## The comparison and evaluation of different mathematical models for deformation analysis

 dc.contributor.advisor RÃ¼ther, Heinz en_ZA dc.contributor.advisor Jackson, J en_ZA dc.contributor.author Goullee, Robert Jules en_ZA dc.date.accessioned 2016-09-25T16:50:28Z dc.date.available 2016-09-25T16:50:28Z dc.date.issued 1984 en_ZA dc.description Bibliography: pages 124-125. en_ZA dc.description.abstract In the analysis of deformations using geodetic techniques, the errors in point positions due to observation errors must be distinguished from movements due to actual deformation. A number of models are available, which offer solutions to this problem. In this study, four of such methods are described and compared: 1. Method using Invariant Functions. 2. Method using Direct Comparison of Co-ordinates. 3. Method using Direct Differences. 4. Method using Niemeier's Comparison of Co-ordinates. The introduction of "false" deformations, caused by errors in translation, rotation and scale, is a very real problem which may be eliminated by processes such as the use of invariant functions (distances and angles) and the sound construction of constraint points. Niemeier's solution to this problem is the use of a free network adjustment which forces the new network into a best fit of the provisional co-ordinates, which generally would be the final co-ordinates of a previous epoch. Although the model advocated for the first three methods above is the minimum constraint adjustment, the free network adjustment may also be used. Similarly, the minimum constraints technique may be employed for Niemeier's method, subject to some necessary modifications. The four methods have thus been compared using both adjustment techniques also. The four methods using both adjustment techniques as well as some variations of methods 1. and 2. above are evaluated using a series of nine simulated test epochs, one reference and eight other, to which known deformations were applied. From the results obtained from the various epochs, the methods are examined for reliability, accuracy and suitability. en_ZA dc.identifier.apacitation Goullee, R. J. (1984). The comparison and evaluation of different mathematical models for deformation analysis. (Thesis). University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Engineering & the Built Environment ,School of Architecture, Planning and Geomatics. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11427/21926 en_ZA dc.identifier.chicagocitation Goullee, Robert Jules. "The comparison and evaluation of different mathematical models for deformation analysis." Thesis., University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Engineering & the Built Environment ,School of Architecture, Planning and Geomatics, 1984. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/21926 en_ZA dc.identifier.citation Goullee, R. 1984. The comparison and evaluation of different mathematical models for deformation analysis. University of Cape Town. en_ZA dc.identifier.ris TY - Thesis / Dissertation AU - Goullee, Robert Jules AB - In the analysis of deformations using geodetic techniques, the errors in point positions due to observation errors must be distinguished from movements due to actual deformation. A number of models are available, which offer solutions to this problem. In this study, four of such methods are described and compared: 1. Method using Invariant Functions. 2. Method using Direct Comparison of Co-ordinates. 3. Method using Direct Differences. 4. Method using Niemeier's Comparison of Co-ordinates. The introduction of "false" deformations, caused by errors in translation, rotation and scale, is a very real problem which may be eliminated by processes such as the use of invariant functions (distances and angles) and the sound construction of constraint points. Niemeier's solution to this problem is the use of a free network adjustment which forces the new network into a best fit of the provisional co-ordinates, which generally would be the final co-ordinates of a previous epoch. Although the model advocated for the first three methods above is the minimum constraint adjustment, the free network adjustment may also be used. Similarly, the minimum constraints technique may be employed for Niemeier's method, subject to some necessary modifications. The four methods have thus been compared using both adjustment techniques also. The four methods using both adjustment techniques as well as some variations of methods 1. and 2. above are evaluated using a series of nine simulated test epochs, one reference and eight other, to which known deformations were applied. From the results obtained from the various epochs, the methods are examined for reliability, accuracy and suitability. DA - 1984 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PB - University of Cape Town PY - 1984 T1 - The comparison and evaluation of different mathematical models for deformation analysis TI - The comparison and evaluation of different mathematical models for deformation analysis UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/21926 ER - en_ZA dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/11427/21926 dc.identifier.vancouvercitation Goullee RJ. The comparison and evaluation of different mathematical models for deformation analysis. [Thesis]. University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Engineering & the Built Environment ,School of Architecture, Planning and Geomatics, 1984 [cited yyyy month dd]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/21926 en_ZA dc.language.iso eng en_ZA dc.publisher.department School of Architecture, Planning and Geomatics en_ZA dc.publisher.faculty Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment dc.publisher.institution University of Cape Town dc.subject.other Surveying en_ZA dc.title The comparison and evaluation of different mathematical models for deformation analysis en_ZA dc.type Master Thesis dc.type.qualificationlevel Masters dc.type.qualificationname MSc (Eng) en_ZA uct.type.filetype Text uct.type.filetype Image uct.type.publication Research en_ZA uct.type.resource Thesis en_ZA
##### Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Name:
thesis_ebe_1984_goullee_robert_jules.pdf
Size:
8.29 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: