See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228819535

Understanding coordinate reference systems, datums and transformations

Article in International Journal of Geoinformatics · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

46 10,107

1 author:

Volker Janssen
NSW Department of Customer Service
122 PUBLICATIONS 836 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Humorous Science View project

GNSS & CORS Networks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Volker Janssen on 03 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Understanding Coordinate Reference Systems, Datums
and Transformations

Janssen, V., 1,2

1
Surveying and Spatial Sciences, School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania
Private Bag 76, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia
2
Survey Infrastructure and Geodesy, NSW Land and Property Management Authority, 346 Panorama
Avenue, Bathurst NSW 2795, Australia, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
Spatial professionals are required to deal with an increasingly wide range of positioning information
obtained from various sources including terrestrial surveying, Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)
observations and online GNSS processing services. These positions refer to a multitude of local, national and
global datums. A clear understanding of the different coordinate reference systems and datums in use today
and the appropriate transformations between these is therefore essential to ensure rigorous consideration of
reference frame variations in order to produce high-quality outcomes in spatial data analysis tasks. This
paper provides a compendium for spatial practitioners and Geographic Information System (GIS) users,
reviewing the concepts and definitions of coordinate reference systems and datums, and outlining the
practical procedures for coordinate transformations in relation to both horizontal and vertical datums.

1. Introduction
The increasing use of Global Navigation Satellite does not include a change of the coordinate system,
System (GNSS) technology, online GNSS e.g. a transformation of a set of coordinates given in
processing services and Geographic Information a particular coordinate system between two datums.
System (GIS) analysis tools requires spatial In practice, both often have to be used in tandem
professionals to be familiar with a wide range of since positions given in a certain coordinate system
positioning information derived from various data in Datum 1 are required to be transferred into
sources and referenced to different national and positions given in a different coordinate system in
global datums. Routinely, numerous datasets need to Datum 2.
be integrated for spatial data analysis tasks, e.g. in
order to investigate environmental change, manage 2. Shape of the Earth
national security and contribute to hazard mitigation The shape of the Earth is defined by its gravity field
and emergency management. High-quality and not its topography. The gravity field is
coordinate transformations have become essential in characterised by equipotential surfaces, i.e. surfaces
practice to ensure that dynamic datum effects of constant potential that are always perpendicular
caused by tectonic plate motion and other to the direction of gravity. The true shape of the
geophysical phenomena are considered Earth is therefore known as the geoid, defined as a
appropriately and the high precision and/or accuracy specific equipotential surface that best approximates
of the observations is not sacrificed during the mean sea level (MSL) on a global basis. It should be
transformation process. This paper reviews the noted that MSL differs from an equipotential
concepts and definitions of coordinate reference surface by up to about 2 m due to effects such as
systems and datums. It provides a compendium for atmospheric pressure, temperature, prevailing winds
spatial practitioners, identifying and detailing the and currents, and salinity variations. Since the geoid
procedures necessary to perform coordinate is computationally very complex, it is necessary to
transformations, in regards to both horizontal and approximate it by a surface that can efficiently be
vertical datums. The following distinction is made handled mathematically, i.e. an ellipsoid of
between the terms conversion and transformation. A revolution (sometimes also called spheroid). This
conversion describes a change of the coordinate ellipsoid is generated by rotating an ellipse around
system and does not include a change of the datum, its minor axis and can be defined by the lengths of
e.g. a conversion between Cartesian and curvilinear its semi-major axis (a) and its semi-minor axis (b).
coordinates relating to the same datum. A Over the years, many ellipsoids of various shapes
transformation describes a change of the datum and and sizes have been defined in order to approximate
1
the geoid, either locally or on a global basis (Figure Earth’s centre of mass (including the Earth’s oceans
1). The inverse flattening is often used in and atmosphere), called the geocentre. Prior to the
conjunction with a to define the reference ellipsoid. advent of space geodetic techniques such as GPS, it
The amount of ellipsoid flattening (f) can be had not been possible to realise geocentric
determined by: coordinate reference systems in practice.
Consequently, several ellipsoids were designed as a
f = (a − b) / a locally best fit to the geoid in a certain region, e.g.
Equation 1 the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid for North America, the
Bessel 1841 ellipsoid for Europe and the Australian
Spatial professionals often have to deal with several National Spheroid (ANS). These ellipsoids are non-
ellipsoids, e.g. when older spatial datasets are to be geocentric and generally exhibit a significant offset
combined with recent positions obtained from from the geocentre, e.g. ~200 m in the case of the
GNSS observations. The Geodetic Reference ANS. Table 1 lists the defining parameters of
System 1980 (GRS80) and the World Geodetic several ellipsoids routinely encountered today. The
System 1984 (WGS84) ellipsoids are both global GRS80 and WGS84 ellipsoids only exhibit a very
earth models. The former has been widely accepted small difference in the flattening parameter,
as international standard, while the latter is the affecting 3-dimensional coordinates at the sub-
nominal reference ellipsoid used by the Global millimetre level, and can therefore be assumed
Positioning System (GPS). These ellipsoids are identical for most practical purposes (ICSM, 2002).
geocentric, i.e. their origin coincides with the

Figure 1: Several ellipsoids approximating the geoid (adapted from Iliffe and Lott, 2008)

Table 1: Parameters of selected ellipsoids used for mapping purposes

Ellipsoid Semi-major axis a [m] Inverse flattening f -1

Airy 1830 6,377,563.396 299.3249646
ANS 6,378,160.000 298.25
Bessel 1841 6,377,397.155 299.1528128
Clarke 1866 6,378,206.400 294.9786982
Clarke 1880 6,378,249.145 293.465
GRS80 6,378,137.000 298.257222101
International 1924 6,378,388.000 297.0
WGS84 6,378,137.000 298.257223563

2
3. Coordinate Reference Systems where ν represents the radius of curvature in the
A coordinate reference system is a methodology to prime vertical:
define the location of a feature in space. On the
ellipsoid, positions are either expressed in Cartesian a
ν=
coordinates (X, Y, Z) or in curvilinear coordinates 1 − e 2 sin 2 φ
(φ, λ, h), i.e. geodetic latitude, longitude and
Equation 3
ellipsoidal height (Figure 2). In a geocentric,
rectangular Cartesian coordinate system the Z-axis
The quantities a and e2 = 2f – f 2 denote the length of
coincides with the position of the Earth’s rotation
the semi-major axis and the squared first
axis at a certain instant in time (epoch). The X-axis
eccentricity of the ellipsoid, respectively, defining
passes through the intersection of the Greenwich
the size and shape of the reference ellipsoid. The
meridian and the equator, and the Y-axis completes
inverse conversion is not as straight forward and
a right-handed coordinate system by passing
generally requires iteration (e.g. Torge, 2001):
through the intersection of the 90°E meridian and
the equator.
⎡ Z ⎛ 2⎛ ν ⎞⎞ ⎤
−1

φ = tan −1 ⎢ ⎜ 1 − e ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ X 2 + Y 2 ⎝ ⎝ ν + h ⎠ ⎠ ⎦⎥
λ = tan −1 [Y / X ]
h= X 2 + Y 2 ⋅ sec φ −ν

Equation 4

However, since ν >> h, the iteration converges

quickly. It should be noted that λ cannot be
determined for X = 0. Numerous alternative
approaches have been developed, such as the non-
iterative method by Bowring (1985) and the vector
method by Pollard (2002), but will not be discussed
here. For a comparison of various different methods
Figure 2: Ellipsoidal coordinate reference systems
and their computational efficiency the reader is
referred to, e.g., Seemkooei (2002) and Fok and Iz
In regards to curvilinear coordinates, geodetic
(2003). In addition, local (topocentric) coordinate
latitude is defined as the angle in the meridian plane
systems exist, such as the north-east-up (n, e, u)
between the equatorial plane and the ellipsoid
system routinely utilised in geodesy (e.g. Soler,
normal through a point P. Geodetic longitude is
1998 and Hofmann-Wellenhof et al., 2001), but
measured in the equatorial plane as the angle
these are generally not used by the GIS community.
between the Greenwich meridian (X-axis) and the
meridian through P, while the ellipsoidal height is
4. Coordinate Datums
measured from the ellipsoid surface along the
Since coordinate reference systems are idealised
ellipsoid normal. It is important to note that a single
abstractions, they can only be accessed through their
ground point can have different geodetic coordinates
physical materialisation (or realisation) called
depending on which ellipsoid the coordinate system
reference frames or datums. The datum effectively
refers to. Curvilinear coordinates can easily be
defines the origin and orientation of the coordinate
converted into Cartesian coordinates by (e.g.
reference system at a certain epoch, generally by
Vaniček and Krakiwsky, 1986):
adopting a set of station coordinates. Over time,
different techniques with varying levels of
⎡ X ⎤ ⎡ (ν + h) cos φ cos λ ⎤ sophistication have been used to define the shape of
⎢ Y ⎥ = ⎢ (ν + h) cos φ sin λ ⎥ the Earth’s surface, resulting in the adoption of
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ many different datums. This section briefly
⎢⎣ Z ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ (ν (1 − e 2 ) + h) sin φ ⎥⎦ describes some of the datums used by spatial
professionals today.
Equation 2

3
4.1 ITRF ephemerides in this frame, i.e. 2 January 1994. Swift
The International Terrestrial Reference Frame (1994) estimated that the refined WGS84 agreed
(ITRF) is the most precise earth-centred, earth-fixed with the ITRF92 at the 10 cm level. The second
datum currently available and was first introduced refinement, WGS84 (G873), occurred on 29
in 1988. It is maintained by the International Earth September 1996 and resulted in coincidence with
Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) and the ITRF94 at better than 10 cm (Malys et al.,
realised by an extensive global network of accurate 1997). It should be noted that the GPS Operational
coordinates and their velocities derived from Control Segment did not implement the WGS84
geodetic observations using GPS, Very Long (G730) and WGS84 (G873) coordinates until 29
Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), Satellite Laser June 1994 and 29 January 1997, respectively. The
Ranging (SLR), Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) and latest refinement, WGS84 (G1150), was introduced
Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning and implemented on 20 January 2002 based on 15
Integrated by Satellite (DORIS) (Altamimi et al., days of GPS data collected during February 2001 at
2007). These coordinates are based on the GRS80, a six U.S. Air Force monitoring stations, 11 NGA
geocentric ellipsoid designed to approximate the stations and several additional global tracking
geoid on a global scale. The ITRF is a dynamic stations. After this alignment with the ITRF2000, it
datum and changes according to temporal variations was shown that the WGS84 coincides with the ITRF
of its network coordinates and their velocities due to within a few centimetres at the global level
the effects of crustal motion, earth orientation, polar (Merrigan et al., 2002). For all mapping and
motion and other geophysical phenomena such as charting purposes, the WGS84 and the most current
earthquakes and volcanic activity (Bock, 1998). It is ITRF can therefore be assumed identical (NIMA,
updated regularly in order to account for the 2004). However, it should be noted that the level of
dynamics of the Earth and now sufficiently refined agreement worsens as the time gap between WGS84
to ensure that the change between successive ITRF (G1150) and the latest realisation of ITRF grows.
versions is in the order of 1-2 cm. So far the
following versions have been released: ITRF88, 4.3 AGD66/84 and GDA94
ITRF89, ITRF90, ITRF91, ITRF92, ITRF93, The introduction of the Australian Geodetic Datum
ITRF94, ITRF96, ITRF97, ITRF2000 and (AGD) in 1966 provided the first datum uniformly
ITRF2005. A new version, ITRF2008, is anticipated adopted in Australia. It is based on the non-
to be released in the near future. Coordinates given geocentric ANS ellipsoid, providing a best fit over
in any of the ITRF realisations are referred to a the Australian region, i.e. AGD coordinates are not
specific epoch in order to enable appropriate directly compatible with GPS-derived positions. The
consideration of the Earth’s dynamics. AGD66 was realised by fixing the coordinates of the
Johnston Geodetic Station, located in central
4.2 WGS84 Australia (Bomford, 1967). An updated realisation
The World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84) was (AGD84), based on a larger amount of data with
developed for the U.S. Defense Mapping Agency higher quality and improved adjustment techniques,
(DMA), later named NIMA (National Imagery and was not adopted by all Australian states. The
Mapping Agency) and now called NGA (National difference between AGD66 and AGD84 coordinates
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency), and is the nominal of the same point can reach several metres (ICSM,
datum used by GPS (NIMA, 2004). It is based on 2002). On 1 January 2000 the AGD was replaced by
the WGS84 ellipsoid which can generally be the Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 (GDA94), a
assumed identical to the GRS80 (see Table 1). The static datum that does not account for tectonic
WGS84 datum was introduced in 1987 based on motion. The GDA94 is based on the geocentric
Doppler observations and has since been refined GRS80 ellipsoid, thus making it compatible with
several times to be closely aligned with the ITRF in GPS. It is defined in the ITRF92 at epoch 1994.0,
order to prevent degradation of the GPS broadcast realised by the eight Australian Fiducial Network
ephemerides (i.e. orbit parameters) due to plate (AFN) sites, and has since been ‘frozen’ in a
tectonics (True, 2004). The first refinement was geodetic sense in order to avoid changing coordinate
introduced in 1994 to align the WGS84 with values. This definition is justified by the relatively
ITRF91 and included a revised set of station uniform drift of the Australian continent at ~7 cm to
coordinates for the tracking network, based entirely the north-east per year. However, tectonic plate
on GPS observations (Malys and Slater, 1994). It is motion causes the difference between absolute
known as WGS84 (G730) where G stands for ‘GPS’ ITRF/WGS84 coordinates and GDA94 coordinates
and 730 denotes the GPS week number when NGA to increase over time, amounting to about one metre
started expressing their derived GPS precise in 2009. Obviously, this is not an issue for
4
differential GPS applications within Australia, as ITRF89 at epoch 1989.0 and realised by an
both ends of a baseline move at the same rate. extensive permanent GPS station network across
Positions referred to the GDA94 appear to be about Europe (Boucher and Altamimi, 1992). The
200 m north-east of those referenced to the AGD, ETRS89 has undergone several realisations, denoted
which is mainly due to the origin shift between the European Terrestrial Reference Frames (ETRF),
respective ellipsoids (ICSM, 2002). relating it to more recent versions of the ITRF. The
latest realisation, known as ETRF2000, has been
4.4 NAD27 and NAD83 derived from the ITRF2000 through a set of known
The North American Datum 1927 (NAD27) was the transformation formulae (Altamimi and Boucher,
first continental reference datum for North America, 2002). While many European countries continue to
based on the non-geocentric Clarke 1866 ellipsoid use their individual national datums, an increasing
with an origin station at Meades Ranch in Kansas, number of these are linked to the ETRF.
close to the geographical centre of the contiguous
United States. In 1986 it was replaced by the 5. Projection Coordinates
NAD83, which is also a stationary datum but based In practice, it is often required to express positions
on the GRS80 ellipsoid and therefore compatible on a flat surface in the form of grid coordinates, i.e.
with GPS observations (Schwarz and Wade, 1990). in a 2-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system such
The original version, referred to as NAD83 (1986) as Easting and Northing. This section briefly
and based on terrestrial measurements supplemented reviews map projections and introduces the
by Doppler, VLBI and SLR observations, suffered principle of grid coordinates. A detailed treatment of
from a lack of accuracy and has since undergone this topic can be found in texts such as Snyder
several updates. From 1989, each U.S. state (1987), Maling (1993), Bugayevskiy and Snyder
established regional reference frames using GPS, (1995) and Grafarend and Krumm (2006).
known as High Accuracy Reference Networks
(HARN), which were combined in the second 5.1 Map Projections
realisation NAD83 (HARN). Starting in 1994, Map projections are used to represent a spatial 3-
