2017
DOI: 10.1515/jag-2016-0017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Uncertainty assessment in geodetic network adjustment by combining GUM and Monte-Carlo-simulations

Abstract: In this article first ideas are presented to extend the classical concept of geodetic network adjustment by introducing a new method for uncertainty assessment as two-step analysis.In the first step the raw data and possible influencing factors are analyzed using uncertainty modeling according to GUM (Guidelines to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurements). This approach is well established in metrology, but rarely adapted within Geodesy.The second step consists of Monte-Carlo-Simulations (MC-simulations)… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The uncertainty results [12] of 3D points obtained by measurement with laser triangulation is linked with the uncertainty of the inputs. According to GUM (Guides to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) [13], uncertainty is determined by the non-negative parameter, which represents the dispersion of a value for a measurement and its precision parameter.…”
Section: Monte Carlo Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The uncertainty results [12] of 3D points obtained by measurement with laser triangulation is linked with the uncertainty of the inputs. According to GUM (Guides to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) [13], uncertainty is determined by the non-negative parameter, which represents the dispersion of a value for a measurement and its precision parameter.…”
Section: Monte Carlo Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bulletin of Geodetic Sciences, 24(2): 152-170, Apr-Jun, 2018 example, Ryan and Lachapelle (2001) used simulations to obtain the minimal detectable bias polygon for the case of two outliers; Lehmann and Scheffler (2011) used MCS method to solve the problem how to determine the optimal levels of Type I error probabilities for global and local tests in DS; Lehmann (2012) used MCS method to improve the critical values of the test statistics; Niemeier and Tengen (2017) extended the classical concept of geodetic network adjustment by combining the uncertainty modeling and MCS.…”
Section: Preliminary Conceptsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…MCS methods are used whenever the functional relationships are analytically not tractable, as is the case for Iterative Data Snooping procedure (Rüdiger Lehmann, 2012b). The MCS has already been applied in outlier detection (Lehmann & Scheffler, 2011;Klein et al, 2012;Klein et al, 2015;Erdogan, 2014;Niemeier & Tengen, 2017) The studies presented in this paper are a continuation of the first experiments presented by Rofatto et al (2017). However, unlike Rofatto et al, (2017), here in this paper we evaluate the proposed method in a geodetic network with uncorrelated observations and also we analyze the power of the test of Iterative Data Snooping procedure when outliers of magnitude equal to the MDB (Minimal Detectable Bias) are inserted into the geodetic network.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%