Size, weight and power designed for smaller unmanned platforms
MB-Two module by Trimble.
The MB-Two GNSS module delivers highly accurate GNSS-based heading plus pitch or roll in an advanced industry standard form-factor for system integrators. The module’s embedded Z-Blade GNSS technology uses all available dual-frequency GNSS signals equally, without any constellation preference, to deliver fast and stable centimeter-accurate position and heading information. The MB-Two is designed for a wide variety of applications such as unmanned, agriculture, automotive, marine and military systems. The MB-Two features an enhanced dual-core GNSS engine with 240 channels capable of tracking L1/L2 frequencies from the GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou constellations. The GNSS engine supports Trimble RTX correction services, including CenterPoint RTX and RangePoint RTX, delivered worldwide via L-Band satellite. The MB-Two combined with CenterPoint RTX delivers centimeter-level positioning without requiring a local base station or VRS network.
High performance, uninterrupted positioning for vehicle applications
The S1722DR8 GNSS dead-reckoning receiver, compared to a U.S. penny.
The S1722DR8 GNSS dead-reckoning receiver integrates a three-axis gyroscope/accelerometer and barometric pressure sensor with a GNSS receiver. Using wheel speed data from a vehicle, the S1722DR8 achieves 100-percent coverage. It can be flexibly mounted in any orientation, and does not have to be placed horizontally as do conventional dead-reckoning solutions that use a single-axis gyroscope. Its auto-calibration feature simplifies installation, while the short calibration time upon first use improves the user experience. The barometric pressure sensor provides highly accurate altitude information, which is useful for differentiating floor levels of multi-story parking garages or stacked highways.The S1722DR8 measures 17 x 22 millimeters. It offers continuous navigation even in GPS-signal-denied environments such as tunnels or underground parking lots.
The HX-DU1603D rover radio is an advanced, high-speed, Bluetooth-enabled wireless data link designed for GNSS/RTK (real-time kinematic) surveying and precise positioning. It is a lightweight, ruggedized UHF receiver for digital radio communications between 410 and 470 MHz in either 12.5- kHz or 25-kHz channels, which can be widely used in GNSS/RTK surveying and GNSS precise positioning systems. The HX-DU1603D is equipped with a Bluetooth transceiver for cable-free communications with external devices. It features an internal, rechargeable battery for ease of use and portability that allows long operational hours. Its display screen and buttons can be used to configuration parameters such as frequency, protocols, power display, serial port baud rate and air baud rate. By deploying the technology, users can instantly communicate with GNSS precise positioning receivers that share the same protocols throughout the world. The rover radio HX-DU1603D joins the line of Harxon products that include 25W base radio HX-DU8602T with simplex and 35W base radio HX-DU8608D with Duplex.
EyesMap3D generates accurate 3D models and point clouds, measured directly from images. It allows users to create high-density points clouds with textures achieving a realistic 3D model appearance. It is able to measure accurately on the images to generate true orthophotos, and geo-reference and scale the results. eyesMap3D users can use their cameras, mobile phone or camera drone to capture images. The program is compatible with most popular software packages on the market. The goal of maker eCapture is to allow the user to easily generate and work with 3D models and photogrammetric tools, while maintaining data quality.
The fire swept through Fort McMurray, destroying more than 1,600 homes and buildings and forcing the largest wildfire evacuation in Alberta’s history.
People described it as hell on Earth, comparing the disaster to movies, war, and the apocalypse. By the end of the week, the fire had grown to more than 101,000 hectares, significantly larger than the city of Calgary.
BURN SCAR: On May 4, the Landsat 7 satellite’s Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus acquired this false-color image combining shortwave infrared, near infrared and green light (bands 5-4-2). Near- and short-wave infrared help penetrate clouds and smoke to reveal hot spots of fire (red), smoke (white) and burned areas (brown).
The entire city population of 88,000 evacuated in a rush, many through falling embers from wildfires beside roadways.
On May 5, DigitalGlobe’s WorldView-3 satellite (WV-3) peered through smoke using shortwave infrared to take the image on the left. GIS analysts can also measure the intensity of the fire using the image.
As of press time, the fires continue to spread across northeast Alberta, impacting Canada’s oil sand operations, and into the neighboring province of Saskatchewan.
The wildfire may become the most costly disaster in Canadian history.
The fire swept through Fort McMurray, destroying more than 1,600 homes and buildings and forcing the largest wildfire evacuation in Alberta’s history.
People described it as hell on Earth, comparing the disaster to movies, war, and the apocalypse. By the end of the week, the fire had grown to more than 101,000 hectares, significantly larger than the city of Calgary.
BURN SCAR: On May 4, the Landsat 7 satellite’s Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus acquired this false-color image combining shortwave infrared, near infrared and green light (bands 5-4-2). Near- and short-wave infrared help penetrate clouds and smoke to reveal hot spots of fire (red), smoke (white) and burned areas (brown).
The entire city population of 88,000 evacuated in a rush, many through falling embers from wildfires beside roadways.
On May 5, DigitalGlobe’s WorldView-3 satellite (WV-3) peered through smoke using shortwave infrared to take the image on the left. GIS analysts can also measure the intensity of the fire using the image.
As of press time, the fires continue to spread across northeast Alberta, impacting Canada’s oil sand operations, and into the neighboring province of Saskatchewan.
The wildfire may become the most costly disaster in Canadian history.
Spectracom’s VelaSync time server and grandmaster clock.
Spectracom’s VelaSync high-speed time server offers high-performance synchronization for time-sensitive networks. It is designed for high frequency trading and other low-latency network applications.
Matching network speeds between timing and data on a single low-latency high-throughput network enhances synchronization accuracy and eliminates queuing delays and hidden time errors caused by slower connections. The availability of a network timing appliance with 40 GbE interfaces benefits deployment of critical network infrastructure at high-speed data rates.
When the VelaSync time server platform was introduced in 2014, it met the needs of financial trading networks’ move to 10 gigabit-per-second networking. Spectracom’s precision GPS timing technology, software from its partner FSMLabs and modular server hardware enable it to meet the needs of high-frequency trading and other low-latency network applications.
VelaSync Features
PTP + NTP on all ports
Low hundreds of nanoseconds accuracy
1G/10G/25G/40G Ethernet solves network queueing problems (silent time errors)
High-quality GPS-disciplined clock source
Rubidium atomic clock option
Single-pane-of-glass enterprise sync management
Time Intelligence Platform gathers statistics from clients, detects problems
Basic procedures and tools for determining valid NAVD 88 heights for constraints
To date, the six parts of “Establishing Orthometric Heights Using GNSS” have provided the reader with basic concepts, routines and procedures for understanding, analyzing, evaluating and estimating GNSS-derived ellipsoid and orthometric heights.
In Part 5 of this series, we discussed National Geodetic Survey’s NGS 59 guidelines and methods for evaluating the results of the GNSS-derived orthometric height project. It provided methods for evaluating the results of the project and identifying stations with valid North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) published heights.
In Part 6, we continued to analyze the changes in adjusted heights due to different NAVD 88 height constraints and compared the results to the published NAVD 88 orthometric heights. We demonstrated that every constraint has an influence on the final set of adjusted heights so determining valid published NAVD 88 heights is important. With that, when incorporating new geodetic data into the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS), it is important to maintain consistency between neighboring stations. If the station has moved since the last time its height was established, then not constraining the published value and superseding the height is the appropriate action to take. As it was mentioned and emphasized in Part 6, if the difference is not due to movement and is due to some other reason such as the results of a previous adjustment distribution correction then superseding the height may not be the appropriate action to take.
In this part of the series, we will look at the network design of the NAVD 88 project and estimate the potential NAVD 88 distribution correction between two benchmarks involved with the original NAVD 88 adjustment.
First, we need to address the network design in the area that was used in the General Adjustment of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). The NAVD 88 was a major leveling network adjustment project performed by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) that was started in the early 1970s and completed in the early 1990s. NGS provides a summary of vertical datums. The excerpt (below) from the website describes the major attributes of the NAVD 88.
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) consists of a leveling network on the North American Continent, ranging from Alaska, through Canada, across the United States, affixed to a single origin point on the continent:
Tide Station & Location = Pointe-au-Pere,Rimouski, Quebec, Canada
PID = TY5255
GSD* Designation = 54L071
Bench Mark = 1250 G
Ht above LMSL(Meters) = 6.271
* Geodetic Survey of Canada = GSD
In 1993, NAVD 88 was affirmed as the official vertical datum in the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) for the Conterminous United States and Alaska. Although many papers on NAVD 88 exist, no single document serves as the official defining document for that datum.
Abstract from the NAVD 88 Special Report Special Report Results of the General Adjustment of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 David B. Zilkoski, John H. Richards, and Gary M. Young
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping Surveying and Land Information Systems, Vol. 52, No. 3, 1992, pp.133-149
ABSTRACT. For the new general adjustment of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), a minimum-constraint adjustment of Canadian-Mexican-U.S. leveling observations was performed holding fixed the height of the primary tidal benchmark, referenced to the new International Great Lakes Datum of 1985 (IGLD 85) local mean sea level height value, at Father Point/Rimouski, Quebec, Canada. IGLD 85 and NAVD 88 are now one and the same. Father Point/Rimouski is an IGLD water-level station located at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River, and is the reference station used for IGLD 85. This constraint satisfies the requirements of shifting the datum vertically to minimize the impact of NAVD 88 on U.S. Geological Survey mapping products, and provides the datum point desired by the IGLD Coordinating Committee for IGLD 85. The only difference between IGLD 85 and NAVD 88 is that IGLD 85 benchmark values are given in dynamic height units, and NAVD 88 values are given in Helmert orthometric height units. The geopotential numbers of benchmarks are the same in both systems. Preliminary analyses indicate differences for the conterminous United States between orthometric heights referred to NAVD 88 and to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) range from -40 cm to +150 cm. In Alaska, the differences range from +94 cm to +240 cm. However, in most “stable” areas, relative height changes between adjacent benchmarks appear to be less than 1 cm. In many areas, a single bias factor, describing the difference between NGVD 29 and NAVD 88, can be estimated and used for most mapping applications. The overall differences between dynamic heights referred to IGLD 85 and to International Great Lakes Datum of 1955 will range from 1 cm to 40 cm. The use of Global Positioning System (GPS) data and a high-resolution geoid model to estimate accurate GPS-derived orthometric heights will be directly associated with the implementation of NAVD 88 and IGLD 85. It is important that users initiate a project to convert their products to NAVD 88 and IGLD 85. The conversion process is not a difficult task, but will require time and resources.
More than one million kilometers of leveling data were analyzed during the NAVD 88 project. The design of the leveling network involved in the NAVD 88 project is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Leveling Network Design Used in the General Adjustment of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (Figure 3 from the NAVD88 report).
Not all of the leveling data depicted in Figure 1 were used in the general adjustment. Some of the older leveling data were not consistent with the newer data so these older data were not included in the adjustment. When proper procedures are followed, leveling data is very precise and accurate over short distances but the leveling network design usually does not provide a lot of redundancy. That’s why it is important to design a leveling network with many connecting loops. The loops provide the redundancy required to ensure that the leveling data does not contain any remaining significant systematic errors and/or blunders. At a minimum, the connected loops help to control and/or localize the remaining errors. Some of the older leveling data that were not included in the general adjustment were incorporated into the NAVD 88 after the general adjustment and were loaded into the NGS database. These stations are denoted as POSTed monuments on the NGS datasheet, shown in the highlighted section below in the excerpt labeled “NAVD 88 General Adjustment: What Does This Really Mean?”
NAVD 88 General Adjustment: What Does This Really Mean?
The general adjustment of NAVD 88 was completed in June 1991. All heights from the general adjustment were loaded into the NGS geodetic database in September 1991. This means that benchmarks included in the NAVD 88 Helmert blocking phase (approximately 80% of the total) have final NAVD 88 heights available for distribution to the public.
The remaining 20% of the benchmarks in “stable” areas were removed from the adjustment (denoted as “POSTed” benchmarks), because older data were inconsistent with newer data. NAVD 88 heights for these posted benchmarks will be determined from these older data during 1992-93. This task involves analyzing the data associated with the posted benchmarks to determine the best estimate of their NAVD 88 heights.
“POSTed” benchmarks in large crustal movement areas (e.g., southern Alaska, southern California, Phoenix, Houston, and southern Louisiana) will be published as special reports. This is a long-term task that started in January. It is important to note that some benchmarks in crustal-movement areas (i.e., benchmarks that were included in the NAVD 88 Helmert blocking phase) are available now. The heights of these benchmarks were usually based on the latest available data, but still may be influenced by crustal movement effects. In some areas, these benchmarks were not based on the latest available data, because this would have forced large distribution corrections into good, but older, adjacent leveling data.
In addition, there are approximately 500,000 USGS third-order benchmarks for which NGS does not yet have any data.
The NGS datasheet provides the date the station’s NAVD 88 orthometric height was adjusted so a user can determine if the station was part of the general adjustment of NAVD 88 or if the station was readjusted or incorporated in the NAVD 88 after the general adjustment. Station V 49 (PID = FA0151) is an example of a station that was involved in the general adjustment and published in 1991. The highlighted statement “The orthometric height was determined by differential leveling and adjusted by the NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY in June 1991” in the text portion of the datasheet indicates that this station’s adjusted height was established in the general adjustment of NAVD 88, as shown in the highlighted section in excerpt from “NGS datasheet for station V 49″ below.
Station Phaniel is an example of a station that was incorporated into NAVD 88 after the general adjustment. Phaniel’s datasheet has the following statement, highlighted below: “The orthometric height was determined by differential leveling and adjusted by the NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY in January 2005.”
So why is this important?
It is important to realize that just because the leveling data is newer than the rest of the leveling network around it, it doesn’t necessarily mean its absolute height value is more accurate or more reliable than the stations it was established from. The newer leveling data most likely is associated with an older leveling survey used in the general adjustment of NAVD 88. This older leveling data may have been affected by crustal movement and could be inconsistent with its neighbors 5-15 kilometers away. If proper procedures were adhered to, such as the FGCS geodetic leveling procedures, then the new leveling should have been connected to the NAVD 88 through a two- or three-mark leveling validation check leveling procedure, shown in the excerpt from “FGCS Specifications and Procedures to Incorporate Electronic Digital/Bar-Code Leveling Systems” below.
FGCS Specifications and Procedures to Incorporate Electronic Digital/Bar-Code Leveling Systems*
3.5 Geodetic Leveling
Geodetic leveling is a measurement system comprised of elevation differences observed between nearby rods. Geodetic leveling is used to extend vertical control.
Network Geometry
Order Class
First I
First II
Second I
Second II
Third
Bench mark spacing not more than (km)
3
3
3
3
3
Average bench mark spacing not more than (km)
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.0
3.0
Line length between networkcontrol points not more than (km)
300a
100a
50a
50a
25b
Minimum bench mark ties
6
6
4
4
4
aElectronic Digital/Bar-Code Leveling Systems, 25 km bElectronic Digital/Bar-Code Leveling Systems, 10 km
As specified in above table, new surveys are required to tie to existing network bench marks at the beginning and end of the leveling line. These network bench marks must have an order (and class) equivalent to or better than the intended order (and class) of the new survey.
First-order surveys are required to perform valid check connections to a minimum of six bench marks, three at each end. All other surveys require a minimum of four valid check connections, two at each end.
A valid “check connection” means that the observed elevation difference agrees with the published adjusted elevation difference within the tolerance limit of the new survey. Checking the elevation difference between two bench marks located on the same structure, or so close together that both may have been affected by the same localized disturbance, is not considered a proper check.
In addition, the survey is required to connect to any network control points within 3 km of its path. However, if the survey is run parallel to existing control, then the following table specifies the maximum spacing of extra connections between the survey and the existing control.
When using Electronic Digital/Bar-Code Leveling Systems for area projects, there must be at least 4 contiguous loops and the loop size must not exceed 25 km. (Note: This specification may be amended at a future date after sufficient data have been evaluated and it is proven that there are no significant uncorrected systematic errors remaining in Electronic Digital/Bar-Code Leveling Systems.)
* NGS’ analyses of the data will be the final determination if the data meet the desired FGCS order and class standards.
The validation check leveling procedure ensures that the new leveling is consistent with the local stations it’s connected to. However, if the local area around these monuments all moved together than the validation check leveling procedure may meet the allowable tolerances but the new heights could still be inconsistent with neighbors 5 to 15 kilometers away. Similarly, if the validation check leveling stations were involved in a large distribution correction in the NAVD 88, than, once again, the validation check leveling may meet the allowable tolerances but the new heights could still be inconsistent with neighbors 5-15 kilometers away. This is not to say that the older leveling or published heights of the stations are bad or incorrect; all it is ensuring is that the new leveling is consistent with the adjusted heights in the local area surrounding the new leveling project.
Another statement on the NGS datasheet that should be explained is “No vertical observational check was made to this station,” shown in the highlighted statement from the excerpt of Phaniel’s datasheet, below. This means that the station was determined on a leveling line that is known as a spur level line. This means that the leveling data were not involved in a loop. This is important because the lack of redundancy means that there is no check on the adjusted heights of these stations other than the checks performed during the double running procedure. The double-running procedure is very important but the procedure may not detect, reduce, and/or eliminate all systematic errors and/or blunders. The GNSS-derived values may be the first check on the published height of these stations. When performing GNSS-derived orthometric height adjustments the users should investigate all stations that seem to be inconsistent with its neighboring stations especially stations that their published datasheet contains the statement “No vertical observational check was made to this station” such as station Phaniel.
When analyzing GNSS projects, it is helpful to understand how the NAVD 88 height of the station was established and what year it was leveled. Figures 2 and 3 depict the original leveling network design used in the general adjustment of the NAVD 88 in the Rowan County, North Carolina, project area, and Figures 4 and 5 depict the current NAVD 88 leveling network design. Looking at Figures 2 and 3, it appears that the leveling network used in the general adjustment of NAVD 88 in Rowan County was fairly sparse and mostly consisted of leveling data observed in the 1930s and 1960s.
Figures 4 and 5 show the amount of leveling data incorporated into the NAVD 88 after the general adjustment. The red stars on Figure 4 are the stations that have been incorporated into the NAVD 88 since the general adjustment. Figure 5 depicts the dates of the leveling lines that were used to establish the new NAVD 88 heights. All of these new stations will have adjustment dates after June 1991. Having a different adjustment date than the general adjustment date of 1991 is not an issue, it’s just a way of informing the user that the station was incorporated into NAVD 88 and constrained to previously published NAVD 88 heights. The user should know the adjustment date of the control they are using in their GNSS project because the accumulated NAVD 88 distribution correction could be large especially between stations with different adjustment dates in areas with old leveling data and large loops.
Figure 2. Leveling Network Design Used in the General Adjustment of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (Green stations are stations established in the NAVD 88 and published in June 1991).Figure 3. Dates of the Original Leveling Network Design in the Vinicity of the Rowan County, North Carolina, Height Modernization Project.Figure 4. Leveling Network Design Incorporated into the General Adjustment of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (Red stars are stations that were incorporated in NAVD 88 after June 1991).Figure 5. Dates of the Current Leveling Network Design in the Vinicity of the Rowan County, North Carolina, Height Modernization Project.
As depicted in Figure 3, the original leveling data used in NAVD 88 in southern Rowan County, NC, was an east-west leveling line performed in 1935. It was connected at both ends of the line to leveling data performed in the 1970s. The validation check leveling procedure was performed and met the required tolerances. The loops that the 1935 leveling line was involved in are fairly large, around 175 kilometers. The leveling data involved in the loops consists of first- and second-order data. The allowable loop closure would have been based on the amount of leveling of each order and class involved in the loop. The allowable loop closure for the older second-order, class 0 leveling line would have been based on 8.4 mm times the square root of the length of loop in kilometers. In this case, a loop 175 kilometers would have an allowable closure of 111 mm. The allowable loop closure for first-order, class 2 leveling is 4 mm times the square root of the length of loop in kilometers. In this case, a loop 175 kilometers would have an allowable closure of 53 mm. Since this is based on a mixture of order and classes of leveling data, the allowable loop closure would have been somewhere in between.
For this column, I decided to estimate the NAVD 88 distribution correction between two benchmarks involved with the older leveling lines in southern Rowan County. The observed Helmert orthometric height difference between station V 49 and T 78 is -6.850 meters, and the Published NAVD 88 Helmert orthometric height difference from the NAVD 88 general adjustment is -6.891 meters. This means that the distribution correction between stations V 49 (FA0151) and T 78 (FA0295) is 0.041 meters (4.1 cm).
Figure 6 depicts the location of the stations and the leveling route used to estimate the NAVD 88 distribution correction. Since the leveling distance between these two stations is approximately 60 kilometers, the distribution correction is less than 1 mm per kilometer (0.7 mm/km). This is a very reasonable distribution correction because it only modifies each leveling section observation by about 1 mm per kilometer allowing users to check their local leveling projects. This, however, may be an issue with some GNSS surveys that extend over a large area were the leveling network consists of old leveling data with large loops. The GNSS-derived orthometric heights may be more accurate than the leveling-derived orthometric heights. As shown in Figure 6, stations V 49 and T 78 are involved in large loops and were established using older leveling data in the original NAVD 88 resulting in a distribution correction of 4.1 cm.
Figure 6. Example of an estimate of the NAVD 88 distribution correction between two stations established with old leveling data and large loops.
Station V 49 was used in this analysis because the station was occupied during the Rowan County GNSS project. The shortest leveling distance between station V 49 and T 78 was used to estimate the NAVD 88 distribution correction. Station T 78 was selected because it is the junction station for the leveling line that was used to incorporate station Buffalo 2 into the NAVD 88 in January 2005. Since T 78 was the junction station and its height changed 4.1 cm, 4.1 cm was applied to station Buffalo 2’s height to obtain its modified height. This is not the most rigorous way to estimate the effects of the distribution correction but it provides a quick method to determine an estimate of the NAVD 88 distribution correction between two stations.
Figure 7 is a plot that depicts the differences at station Buffalo 2 using the modified NAVD 88 height. The difference between the GNSS-derived orthometric adjusted height and the new NAVD 88 height decreased from 3.5 cm to -0.6 cm. This difference agrees to within 1 cm with the results of station V 49 (see Figure 7). It should be noted that one of the recommendations in the National Geodetic Survey’s NGS 59 document is to occupy valid NAVD 88 stations every 20 km. Following this procedure can help reduce the number of stations that need to be investigated due to NAVD 88 distribution corrections from the general adjustment.
Figure 7. Example of the possible effect of the NAVD 88 distribution correction on an adjusted GNSS-derived orthometric height.
Three stations were identified as potential outliers in Part 6 — Phaniel, Plaza, and Row 3. As mentioned in Part 5 (February 2016), station Phaniel has a large difference between the adjusted GNSS-derived orthometric height and the published NAVD 88 orthometric height value (-4.2 cm); indicating an issue with the ellipsoid height and/or orthometric height (see Figure 8). However, Phaniel’s published NAD 83 (2011) ellipsoid height and the Rowan County minimum-constraint adjusted height of Phaniel only differed by 0.8 cm. The comparison of adjusted ellipsoid heights and published ellipsoid heights for the Rowan County GNSS project were provided in Part 4 (December 2015). This is an indication that the GNSS-derived ellipsoid height of station Phaniel is not an issue and that the station hasn’t moved since the original GNSS survey and the 2015 Rowan County GNSS survey. It should be noted that the leveling project used to incorporate station Phaniel into NAVD 88 was performed in 2001 which was in between the two GNSS surveys.
Two other stations (Row 17 and Row 16) were leveled on the same leveling line as Phaniel and their adjusted GNSS-derived orthometric height and the published NAVD 88 orthometric height values agree to 1.6 cm and 1.7 cm respectively; this is an indication that the leveling data and GNSS data are consistent from the main level line to these two stations. Phaniel’s datasheet has the statement “No vertical observational check was made to this station,” indicating the station’s height was established on a spur leveling line and therefore has a lack of redundancy and reliability. Based on the information up to now, I would not recommend constraining station Phaniel in the final adjustment. Saying that, before it is superseded by the GNSS project, the benchmarks between Phaniel and Row 17 should be re-leveled to determine if a leveling error was made between these stations in 2001.
Figure 8. NAVD 88 leveling network design involving station Phaniel.
The geodetic data and information for station Plaza is listed below:
As described in Part 6 (April 2016), station Plaza and station Fifth have a large relative difference between the adjusted GNSS-derived orthometric height and the published NAVD 88 orthometric height value (-3.2 cm); (See Figure 9.);
Four other stations in the vicinity have small relative differences between the adjusted GNSS-derived orthometric heights and the published NAVD 88 orthometric heights values, 37 DRD (0.6 cm), Midtown (-0.1 cm), Midway (1.0 cm), and J 181 (1.1 cm) – indicating a problem with station Plaza;
Station Fifth and Plaza are only 400 meters apart, and their adjusted heights were established in two different adjustments: station Fifth was leveled in 2013 (adjustment date of March 2015) and station Plaza was leveled to in 1989 (adjustment date of September 1997) – indicating a potential inconsistency between adjustments;
Plaza’s datasheet states that “the station was recovered as described in 2012 except the area between the curb and sidewalk has been filled with concrete. Mark is now part of the sidewalk but does not appear to have been disturbed.”
Based on the available information to date, I would not recommend constraining the published height of station Plaza in the final adjustment. Once again, this station’s published height should not be superseded by the GNSS project until new leveling has been performed between station Fifth and Plaza.
Figure 9. NAVD 88 leveling network design involving station Plaza.
Figure 10 depicts the leveling network involving station Row 3. As described in Part 6 (April 2016), station Row 3 has a large difference between the adjusted GNSS-derived orthometric height and the published NAVD 88 orthometric height value, -3.8 cm (see Figure 10.). Except for station AE4540 (382 JAS), all of the differences between the adjusted GNSS-derived orthometric height and the published NAVD 88 orthometric height value at the other nearby stations are all less than 1.7 cm; as a matter of fact, most of the differences are less than +/- 0.5 cm.
I could not find any leveling data in NGS’ database involving station AE4540 (382 JAS). (See Figure 11.) As far as I could determine, this station was not leveled to by NGS and leveling data were not submitted to NGS for inclusion in the NAVD 88. You can retrieve all project identifiers for those projects with observations to or from a station using the stations’s PID. The station’s PID is provided on the NGS datasheet. The input and output for PID AE4540 is shown below. There are no identifiers listed under the sections labeled “Vert_Obs,” “Lev_Obs,” or “Level_Obs” indicating that this station does not have any leveling observations in NGS database.
Based on the available information so far, I would not recommend constraining the published heights of station Row 3 or 382 JAS (AE4540) since they will distort the adjusted heights of surrounding stations (see Part 6, Figure 10). If no supporting leveling data can be found for station 382 JAS then I would recommend superseding that station’s height with the GNSS-derived value. As for station Row 3, I wouldn’t recommend superseding the published height with the GNSS-derived height until a leveling check has been made between Row 3 (DG5673) and a nearby station such as station 384 JAS (FA0564).
I realize that by not constraining a station and not superseding the published height that an inconsistency between the leveled NAVD 88 height and the NAVD 88 GNSS-derived orthometric height may occur. This information needs to be noted in the project report with an explanation of why you made certain decisions in your final adjustment. The analysis and plots provided in these columns are the types of information that should be provided in the final report.
All of the analysis and recommendations have been based on using the latest scientific geoid model xGeoid15b. However, in practice, GNSS-derived orthometric heights are incorporated into the NAVD 88 using the latest hybrid geoid model GEOID12B. I recommend first performing the analysis using the scientific geoid model because the hybrid geoid model has been warped to be consistent with the published NAVD 88 values. This was described in detail in my Part 3 (October 2015). The analysis using the scientific geoid should be included in the report especially if the user finds significant differences between the results using the two different geoid models. Saying that, maintaining consistency between closely spaced stations is extremely important when incorporating data into an existing network. Based on the information so far and the results using GEOID12B, I would not recommend constraining the published NAVD 88 heights of stations Phaniel and Plaza in the final NAVD 88 GNSS-derived orthometric height adjustment. These two stations resulted in significant changes in relative adjusted heights when they were constrained. (See Part 6, April 2016.)
It was noted in Part 5 (February 2016) that ten of the 2015 GNSS Rowan County Height Modernization project’s stations have published NAVD 88 GNSS-derived orthometric heights. These station are important because they are on the edge of the network where there’s a void of published NAVD 88 leveling-derived orthometric heights. In the next column, we will look at these stations and the differences between their minimum-constraint least squares adjusted GNSS-derived orthometric heights and their published NAVD 88 GNSS-derived orthometric height.
These columns have provided a lot of routines and procedures for analyzing and estimating GNSS-derived orthometric heights. My intent was to provide the analyst with tools for documenting the results of the analysis and providing a basis for making recommendations associated with the GNSS project. A future column will address what information should be included in a project report.
DT Research, a designer and manufacturer of purpose-built computing solutions for vertical markets, is offering a new 2-in-1 ultra rugged tablet for its DT301 and DT311 series. The tablets are built to withstand extreme outdoor environments with customizable options built into a slim, lightweight design that is also well-suited for the office.
The new ultra-rugged tablets have water-resistant detachable keyboards, internal hot-swappable batteries, and advanced hardware-software security with two Full HD screen size options to maximize use in multiple settings.
“Mobile tablets are fast becoming the ‘go to’ computing device for the military and other field jobs,” said Daw Tsai Sc.D., president of DT Research. “But as the use of mobile tablets has risen, we saw that users need the flexibility to use tablets in a variety of settings. Our new 2-in-1 ultra-rugged tablets can dynamically adapt to indoor and outdoor use, while remaining light and durable with our signature fully-integrated design. These 2-in-1 tablets continue to demonstrate our dedication to delivering highly reliable computing solutions, which require built-in features, not attachments that can easily break, stop working, get lost or stolen.”