further realisations were introduced based on a dimensional surface (e.g. the Earth) on a plane 2-
growing national GPS network of continuously dimensional surface (e.g. a paper map) according to
operating reference stations (CORS). These a recognised set of mathematical rules, resulting in
realisations resulted from transforming the then an ordered system of meridians (lines of constant
current ITRF coordinates of numerous CORS sites longitude) and parallels (lines of constant latitude).
to NAD83 and are referred to as NAD83 (CORS93), It is therefore necessary to project the Earth onto a
NAD83 (CORS94) and NAD83 (CORS96), the developable surface that can be cut and flattened,
respective year indicating which ITRF frame was i.e. a plane, cylinder or cone, resulting in an
used. In 2007, a nationally consistent readjustment azimuthal, cylindrical or conic projection,
of the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) respectively. This projection surface is located
using GPS data collected over 20 years was tangent or secant to the Earth and its axis is either
completed, resulting in the NAD83 (NSRS2007) coincident with the Earth’s axis (polar or normal
realisation which densifies the more rigorously aspect), at right angles to it (equatorial or transverse
defined NAD83 (CORS96) (Vorhauer, 2007). It aspect) or at an arbitrary angle (oblique aspect). The
should be noted that the evolution of NAD83 projection parameters needed to convert curvilinear
progressed differently in Canada (Craymer, 2006). coordinates to grid coordinates are derived either
geometrically or mathematically. It is impossible to
4.5 ED50 and ETRS89 convert a 3D surface into a 2D surface without
The European Datum 1950 (ED50) was developed introducing distortions. Several hundred map
after World War II and has been used for much of projections have therefore been developed in order
Western Europe. It is based on the International to satisfy certain cartographic properties, i.e. the
(Hayford) Ellipsoid 1924 with an origin station at preservation of shape locally (conformal projection),
the Helmert Tower in Potsdam, Germany (Seeger, scale (equidistant projection) or area (equal-area
1994). The datum was improved over the next four projection). Thus it is possible to eliminate certain
decades with ED79 and ED87 solutions computed distortions at the expense of others or to minimise
on the same ellipsoid (Poder and Hornik, 1989). In all types of distortions, but some distortion will
order to move to a geocentric (i.e. GPS-compatible) always remain. On a conformal map, meridians and
datum, the European Terrestrial Reference System parallels intersect at right angles, and the scale at
1989 (ETRS89) was introduced in 1989. This datum any point on the map is the same in any direction,
is based on the GRS80 ellipsoid, coincident with although it will vary from point to point. Conformal
5
maps therefore allow the analysis, control or for obvious reasons. All latitude bands are 8° wide,
recording of motion and angular relationships. Two except the most northerly (X) which is 12° wide to
well known conformal projections are the Lambert allow Greenland to be mapped in its entirety. For a
Conformal Conic and the Transverse Mercator UTM map of the world, the reader is directed to
projection, which are used extensively around the http://www.dmap.co.uk/utmworld.htm. The
world as a basis for grid coordinates and are increasing distortion in scale evident at high
therefore treated in more detail here. latitudes is caused by the north-south gridlines not
converging at the poles, i.e. the poles would be
5.2 LCC Projection projected as lines rather than points. The island of
The Lambert Conformal Conic (LCC) projection is Tasmania, e.g., is located in zone 55G. Note that
mathematically derived and employs a normal cone while the latitude extent is generally part of the
that is either tangent or secant to the Earth, i.e. coordinate display in most GNSS receivers, in a GIS
touching it along one or two standard parallels. All environment it is often replaced by N or S to
meridians are represented by straight lines that meet indicate the hemisphere when a global UTM system
at the tip of the cone outside the limits of the map is used.
projection. All parallels are sections of concentric
circles centred at the tip of the cone with their radii 5.4 Grid Coordinates
differing as a function of latitude. The scale is true In each UTM zone, the projected grid coordinates,
(i.e. unity) along the standard parallel(s) and varies i.e. Easting and Northing, are initially referenced to
from north to south but not from east to west. Hence the origin defined by the intersection of the CM and
the zone widths are only limited in the north-south the equator, resulting in negative Easting
direction. If two standard parallels are used, the coordinates west of the CM and negative Northing
scale factor is less than 1.0 between them and coordinates in the southern hemisphere. In order to
exceeds 1.0 outside the standard parallels. Since ensure positive coordinate values across the entire
area deformation between and near the standard zone, the UTM system applies false coordinates to
parallels is relatively small, the LCC projection can the origin by adding 500,000 m to the true Easting
provide exceptionally good directional and shape and, in the southern hemisphere, 10,000,000 m to
relationships within such a zone. It is ideal for the true Northing. It should be noted that variations
mapping areas of small latitudinal range that extend of this global UTM convention are used in
long distances in an east-west direction and is numerous national mapping datums, applying
therefore often applied in the United States. different zone widths, false coordinates and central
scale factors. In Australia, e.g., the global
5.3 UTM Projection convention presented above applies to both the
The Transverse Mercator projection is AGD66/84 and GDA94 datums. Grid coordinates
mathematically derived and utilises a cylinder that is derived from a UTM projection of the AGD66
tangent to a chosen meridian, called the central geodetic coordinates are known as the Australian
meridian (CM). The scale is therefore true along the Map Grid 1966 (AMG66) coordinate set. If the
central meridian but increases with increasing AGD84 is used, the resulting grid coordinates are
distance from it, thereby causing a growing denoted as AMG84. The same UTM projection
distortion in scale. The Transverse Mercator applied to geodetic GDA94 coordinates results in
projection is most appropriate for regions exhibiting the Map Grid of Australia 1994 (MGA94)
a large north-south extent but small east-west extent. coordinate set. It is important to note that while all
However, by splitting up the area to be mapped into three coordinate grids are obtained using the same
longitudinal zones of limited extent and merging the projection, the resulting grids differ significantly
resulting plane maps, the entire world can be since AGD and GDA are based on different
mapped with minimal distortion. The Universal ellipsoids. In practice, the MGA coordinates appear
Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection utilises a to be approximately 200 m north-east of the AMG
zone width of 6° and ensures that the scale is very coordinates of the same feature. The conversion
close to unity across the entire zone by defining a between curvilinear and grid coordinates is
central scale factor of 0.9996 for the CM which performed using Redfearn’s (1948) formulae and
results in a scale of 1.0010 at the zone boundary computational tools are readily available. In the
located 3° away from the CM. The UTM projection Australian context, these formulae are accurate to
divides the world into 60 zones, zone 1 having a better than 1 mm in any AMG or MGA zone and
CM at longitude 177°W, while the latitudinal extent can therefore be regarded as exact (ICSM, 2002).
of each zone is 80°S and 84°N, indicated by 20 GNSS receivers routinely allow the user to display
bands labelled C to X with the exclusion of I and O positions in a selected coordinate reference system,
6
datum and/or projection, while new datums can Generally, the transformation accuracy of the
easily be defined. AGD66/84-GDA94 grids is better than ±0.1 m,
although it decreases to ±0.5 m or more in some
6. Datum Transformations cases (Collier, 2002). National transformation grids
The coordinates of a point will differ depending on for the transformation between the two realisations
which datum these coordinates refer to. Several of the AGD and GDA94 are provided by ICSM
coordinate transformations exist and their accuracy (2002) and supersede previous state-wide grids.
depends on the method chosen as well as the These grids utilise the National Transformation
number, distribution and accuracy of the common Version 2 (NTv2) format developed by the Geodetic
points used to determine the transformation Survey Division of Geomatics Canada which is now
parameters. It is generally recommended to use the being used in many GIS software packages. The
most accurate method available, although it is NTv2 format was chosen because it enables
recognised that less accurate options may be accuracy estimates of the transformation parameters
sufficient for certain applications. to be included and allows sub-grids of different
density which is very useful when dealing with
6.1 Grid Transformation variable distortion patterns (Collier, 2002).
The most accurate method is the grid-based Australian state jurisdictions have developed readily
approach which supplies users with transformation available transformation software that utilises these
parameters and, being a particularly useful benefit grids. One of these programs, DatumTran, has been
of this technique, transformation accuracy (not to be specifically designed to transform GIS data in
confused with the accuracy of the transformed various formats (LPMA, 2008). In the United States,
coordinates) on a regularly spaced grid. The NADCON, the standard NAD27-NAD83 datum
transformation components of any point within the transformation program created by the U.S. National
grid are generally determined based on bi-linear Geodetic Survey (NGS), performs grid
interpolation using the known components of the transformations for curvilinear coordinates with an
four surrounding grid nodes. In Australia, for accuracy of about ±0.15-0.50 m (Mulcare, 2004a;
instance, a complex model is employed for the NGS, 2004a).
AGD-GDA transformation which combines a datum
shift based on a 7-parameter similarity 6.2 Similarity Transformation
transformation (see section 6.2) with the modelling A 7-parameter similarity transformation, also known
of distortions caused by the surveying techniques as Helmert transformation, accounts for the
employed in the datum realisations of the AGD. difference between two 3-dimensional datums by
This is achieved by utilising grids that have been applying three translations along the coordinate
developed using the method of least squares axes, three rotations about the axes and one scale
collocation, which allows the contribution of the factor change (e.g. Harvey, 1986):
distortion at surrounding data points to be weighted
according to their distance from the interpolation ⎡ X 2 ⎤ ⎡ ΔX ⎤ ⎡1 γ −β ⎤ ⎡ X1 ⎤
point (Collier, 2002). The advantage of these grids ⎢ Y ⎥ = ⎢ ΔY ⎥ + 1 + δ s ⎢ −γ α ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢ Y1 ⎥⎥
is that a complex transformation model with a high ⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ( )⎢ 1
accuracy can be implemented in a relatively routine ⎢⎣ Z 2 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ΔZ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ β −α 1 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ Z1 ⎥⎦
fashion. The user only has to perform a simple
interpolation to obtain coordinate shifts, followed by Equation 5
a simple addition to perform the transformation. The
user friendliness of these grids has led to their where (X1, Y1, Z1) and (X2, Y2, Z2) are the
adoption in several countries such as the U.S., coordinates of a point in Datum 1 and Datum 2
Canada and Australia. An analysis of the errors respectively, ΔX, ΔY, ΔZ are the coordinates of the
introduced by the use of such transformation grids is origin of Datum 2 in Datum 1 (i.e. origin shift), α,
provided by Nievinski and Santos (2007). In β, γ are small differential rotations around the X, Y,
Australia, it was found that distortions for the Z axes of Datum 1 respectively to establish
transformation between AGD66/84 and GDA94 parallelism with the axes of Datum 2, and δs is a
reach several metres, especially in the more remote differential scale change between the two datums. If
regions of the country (Collier, 2002). If the the rotations exceed a few seconds, the use of a
distortion pattern across an area is regular, high rigorous rotation matrix is required (cf. Hofmann-
transformation accuracy can be achieved, while an Wellenhof et al., 2001). If a transformation in the
irregular distortion pattern will cause the opposite direction is desired, the same equation can
transformation accuracy to deteriorate. be used but the signs of all parameters need to be
7
reversed. By convention, a positive rotation is an published parameters to transform from AGD to
anti-clockwise rotation when viewed along the GDA94 was presented by Kinneen and Featherstone
positive axis towards the origin. Since this (2004) and can be consulted for more details on
transformation is based on Cartesian coordinates, these methods.
geodetic coordinates first need to be converted using
equation (2). The transformed Cartesian coordinates 6.4 Transformations within the GIS Environment
can then be converted back via equation (4), These projections and transformations can generally
effectively allowing curvilinear coordinates to be be performed within the GIS environment.
transformed between two datums. The similarity However, it is important to understand the
transformation is also known as a conformal difference between GIS tools that merely define a
transformation because it maintains the shape (but projection (e.g. if a shapefile has lost its projection
not the orientation and size) of the transformed or datum information) and tools that actually
objects. If a dynamic datum is involved in the perform a projection and/or transformation and thus
transformation, e.g. between different realisations of change the dataset. In addition, on-the-fly
the ITRF or between the GDA94 and a particular projections and transformations can be used
ITRF, the velocities of the seven parameters need to efficiently to correctly display data given in
be taken into account in order to refer the different datums. However, the user needs to be
parameters to the desired epoch. This 14-parameter aware that this tool only changes the display and
similarity transformation can be performed does not alter the original dataset, hence it should
according to Dawson and Steed (2004). not be used for spatial data analysis. It should be
Alternatively, equation (5) can be used after the obvious that datum information is a crucial
parameters have been updated according to (IERS, component of the metadata attached to any spatial
2008): dataset.

