets of parameters for various portions of the geodetic network, when sufficient data are available. Acknowledgement The data used for this study were obtained from OSGOF, Abuja. This is highly appreciated.

REFERENCE 21

[1]

Ezeigbo C.U. (1990a): A Doppler Satellite Derived Datum for Nigeria. Acta Geodaetica Geoph. Mont. Hung., Journal of Hungarian Academy of Science, Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest. Vol. 25 (3 4), pp. 399 413 (1990).

[2]

Ezeigbo C.U. (1990b): Definition of Nigerian Geodetic Datum from Recent Doppler Observations Survey Review, Vol. 30 (237), pp. 343 353 (July, 1990).

[3]

Fajemirokun, F.A. & Orupabo, S. (1986): Some Theoretical Considerations in the transformation of geodetic data from one datum to another, proceedings of 3rd ymposium on geodesy in Africa, cote dIvoure.

[4]

Fubara

D.M.J

(1995):

Improved

Determination

of

Nigerian

Geodetic

Datum

Transformation Parameters for Effective use of GPS, Quality Control Report for Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited, Port Harcourt. [5] [6] Seeber G. (2003):Satellite Geodesy Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York. Seppelin T.O. (1974):The Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1972 The Canadian Surveyors. [7] Smith J.R. (1997): Introduction to Geodesy, the History and Concepts of Modern Geodesy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [8] Torge W. (1980): Geodesy: An Introduction Translated from German by Christopher Jekel. Berlin, New York. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. Printed in Germany. [9] Mikhail, E.M. & Gracie, G. (1981): Analyses and Adjustment of Survey Measurements Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. [10] Musa A. (2003): The Role of the Geoid in Geospatial Information Systems and Navigation, with some Reference to Military Applications Department of Geography, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna. Annual Seminar Series in Military Geography. September, 2003. [11] Oyeneye, G.A. (1985): Satellite Doppler Surveying Technique: Theory, Methodology and Some Recent Advances in Nigeria Federal Surveys, Lagos

22