DT Research’s Ultra Rugged Tablets have been well-received by many organizations, including the U.S. Army Reserve, which is expanding use of the DT311H rugged tablets into other army facilities to support training missions and other logistics. This marks the second Army Reserve contract for Rugged Tablets that DT Research has been awarded this year.
The new 2-in-1 Ultra Rugged Tablets designed and manufactured by DT Research are full-featured, yet lightweight and come with Full HD anti-reflective outdoor viewable screens in two models ready for military, industrial, emergency/first-responder, fieldwork and other extreme environments.
The DT301S is a fanless tablet that weighs only 2.86 pounds with all options fully-integrated. The 10.1-inch display has 1920 x 1200 resolution and supports a capacitive touch stylus or a digital pen. Customers can choose either an Intel 6th Generation Coreä i5 or Coreä i7 CPU with 4GB or 8GB RAM running Microsoft® Windows 10 IoT Enterprise OS or Windows 7 Professional.
The DT311H tablet has a larger 11.6 inch display with 1920 x 1080 resolution, yet still lightweight at 3.6 pounds and also supports a capacitive touch stylus or digital pen. Customers have a CPU choice of Intel Coreä i5 or Coreä i7 with 8GB to 16GB RAM running Windows 10 IoT Enterprise OS or Windows 7 Professional.
DT Research’s ultra-rugged 2-in-1 tablets include both software and hardware security features. The DT301S and DT311H take full advantage of advanced Windows 10 IoT Enterprise OS security including Device Guard enterprise hardware and software security features that only allow the tablet to run trusted applications with TPM 1.2 and 2.0 support. The DT301S and DT311H include Lock Down features to protect against malicious users, which also provide a custom designed user experience and increase system reliability.
DT Research combines the Windows 10 IoT Enterprise software security with its proprietary hardware security, such as media sanitization option that supports both NSA and USA-AF/Navy/Army standards. Hardware security options also include camera privacy mode, instant blackout, as well as automatic Bluetooth, RFID and WiFi disable functions that can be pre-configured to turn off all radio capabilities under certain conditions.
Date: Thursday, June 16
Time: 10:00 a.m. Pacific / 1:00 p.m. Eastern / 7:00 p.m. Central European Time
Duration: 60 minutes
Speakers:
Chaminda Basnayake, Principal Engineer, V2X Systems
John Kenney, Director and Principal Researcher, Network Division Toyota InfoTechnology Center
Nikolaos Papadopoulos, President, u-blox America Inc.
Roger Berg, Vice President, Wireless Technologies DENSO North American Research and Development Laboratories
Summary:
Connected cars and V2X — connectivity between vehicles and infrastructure — lie around the next bend in the road. Extensive research and development have prepared these revolutionary concepts for implementation very soon. Join GPS World and our panel of expert presenters as we discuss:
Recent developments in – and the potential safety impact of – V2X technology.
The role of GNSS, and potential challenges in accuracy, reliability, jamming and spoofing.
How radar, lidar, cameras, dedicated short range communications (DSRC) and V2X will combine to create advanced Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).
Potential regulations and aftermarket devices.
Chaminda Basnayake is the technical lead for all Renesas communications enabled automotive active safety applications (V2X) in North America. Primary technical interface to customers, partners, government, research facilities and Renesas Japan. Support and develop customer solutions for production, research and applications. Responsible for developing and marketing V2X technical solutions (hardware and software) and providing customer technical training. Previously he worked for many years at GM OnStar.
John Kenney is the director of the Network Division of Toyota InfoTechnology Center USA. His division researches technologies that allow vehicles to communicate with each other and with other devices. A focus of his work is preventing accidents via always-on vehicle-to-vehicles packet communication. Toyotoa InfoTechnology research includes channel congestion control, security, quality of service (QoS), spectrum sharing, multi-channel operation, multi-path propagation and internal standards.
Nic Papadopoulos is president of u-blox America, a wholly owned subsidiary of u-blox AG, the Swiss positioning and wireless technology company. Prior to u-blox, he worked as director of sales at G&D, a large GSM SIM providers. Before that, he worked in various positions at Infineon Technologies (formerly Siemens Semiconductors). He holds an MSEE from the Technical University Munich.
Roger Berg is responsible for overseeing vehicle communication technology and DENSO’s research and development of vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2X) technology for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Connected Vehicle program. He and his team worked on V2X from the early days going back to 2003-04.
According to a new market research report published by MarketsandMarkets, the Lidar drone market was valued US$16.1 million in 2015 and is estimated to reach US$144.6 million by 2022 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 35.2% between 2016 and 2022.
The full report is titled “Lidar Drone Market by Product (Rotary Wing, and Fixed Wing), Component, Application (Corridor Mapping, Archaeology, Construction, Environment, Entertainment, and Precision Agriculture), Geography — Global Forecast to 2022,” and is available through the MarketsandMarkets website.
The 125-page report includes and 66 market data tables and 42 figures.
Factors such as technological superiority, encouragement from governments and institutes for adoption of lidar drones, and its use in emerging applications such as precision farming are the key drivers for the growth of the lidar drone market. The use of lidar drones for delivering products generates further opportunities for lidar drone manufacturers.
Rotary-wing. The rotary-wing lidar drone market is expected to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period. The ability of rotary-wing lidar drones to take off without runways and its high degree of maneuverability are the reasons for the high growth of this market.
Corridor mapping. The corridor mapping application held the largest share of the market in 2015. Highway corridors are built after proper planning and designing to ensure that they can withstand the pressure exerted by vehicles on a regular basis.
As highway projects are constructed from a long-term perspective, it is necessary to conduct a thorough feasibility study of the terrain on which the highway is to be constructed. Lidar drones provide this information by building three-dimensional (3D) elevation models of the surveyed area.
Infrastructure development is further expected to increase in coming years, which would, in turn, lead to increased usage of lidar drones for inspecting the growth of the infrastructure project. These benefits drive the market in the corridor mapping application.