P (t ) = P (t0 ) + P ⋅ (t − t0 ) 7. Vertical Datums

A vertical datum defines a reference for elevation
Equation 6 comparisons and is essential for a wide range of
spatial applications such as floodplain management,
where P(t) is the parameter at the desired epoch t waterway navigation management, roadway and
(i.e. observation epoch), P(t0) is the parameter at the drainage design, agricultural management and
epoch t0 of its initial definition, and P is the rate surveying in general. Most countries utilise an
(velocity) of this parameter. The epoch is given in approximation of the orthometric height system
decimal years. The similarity transformation can related to the geoid as reference for vertical
model the differences between various ITRF coordinates. Generally, vertical datums are based on
realisations at the cm level, provided the rates are MSL. However, MSL has been specified differently
applied to account for tectonic plate motion in different countries, resulting in a multitude of
(Dawson and Steed, 2004). The required parameters zero-levels. The history of and the various
and their rates can be obtained from the ITRF relationships between the many existing national
website (IERS, 2008). Transformation accuracies of vertical datums is a very complex topic. This section
about 1 m can be achieved for AGD66/84-GDA94 can only briefly introduce examples from Australia,
transformations, using the parameters given in North America and Europe.
ICSM (2002). The parameters for similarity
transformations between various European datums 7.1 AHD71/83
are available from CRS (2008), while those needed The Australian Height Datum (AHD) was realised
for datums used in North America can be obtained in 1971 by setting the observed MSL to zero at 30
from the extensive body of literature (e.g. Soler and tide gauges situated along the Australian coast and
Marshall, 2003; Craymer, 2006). adjusting about 195,000 km of spirit levelling across
the country (Roelse et al., 1971). However, due to
6.3 Lower Accuracy Methods dynamic ocean effects (e.g. winds, currents,
Lower accuracy methods, such as the Molodensky atmospheric pressure, temperature and salinity), tide
and abridged Molodensky formulae or a simple gauge observations only spanning a period of 2-3
block shift, provide transformation accuracies at the years and the omission of observed gravity, MSL
5-10 m level (e.g. ICSM, 2002). However, these was not coincident with the geoid at these tide
will not be discussed here since the more accurate locations. This introduced considerable distortions
methods are generally preferred in practice. An of up to ~1.5 m into the AHD, causing the AHD71
extensive evaluation of different models using to be essentially a third-order datum (Morgan,
8
1992). The Tasmanian AHD (generally referred to continue to use their individual national vertical
as AHD83) was defined separately (in 1979) by datums, attempts for unification have been made.
setting MSL observations for 1972 at the tide The European Vertical Reference System (EVRS) is
gauges in Hobart and Burnie to zero, and the a gravity-related height system currently realised by
Tasmanian levelling network was then readjusted in the European Vertical Reference Frame 2000
1983 (ICSM, 2002). GPS observations together with (EVRF2000) through a network of reference points
the AUSGeoid98 geopotential model (Featherstone in the European Vertical Reference Network
et al., 2001) have been used to establish a (EUVN) and the United European Levelling
connection of the AHD between the Australian Network (UELN95/98), related to sea level at the
mainland and Tasmania, showing differences of up Amsterdam tide gauge (Normaal Amsterdams Peil,
to 0.26 ± 0.33 m (e.g. Featherstone, 2002). For a NAP) (e.g. Ihde and Augath, 2002; EUREF, 2008).
detailed treatment of height systems and vertical
datums in the Australian context, the reader is 8. Transformation of Heights
referred to Featherstone and Kuhn (2006). Positions obtained by GPS or any other GNSS
include heights referred to a reference ellipsoid.
7.2 NGVD29 and NAVD88 These heights are purely based on the geometry of
During the 1920s, NGS established a network of 26 the ellipsoid and therefore have no physical
tide gauges in the United States and Canada. The meaning. In practice, however, heights are generally
North American Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 required that correctly reflect the flow of water, e.g.
(NGVD29) was defined based on MSL observations for drainage and pipeline design. National height
at these tide gauges and an adjustment of about datums are therefore based on orthometric heights,
105,000 km of spirit levelling (Baker, 1974). This referenced to the geoid or an approximation thereof.
datum exhibited considerable distortions caused by
constraining it to multiple tide gauges and has also 8.1 Geoid Undulation
been affected by the dynamics of the Earth’s crust in Ellipsoidal heights (h) can be converted into
certain parts of the country. In 1991, it was replaced orthometric heights (H) by applying the geoid
by the more accurate North American Vertical undulation (N), also known as geoid-ellipsoid
Datum 1988 (NAVD88), a new adjustment tied to a separation, geoid height (not to be confused with the
single tide gauge (Father Point in Rimouski, height above geoid, i.e. the orthometric height) or N
Quebec, Canada) and based on approximately value:
625,000 km of additional levelling as well as
satellite observations that account for variations of H=h–N
gravitational forces in different areas (Zilkoski et
al., 1992). Equation 7

