In Lab 3 you designed a networking by carrying out a preanalysis.
In this part of the lab I want you to use the measurements I provide below and carry out a parametric least squares adjustment in order to determine the coordinates of the new stations 3, 4, 5, and 6.
This will require you to implement the appropriate geometric reductions in C++ functions within your library, and reduce the measurements before using them.
The table below contains all of the possible measurements as obtained and partially reduced by the field crew. (You can assume they’ve made all the usual corrections except geometric reductions you saw earlier in this lab and you can assume there are no gross errors.) Use these measurements to adjust the network.
(Note that in reality we wouldn’t go and measure all of these, especially if we’d done the work in a preanalysis to determine which you didn’t need to do. But I’m asking you to do this here in order to illustrate the power of that earlier preanalysis.)
Here are the slope distances, not yet geometrically reduced to the grid in which you need to do the adjustment:
|Leg||Measured slope distance (m)|
They were measured between the following points with these instrument heights, ellipsoidal heights, and approximate grid coordinates obtained from GPS as the measurements were made:
1. If the field crew hadn’t supplied the above approximate coordinates for points 3-5, you could have used your approximate coordinates obtained from the map in Lab 3.
2. The coordinates of points 1 and 2 are known from Lab 3 and so weren’t approximated in the field
3. You can again assume that the distance measurements have the following standard deviation:
4. And you can otherwise treat everything the same as in Lab 3.
Carry out the adjustment, being sure to compute and provide:
And keep in mind that you will likely need to iterate two or three times because of the non-linear nature of the model.
Compare the predicted results from your preanalysis in Lab 3 with the actual results obtained here. Do all of the actual confidence regions meet the specifications of the survey? Are you happy with the a-posteriori variance factor?
Now repeat Step 1 above using only the legs you said were needed in Lab 3. (And be sure to make clear in your report which are those legs.)
Then compare the results to those you obtained with the full data set. In particular, I’m interested in how the confidence ellipse parameters compare in this case to the earlier case. And whether the specifications are still met by the design.
Be sure to answer all of the questions asked here and provide both your code and the relevant input and output files.
As well as addressing the specific questions I’ve asked, I’d like you to comment in your submission on your overall understanding and takeaways from doing the preanalysis in Lab 3 and then implementing its recommendations here in comparison to the full network. Show me what you’ve learned from all of this.
Access to this site requires you to sign in. Use one of the icon(s) below:
That said, we will receive your name and email address from them, which we will use to create and manage your account.