Comparative Analysis and Accuracy Assessments of Terrain Heights Determination Towards Effective and Accurate Heights Measurements in Construction Works

Engineering and construction works require precise height or elevation determination, and providing such essential information is in the purview of geomatics engineers. Oftentimes, civil engineers are less concerned and mostly oblivious of the choice of method employed in the acquisition of such data but are more particular about the accuracy, time limitation and cost implication whereas, some of such engineering and construction works may require lesser accuracy. This study therefore attempts a comparative analysis and accuracy assessment of height determination by trigonometric heighting, stadia and tangential tacheometric methods relative to reference data acquired by spirit levelling operation. Thirty fixed points were selected and their elevations were determined using the afore-mentioned methods. Statistical analytical tools were employed for the comparative analytical process. The results analysis indicates that the three (3) methods –– trigonometric heighting, stadia and tangential tacheometric methods –– gave 0.077, 0.172 and 0.117 standard deviations and 0.017, 0.038, and 0.029 RMSE respectively. Thus, it can be inferred that Trigonometric heighting is more accurate relative to the other two (2) methods. However, a one-way ANOVA test shows P-value of 0.1102 as against F-Critical value of 3.1013. This reveals that there is no significant difference in the mean of the heights obtained by the three methods. Hence, the major mitigating factors which should influence the choice of any of the three (3) methods are time limitation and cost implication but not necessarily accuracy.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2025-06-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15667280
Primary Topic
Geodetic Measurements and Engineering Structures
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative Analysis and Accuracy Assessments of Terrain Heights Determination Towards Effective and Accurate Heights Measurements in Construction Works

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Geodetic Measurements and Engineering Structures
article

Comparative Analysis and Accuracy Assessments of Terrain Heights Determination Towards Effective and Accurate Heights Measurements in Construction Works

article en

Abstract

Engineering and construction works require precise height or elevation determination, and providing such essential information is in the purview of geomatics engineers. Oftentimes, civil engineers are less concerned and mostly oblivious of the choice of method employed in the acquisition of such data but are more particular about the accuracy, time limitation and cost implication whereas, some of such engineering and construction works may require lesser accuracy. This study therefore attempts a comparative analysis and accuracy assessment of height determination by trigonometric heighting, stadia and tangential tacheometric methods relative to reference data acquired by spirit levelling operation. Thirty fixed points were selected and their elevations were determined using the afore-mentioned methods. Statistical analytical tools were employed for the comparative analytical process. The results analysis indicates that the three (3) methods –– trigonometric heighting, stadia and tangential tacheometric methods –– gave 0.077, 0.172 and 0.117 standard deviations and 0.017, 0.038, and 0.029 RMSE respectively. Thus, it can be inferred that Trigonometric heighting is more accurate relative to the other two (2) methods. However, a one-way ANOVA test shows P-value of 0.1102 as against F-Critical value of 3.1013. This reveals that there is no significant difference in the mean of the heights obtained by the three methods. Hence, the major mitigating factors which should influence the choice of any of the three (3) methods are time limitation and cost implication but not necessarily accuracy.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Federal College of Education, Kano (NG), Morgan State University (US)
Sustainable cities and communities
Openalex Percentile: Top 54%
Geodetic Measurements and Engineering Structures
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.