North America. The North American market held the largest share of the global lidar drone market in 2015. The increasing awareness about the benefits of lidar drones such as high accuracy and low cost is one of the reasons for the large market share of the North American lidar drone market. The use of lidar drones in precision farming is driving the lidar drone market in North America.
Major players. The major players operating in this market are Velodyne Lidar (U.S.), Phoenix Aerial Systems (U.S), Riegl Laser Measurement Systems GmbH (Austria), SICK AG (Germany), and YellowScan (France), 3D Robotics, Inc. (U.S.), DJI (China), FARO Technology (U.S.), Leica Geosystems AG (Switzerland), Optech, Inc. (Canada) and Trimble Navigation Limited (U.S.).
The research report categorizes the global lidar drone market on the basis of components, products, applications and geography. It describes the drivers, restraints, opportunities and challenges in the lidar drone market. The Porter’s five forces analysis has been included in the report with a description of each of its forces and its respective impact on the market.
Related Reports
Lidar Market by Product (Aerial, Ground-based, and UAV LiDAR), Component, Application (Corridor Mapping, Engineering, Environment, ADAS, Urban Planning, Exploration, and Metrology), Services and Geography – Global Forecast to 2022
UAV Drones Market by Type (Fixed Wing, Rotary Blade, Nano, Hybrid), Application (Law Enforcement, Precision Agriculture, Media and Entertainment, Retail), & Geography (Americas, Europe, APAC, RoW) – Analysis & Forecast to 2020
NovAtel’s GAJT-AE-N anti-jamming antenna is aboard the Camcopter S-1oo UAS.
NovAtel’s compact GAJT anti-jam antenna is now on-board Schiebel’s Camcopter S-100 unmanned air system (UAS).
The Vienna-based manufacturer Schiebel is focused on the development, testing and production of the Camcopter S-100UAS, as well as innovative mine detection equipment, and is a long-time customer of NovAtel’s high-precision GNSS positioning technology.
In 2015, Schiebel was evaluating NovAtel’s GAJT antenna as an option for offering anti-jam capabilities on its Camcopter S-100 when an urgent call was received. A Schiebel customer had an immediate operations requirement to combat GPS jamming.
The commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) nature of its GAJT antenna allowed NovAtel to quickly supply Schiebel the requested anti-jam capabilities. In turn, Schiebel was able to rapidly deploy the strategically equipped Camcopter to its customer within the requested timeframe.
“It was the fast response, followed by the excellent performance of our GAJT anti-jam antenna that has led to Schiebel offering the GAJT antenna as a standard option on their Camcopter S-100,” said Peter Soar, business development manager for NovAtel’s Military and Defence group. “Every once in a while, timing is on your side. The opportunity to prove our ability to meet urgent supply requests, followed by demonstration of our antenna capabilities in real conditions, has allowed us to positively impact the success of our customer’s business.”
The Camcopter S-100 flies at Fogo Island, Canada. (Photo: Schiebel)
GAJT is a null-forming antenna system that ensures satellite signals necessary to compute position and time are always available. It is available in versions suitable for land, air, sea and fixed installations. It provides anti-jam performance comparable to much larger systems, but at a significantly lower cost. Easily integrated into new platforms, it can also be retrofitted with the existing GPS receivers and navigation systems on existing and legacy military fleets.
Schiebel’s Camcopter S-100 UAS is a proven capability for military and civilian applications. The Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) UAS needs no prepared area or supporting launch or recovery equipment. It operates during daytime and at night, under adverse weather conditions, with a beyond line-of-sight capability out to 200 km, both on land and at sea.
The S-100 navigates via preprogrammed GPS waypoints or is operated with a pilot control unit. Missions are planned and controlled via a simple point-and-click graphical user interface. High-definition payload imagery is transmitted to the control station in real time.
Using “fly-by-wire” technology controlled by a triple-redundant flight computer, the UAV can complete its mission automatically. Its carbon fiber and titanium fuselage provides capacity for a wide range of payload/endurance combinations up to a service ceiling of 18,000 feet.
Air Force Space Command began its 10th Schriever Wargame May 19 at Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, Ala.
The Schriever Wargame (SW 16), set in the year 2026, explores critical space issues and investigates the integration activities of multiple agencies associated with space systems and services.
The objectives of SW 16 center on identifying ways to increase the resilience of space that includes our intelligence community, civil, commercial and Allied partners; exploring how to provide optimized effects to the warfighter in support of coalition operations; and examining how to apply future capabilities to protect the space enterprise in a multi-domain conflict.
The Air Force announcement did not include specific mention of GPS jamming and spoofing, but these and related cyberthreats could reasonably be expected to appear in the pantheon of cyberspace competition.
The SW 16 scenario depicts a peer space and cyberspace competitor seeking to achieve strategic goals by exploiting those domains. Scenarios will focus on the European Command Area of Responsibility. They will also include a full spectrum of threats across diverse operating environments to challenge civilian and military leaders, planners and space system operators, as well as the capabilities they employ.
The Schriever Wargame team will conduct SW 16 on behalf of Air Force Space Command, headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Approximately 200 military and civilian experts from more than 27 commands and agencies around the country will participate in the Wargame.
U.S. commands and agencies participating in SW 2016 include: Air Force Space Command, Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Naval Fleet Cyber Command, the National Reconnaissance Office, Executive Agent for Space Staff, Air Combat Command, Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. European Command, U.S. Strategic Command, Defense Information Systems Agency, the Intelligence Community, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, Department of State and Department of Commerce.
Azuga, a provider of connected vehicle technology, expanded its sales operations to serve more than 100 fleets in 10 countries across Latin America, Europe, India and parts of the Middle East, the company announced in a news release.