7.3 EVRF2000 Strictly speaking, this equation is an approximation

In Europe, a multitude of vertical reference systems since h and N are measured along the ellipsoid
realised by national precise levelling networks have normal, while H is measured along the curved
been used for about 150 years, derived from MSL plumbline, i.e. the direction of the gravity vector
observations in the North Sea, Baltic Sea and the (Figure 3).
Mediterranean. While most European countries

Figure 3: Relationship between ellipsoidal height (h), orthometric height (H) and geoid undulation (N),
courtesy of M. Kuhn, Curtin University of Technology

9
The angle between the direction of the gravity - Convert the curvilinear coordinates (φ, λ, h)reg to
vector and the ellipsoid normal at a surface point is Cartesian coordinates (X, Y, Z)reg using equation
known as the deflection of the vertical. Since this (2) and the regional ellipsoid parameters.
angle only amounts to several seconds of arc, its - Perform a similarity transformation between the
effect on equation (7) can be ignored in practice regional datum (X, Y, Z)reg and the geocentric
(Featherstone, 2007). It is essential that the N value datum (X, Y, Z)geo according to equation (5).
refers to the correct reference ellipsoid. Across - Convert the Cartesian coordinates (X, Y, Z)geo in
Australia, the AUSGeoid98 (Featherstone et al., the geocentric datum to curvilinear coordinates
2001) provides a regularly spaced grid of geoid (φ, λ, h)geo, e.g. using equation (4).
undulations relative to the GRS80 ellipsoid, while a
new model is currently being generated However, we may not have access to the required
(Featherstone et al., 2007). Numerous models have geoid undulations Nreg referring to the regional
been produced to supply users with the necessary ellipsoid. Readily available geopotential models
geoid undulations in other parts of the world (e.g. generally only supply N values related to the
Featherstone and Olliver, 2001; Iliffe et al., 2003; geocentric ellipsoid (i.e. Ngeo). This problem can be
Denker et al., 2008; NGA, 2008), and overcome by making use of the fact that the
transformation software for vertical datums is difference in ellipsoidal height is equivalent to the
readily available, e.g. in Australia (GA, 2007), the change in geoid undulation between the datums
U.S. (Mulcare, 2004b; NGS, 2004b; NOAA, 2008) (ignoring rotations and scale change):
and Europe (BKG, 2006; OS, 2008). In a GIS
context, this transformation needs to be performed hreg = H + Nreg and hgeo = H + Ngeo
before the data are imported into the GIS if it is
desired to create from GPS-derived positions a Equation 8
digital elevation model (DEM) that has a physical
meaning. Therefore, in practice, geoid undulation Since H is independent of the reference ellipsoid
information plays two crucial roles (Rizos, 1997): and therefore constant, differencing yields:
On the one hand, N values are needed to convert
(non-GPS) geodetic control information (i.e. Δhgeo-reg = ΔNgeo-reg
orthometric heights) into a mathematically Equation 9
equivalent reference system to which GPS results
refer (i.e. ellipsoidal heights). On the other hand, we If, in the procedure outlined above, step 2 is skipped
require N values to obtain orthometric heights (i.e. and an initial ellipsoidal height of hreg = 0 is used in
physical meaning) from GPS-derived ellipsoidal step 3, the result after step 5 represents the
heights (i.e. geometrical meaning), which is referred difference in ellipsoidal height Δhgeo-reg between the
to as GPS levelling or GPS heighting. two ellipsoids. A geopotential model such as the
AUSGeoid98 can then be used to obtain Ngeo and
8.2 Datum Transformation using Geoid Undulations thus Nreg is determined based on equation (9). The
In many countries, spatial professionals continue to final coordinates in the geocentric datum are
face the task of transforming coordinates from an obtained by performing step 2 and repeating steps 3-
older datum in form of projected grid coordinates, 5 with the correct hreg value. It should be noted that
based on a regional (i.e. non-geocentric) ellipsoid, a more rigorous treatment of the problem is required
and gravity-related heights (e.g. E, N, H in the if rotations and scale change between the datums
AMG66/84) to curvilinear coordinates in a newer cannot be ignored, cf. Kotsakis (2008).
datum that is based on a geocentric ellipsoid (e.g. φ,
λ, h in the GDA94), e.g. in order to combine older 9 Concluding Remarks
terrestrial survey control information with recent This paper has presented the theory and the tools
GPS observations. The orthometric height H is required for spatial professionals to handle
independent of the reference ellipsoid. However, conversions and transformations between the many
this transformation requires knowledge of the coordinate reference systems and datums in use
appropriate N value referring to the regional today. The differences between Cartesian,
ellipsoid (i.e. Nreg). It can be performed as follows: curvilinear and projection coordinates referring to
different geodetic datums have been reviewed, and
- Convert (E, N)reg to (φ, λ)reg on the regional practical solutions for the required coordinate
ellipsoid using Redfearn’s (1948) formulae. conversions and transformations have been outlined.
- Convert H to hreg using equation (7) and Nreg (if The computational procedure for the transformation
known). between orthometric and ellipsoidal heights in the
10
absence of geoid undulations referenced to a http://crs.bkg.bund.de/crs-eu (accessed 9 Nov
regional ellipsoid has been presented. It is hoped 2009).
that this paper has eliminated any confusion in Dawson, J., and Steed, J., 2004, International
regards to geodetic transformations applicable to Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF) to GDA94
GIS users. In practice, most of these transformations coordinate transformations,
can be performed within the GIS environment or http://www.ga.gov.au/image_cache/GA3795.pdf
with readily available software. However, users (accessed 9 Nov 2009).
need to ensure that the correct transformation Denker, H., Barriot, J.-P., Barzaghi, R., Fairhead,
parameters are applied. D., Forsberg, R., Ihde, J., Kenyeres, A., Marti,
U., Sarrailh, M., and Tziavos, I. N., 2008, The
References Development of the European Gravimetric
Geoid Model EGG07. In Observing Our
Altamimi, Z., and Boucher, C., 2002, The ITRS and Changing Earth, IAG Symp. Vol. 133, edited by
ETRS89 Relationship: New Results from M.G. Sideris (Berlin: Springer), 177-185.
ITRF2000. In EUREF Publication No. 10, edited EUREF, 2008, Reference Frame Sub Commission
by J. Torres and H. Hornik (Frankfurt: Verlag for Europe, http://www.euref.eu/ (accessed 9
des Bundesamtes für Kartographie und Nov 2009).
Geodäsie), 49-52. Featherstone, W. E., 2002, Attempts to Unify the
Altamimi, Z., Collilieux, X., Legrand, J., Garayt, B., Australian Height Datum between the Mainland
and Boucher, C., 2007, ITRF2005: A New and Tasmania. In Vertical Reference Systems,
Release of the International Terrestrial edited by P. Drewes, A. Dodson, L. P. Fortes, L.
Reference Frame Based on Time Series of Sanchez, and P. Sandoval (Berlin: Springer),
Station Positions and Earth Orientation 328-333.
Parameters. Journal of Geophysical Research, Featherstone, W. E., 2007, Absolute and Relative
112, B09401, doi: 10.1029/2007JB004949. Testing of Gravimetric Geoid Models using
Baker, L. S., 1974, Geodetic Networks in the United Global Positioning System and Orthometric
States. Canadian Surveyor, 28, 445-451. Height Data. Computers & Geosciences, 27,
BKG, 2006, Quasigeoid of the Federal Republic of 807-814.
Germany GCG05, http://www.bkg.bund.de Featherstone, W. E., Claessens, S. J., Kuhn, M.,
(accessed 9 Nov 2009). Kirby, J. F., Sproule, D. M., Darbeheshti, N.,
Bock, Y., 1998, Reference Systems. In GPS for and Awange, J. L., 2007, Progress Towards the
Geodesy, edited by P. J. G. Teunissen and A. New Australian Geoid-Type Model as a
Kleusberg (Berlin: Springer), 1-42. Replacement for AUSGeoid98. Proceedings of
Bomford, A. G., 1967, The Geodetic Adjustment of SSC2007, Hobart, Tasmania, edited by V.
Australia 1963-1966. Survey Review, 19, 52-71. Janssen and M. Russell, 243-261.
Boucher, C., and Altamimi, Z., 1992, The EUREF Featherstone, W. E., Kirby, J. F., Kearsley, A. H.
Terrestrial Reference System and its First W., Gilliland, J. R., Johnston, G. M., Steed, J.,
Realizations. Veröffentlichungen der Forsberg, R., and Sideris, M. G., 2001, The
Bayerischen Kommission für die Internationale AUSGeoid98 Geoid Model for Australia: Data
Erdmessung, Heft 52, München, 205-213. Treatment, Computations and Comparisons with
Bowring, B. R., 1985, The Accuracy of Geodetic GPS-levelling Data. Journal of Geodesy, 75,
Latitude and Height Equations. Survey Review, 313-330.
28, 202-206. Featherstone, W. E., and Kuhn, M., 2006, Height
Bugayevskiy, L. M., and Snyder, J. P., 1995, Map Systems and Vertical Datums: A Review in the
Projections: A Reference Manual (London: Australian Context. Journal of Spatial Science,
Taylor and Francis). 51, 21-42.
Collier, P., 2002, Development of Australia’s Featherstone, W. E., and Olliver, J. G., 2001, A
National GDA94 Transformation Grids. Review of Geoid Models over the British Isles:
Consultant’s Report to the Intergovernmental Progress and Proposals. Survey Review, 36, 78-
Committee on Surveying and Mapping, 100.
University of Melbourne, Australia. Fok, H. S., and Iz, H. B., 2003, A Comparative
Craymer, M. R., 2006, The Evolution of NAD83 in Analysis of the Performance of Iterative and
Canada. Geomatica, 60, 151-164. Non-Iterative Solutions to the Cartesian to
CRS, 2008, Information and Service System for Geodetic Coordinate Transformation. Journal of
European Coordinate Reference Systems, Geospatial Engineering, 5, 61-74.

11
GA, 2007, AUSGeoid98, http://www.ga.gov.au/ World Geodetic System 1984. Proceedings of
geodesy/ausgeoid/ (accessed 9 Nov 2009). ION GPS-97, Kansas City, MO, 841-850.
Grafarend, E. W., and Krumm, F. W., 2006, Map Merrigan, M. J., Swift, E. R., Wong, R. F., and
Projections: Cartographic Information Systems Saffel, J. T., 2002, A Refinement to the World
(Berlin: Springer). Geodetic System 1984 Reference Frame.
Harvey, B. R., 1986, Transformation of 3D Co- Proceedings of ION GPS 2002, Portland, OR,
ordinates. The Australian Surveyor, 33, 105-125. 1519-1529.
Hofmann-Wellenhof, B., Lichtenegger, H., and Morgan, P. J., 1992, An Analysis of the Australian
Collins, J., 2001, GPS: Theory and Practice, 5th Height Datum: 1971. The Australian Surveyor,
edition (Wien: Springer). 37, 46-63.
ICSM, 2002, Geocentric Datum of Australia Mulcare, D. M., 2004a, NGS Toolkit, Part 8: The
Technical Manual, Version 2.2., National Geodetic Survey NADCON Tool.
http://www.icsm.gov.au/icsm/gda/gdatm/index.h Professional Surveyor, 24(2), 28-30 & 32.
tml (accessed 9 Nov 2009). Mulcare, D. M., 2004b, NGS Toolkit, Part 9: The
IERS, 2008, ITRF Transformation Parameters, National Geodetic Survey VERTCON Tool.
http://itrf.ensg.ign.fr/trans_para.php (accessed 9 Professional Surveyor, 24(3), 46&48.
Nov 2009). NGA, 2008, Earth Gravitational Model 2008
Ihde, J., and Augath, W., 2002, The European (EGM2008), http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/
Vertical Reference System (EVRS), its Relation wgs84/gravitymod/egm2008/ (accessed 9 Nov
to a World Height System and to the ITRS. In 2009).
Vistas for Geodesy in the New Millennium, IAG NGS, 2004a, NADCON: North American Datum
Symp. Vol. 125, edited by J. Adam and K.-P. Conversion Utility, http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/
Schwarz (Berlin: Springer), 78-83. PC_PROD/NADCON/ (accessed 9 Nov 2009).
Iliffe, J., and Lott, R., 2008, Datums and Map NGS, 2004b, VERTCON: North American Vertical
Projections for Remote Sensing, GIS and Datum Conversion Utility, http://www.ngs.noaa.
Surveying, 2nd edition (Dunbeath: Whittles gov/PC_PROD/VERTCON/ (accessed 9 Nov
Publishing). 2009).
Iliffe, J., Ziebart, M., Cross, P. A., Forsberg, R., Nievinski, F. G., and Santos, M. C., 2007, An
Strykowski, G., and Tscherning, C. C., 2003, Analysis of Errors Introduced by the Use of
OSGM02: A New Model for Converting GPS- Transformation Grids. In Dynamic Planet, IAG
derived Heights to Local Height Datums in Symp. Vol. 130, edited by P. Tregoning and C.
Great Britain and Ireland. Survey Review, 37, Rizos (Berlin: Springer), 677-684.
276-293. NIMA, 2004, Department of Defense World
Kinneen, R. W., and Featherstone, W. E., 2004, Geodetic System 1984: Its Definition and
Empirical Evaluation of Published Relationships with Local Geodetic Systems.
Transformation Parameters from the Australian NIMA Technical Report TR8350.2.
Geodetic Datums (AGD66 and AGD84) to the NOAA, 2008, Vertical Datum Transformation:
Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA94). Integrating America’s Elevation Data,
Journal of Spatial Science, 49, 1-31. http://vdatum.noaa.gov/ (accessed 9 Nov 2009).
Kotsakis, C., 2008, Transforming Ellipsoidal OS, 2008, Ordnance Survey Coordinate
Heights and Geoid Undulations between Transformer, http://gps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/
Different Geodetic Reference Frames. Journal of convert.asp (accessed 9 Nov 2009).
Geodesy, 82, 249-260. Poder, K., and Hornik, H., 1989, The European
LPMA, 2008, DatumTran Software, http://www. Datum 1987 (ED87). IAG RETrig Publication
lpma.nsw.gov.au/survey_maps/geodesy/gda/ No. 18 (München: International Association of
datumtran_software (accessed 9 Nov 2009). Geodesy).
Maling, D. H., 1993, Coordinate Systems and Map Pollard, J., 2002, Iterative Vector Methods for
Projections, 2nd edition (Oxford: Pergamon Computing Geodetic Latitude and Height from
Press). Rectangular Coordinates. Journal of Geodesy,
Malys, S., and Slater, J., 1994, Maintenance and 76, 36-40.
Enhancement of the World Geodetic System Redfearn, J. C. B., 1948, Transverse Mercator
1984. Proceedings of ION GPS-94, Salt Lake Formulae. Empire Survey Review, 69, 318-322.
City, UT, 17-24. Rizos, C., 1997, Principles and Practice of GPS
Malys, S., Slater, J. A., Smith, R. W., Kunz, L. E., Surveying. Monograph 17, School of Geomatic
and Kenyon, S. C., 1997, Refinements to the Engineering, The University of New South
Wales, Sydney, Australia.
12
 Roelse, A., Granger, H. W., and Graham, J. W., Soler, T., and Marshall, J., 2003, A Note on Frame
1971, The Adjustment of the Australian Transformations with Applications to Geodetic
Levelling Survey 1970-1971. Technical Report Datums. GPS Solutions, 7, 23-32.
12, Canberra, Division of National Mapping. Swift, E., 1994, Improved WGS84 Coordinates for
Schwarz, C. R., and Wade, E. B., 1990, The North the DMA and Air Force GPS Tracking Sites.
American Datum 1983: Project Methodology Proceedings of ION GPS-94, Salt Lake City,
and Execution. Bulletin Géodésique, 64, 28-62. UT, 285-292.
Seeger, H., 1994, EUREF: The New European Torge, W., 2001, Geodesy, 3rd edition (Berlin: de
Reference Datum and its Relationship to Gruyter).
WGS84. Proceedings of FIG XX Int. Congress, True, S.A., 2004, Planning the Future of the World
Melbourne, Australia, paper TS506.4. Geodetic System 1984. Proceedings of IEEE
Seemkooei, A. A., 2002, Comparison of Different PLANS 2004, Monterey, CA, 639-468.
Algorithms to Transform Geocentric to Geodetic Vaniček, P., and Krakiwsky, E. J., 1986, Geodesy:
Coordinates. Survey Review, 36, 627-633. The Concepts, 2nd edition (Amsterdam: North
Snyder, J. P., 1987, Map Projections – A Working Holland).
Manual, USGS Professional Paper 1395 Vorhauer, M. L., 2007, National Readjustment of
(Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office). 2007. The American Surveyor, 4(4), 48-52.
Soler, T., 1998, A Compendium of Transformation Zilkoski, D. B., Richards, J. H., and Young, G. M.,
Formulas useful in GPS Work. Journal of 1992, Results of the General Adjustment of the
Geodesy, 72, 482-490. North American Vertical Datum of 1988.
Surveying and Land Information Systems, 52,
133-149.

Author Posting. © Geoinformatics International, 2009.

This is the author’s version of the work. The definitive version was published in the International Journal of
Geoinformatics, Volume 5, Number 4, December 2009, pp. 41-53.

13

View publication stats