“Our next-generation, easy-to-use connected vehicle solutions are now disrupting the fleet telematics market internationally with driver-friendly fleet telematics, dramatically lower costs and country-specific customizations,” says Ananth Rani, co-founder and president of Azuga. “Azuga’s expanded presence was made possible in partnership with Danlaw, a global provider of OBD II hardware with vehicle compatibility that’s unmatched in the industry. Millions of miles of road testing across the globe have given Azuga the platform for this international expansion. ”
In six months, Azuga has successfully helped Whirlpool Mexico’s home service technician division improve customer service and increase overall productivity. The company’s easy-to-install technology allowed for a very quick implementation into the fleet’s 100 vehicles, the company says. The fleet has saved Whirlpool 500,000 pesos per year in maintenance, fuel and operational costs.
With its roots in Detroit, the Silicon Valley-based telematics company couples automotive industry experience with leading technology and innovation in order to provide a suite of game-changing fleet solutions, according to the news release. The solution combines traditional GPS fleet tracking with driver visibility, gamification, employer-funded rewards, social sharing and Azuga-funded awards. Those additional social telematics driver-centric features have enabled fleet managers to experience significant and positive shifts in company morale, as well as an increase in overall ROI, the company says.
“We selected Azuga for its painless and quick installation and implementation as well as its geofencing and driver safety features,” said Tim Whittaker director of Leamoco, one of the UK’s leading car part specialists. “We are really excited that we had an option in the UK that allowed us to easily access rich engine and driver behavior data as well as gamification of the driver experience. This ensures we can improve and exceed customer expectations on delivery times, and continue to improve efficiency and safety across the fleet. Having had time to use this system properly, and seeing the positive impact it has had on the business, I can state that it has delivered all that we hoped for. We now wouldn’t be without it.”
Azuga’s connected vehicle solution for fleets is available internationally from select partners and resellers.
NovAtel Inc. announced a new initiative and engineering team to develop functionally safe GNSS positioning technology for fully autonomous applications. The company leverages its extensive experience developing safety-critical systems for the aviation industry to meet the future safety thresholds required for driverless cars and autonomous applications in agriculture, mining, and other government, military and commercial markets.
In early 2015, NovAtel formed a specialized Safety Critical Systems Group of engineers with backgrounds in functional safety as well as all aspects of GNSS and inertial navigation systems (INS) technology. The Safety Critical Systems Group is focused on creating positioning products that will meet the exceptional performance and safety requirements of autonomous vehicles at the necessary production volumes and at the required price point.
The company has extensive background working within safety critical requirements. Michael Ritter, president & CEO stated, “Aviation in North America relies on NovAtel technology to ensure safe navigation and landing.” Ritter added, “The Federal Aviation Administration’s WAAS, and other global Space Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS), have relied on certified NovAtel GNSS receivers for many years as the foundation of their systems. With full GNSS signal and constellation support needed to solve the performance criteria of autonomous driving, NovAtel is uniquely qualified to deliver the optimal solution that will keep us all safe as we drive the autonomous highways of the future.”
Jonathan Auld, Novatel’s director of Safety Critical Systems.
NovAtel manufactures high-precision GNSS receivers, antennas and subsystems, with expertise in sensor integration, specifically that of GNSS and INS. Through its TerraStar correction service, NovAtel also offers a global Precise Point Positioning (PPP) correction solution that is already designed for safety-of-life applications.
With work underway for more than a year, NovAtel plans to achieve ISO/TS 16949 compliance by the end of 2016. This is an early key milestone in the Safety Critical Systems Group’s path, to be followed by an ISO 26262 compliant product.
Jonathan Auld is director of Safety Critical Systems at NovAtel. He first joined the company in 2000 and has held positions as a GNSS test engineer, test group manager, director of technology development, and director of portfolio management.
The HX-DU1603D rover radio is an advanced, high-speed, Bluetooth-enabled wireless data link designed for GNSS/RTK (real-time kinematic) surveying and precise positioning. It is a lightweight, ruggedized UHF receiver for digital radio communications between 410 and 470 MHz in either 12.5- kHz or 25-kHz channels, which can be widely used in GNSS/RTK surveying and GNSS precise positioning systems. The HX-DU1603D is equipped with a Bluetooth transceiver for cable-free communications with external devices. It features an internal, rechargeable battery for ease of use and portability that allows long operational hours. Its display screen and buttons can be used to configuration parameters such as frequency, protocols, power display, serial port baud rate and air baud rate. By deploying the technology, users can instantly communicate with GNSS precise positioning receivers that share the same protocols throughout the world. The rover radio HX-DU1603D joins the line of Harxon products that include 25W base radio HX-DU8602T with simplex and 35W base radio HX-DU8608D with Duplex.
EyesMap3D generates accurate 3D models and point clouds, measured directly from images. It allows users to create high-density points clouds with textures achieving a realistic 3D model appearance. It is able to measure accurately on the images to generate true orthophotos, and geo-reference and scale the results. eyesMap3D users can use their cameras, mobile phone or camera drone to capture images. The program is compatible with most popular software packages on the market. The goal of maker eCapture is to allow the user to easily generate and work with 3D models and photogrammetric tools, while maintaining data quality.
Chaminda Basnayake is the technical lead for all Renesas communications enabled automotive active safety applications (V2X) in North America. Primary technical interface to customers, partners, government, research facilities and Renesas Japan. Support and develop customer solutions for production, research and applications. Responsible for developing and marketing V2X technical solutions (hardware and software) and providing customer technical training. Previously he worked for many years at GM OnStar.
John Kenney is the director of the Network Division of Toyota InfoTechnology Center USA. His division researches technologies that allow vehicles to communicate with each other and with other devices. A focus of his work is preventing accidents via always-on vehicle-to-vehicles packet communication. Toyotoa InfoTechnology research includes channel congestion control, security, quality of service (QoS), spectrum sharing, multi-channel operation, multi-path propagation and internal standards.
Nic Papadopoulos is president of u-blox America, a wholly owned subsidiary of u-blox AG, the Swiss positioning and wireless technology company. Prior to u-blox, he worked as director of sales at G&D, a large GSM SIM providers. Before that, he worked in various positions at Infineon Technologies (formerly Siemens Semiconductors). He holds an MSEE from the Technical University Munich.
Roger Berg is responsible for overseeing vehicle communication technology and DENSO’s research and development of vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2X) technology for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Connected Vehicle program. He and his team worked on V2X from the early days going back to 2003-04.
