Investigation of the RUFRIS Method with GNSS and
Total Station for Leveling
M. Amin Alizadeh-Khameneh
Anna B. O. Jensen
Milan Horemuž
Division of Geodesy and Satellite Positioning
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract—The establishment of leveling benchmarks for
performing geodetic measurements, for instance in construction
works, is usually costly and laborious due to a mass of field works
in transferring the height from nearby known benchmarks. In
this study, a real-time updated free station (RUFRIS) method is
investigated to be used as an alternative approach for the
traditional leveling. The coordinates of a RUFRIS station are
determined by establishing a total station on the point, and
performing a free-station by observing some points with both
Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) GNSS and total station distance and
direction observations. The study is conducted based on data
from the East Link project in Sweden, where a 150 km long high-
speed railway is to be constructed. The results show a standard
deviation of 7 mm between the RUFRIS and leveling heights in
this project and imply the feasibility of replacing the traditional
leveling methods with RUFRIS in projects with low accessibility
to benchmarks.
Keywords— GNSS; real-time kinematic; free station; leveling
I. INTRODUCTION
Since a few decades ago, the Global Navigation Satellite
Systems (GNSS) have become a powerful tool for surveyors
beneficial for navigation and positioning purposes. The GNSS
measurements can be used in construction projects to
determine the position of unknown points. Among many
advantages of this technique, there are a few drawbacks that
restrict its usage. For instance, the GNSS measurements cannot
be carried out in the areas with low satellite coverage, and in
case of using static GNSS observations; the time which should
be spent is not economically acceptable in some projects.
Terrestrial measurements by total stations (TS) have
traditionally been an alternative for GNSS surveying.
However, this measuring tool has some major restrictions as
well, e.g. the necessity of having direct view (line of sight)
between a measuring instrument and objects. Therefore, some
innovative companies have recently introduced integrated
solutions, where it is possible to benefit from joint observations
with the total station and RTK GNSS, to overcome the
addressed limits.
RTK is a differential positioning technology that uses
GNSS phase and code corrections from one or more reference
stations. The achievable positioning accuracy with using the
RTK method can be around one centimeter in horizontal plane
978-1-5386-2217-9/17/$31.00 © 2017 European Union
M. Amin Alizadeh-Khameneh
Johan Vium Andersson
Department of Geographic Information and Asset
Management
WSP Civils
Stockholm, Sweden
and 2 centimeters in height [1]. However, the performance of
RTK is limited to a few kilometers distance to nearest
reference station due to some restrictions in signal
transmission, and dependency of the ambiguity resolution on
distance-based errors [2]. The required base for the RTK
measurements can be a temporary or permanent reference
station. A network RTK can be built up in an area by
establishing several permanent reference stations and
interconnecting them. Thus, a user needs only GNSS receivers
as the rovers. For instance in Sweden, the RTK GNSS can be
performed based on the Swedish national network of
permanent reference stations (SWEPOS), see for instance [3]
or the SWEPOS website1.
Following up the GNSS/TS combination intention, a
recently developed method uses the RTK GNSS in a free
station method to determine the coordinates of the TS. The
concept is similar to the traditional resection approach, where a
TS is set over an unknown point, and the coordinates of that
point are computed by measuring a minimum two known
points [4, p. 252]. The method of real-time updated free station
(abbreviated as RUFRIS according to the corresponding
Swedish term: RealtidsUppdaterad FRI Station) uses the RTK
coordinates of several common points to estimate the
coordinates and orientation of the TS. Therefore, an
outstanding advantage of this combined method is its
independence from physically marked control points for
establishing a TS.
The optimum number of common points to be measured
for acquiring reasonable establishment precision and reliability
is 10 to 30 points [5], albeit measuring more common points
yields higher precision. Further, the optimal common point
distances from the TS and the optimal radial distribution of
these points around the TS were also investigated in [5]. In
another study, the optimal horizontal placement of the TS in
performing free station establishment was investigated by [6].
They concluded that the optimum location of the TS, for
obtaining the lowest uncertainties in the position and
orientation of it, is in the center of gravity of all control points.
Moreover, the temporal correlation in free station
establishment with RUFRIS was studied in [7]. They analyzed
the temporal correlation by semi-variogram and cross-
correlation in two different experiments, which were performed
1
https://swepos.lantmateriet.se
in an open land with clear sky visibility, and another in an area xcp  xts
with obstructed visibility (buildings and trees around). It was HDi  vHD  arctan  i (2)
concluded that the observations in the open land are slightly ycp  yts
more correlated than in the other experiment due to an almost
fixed configuration of satellites and multipath changes in a  Vertical angle (VA):
short period of time. It was also shown that the spread of
measurements for the total station setup has not significant zcp  zts
effect on the temporal correlation. VAi  vVA  arctan (3)
x  xts    ycp  yts 
2 2
It should be noted that a number of performed cp
investigations on various aspects of the RUFRIS method makes
it distinct from the ordinary GNSS/TS measurements. For where xcp , ycp and zcp are the coordinates of the common
instance, to establish a point by RUFRIS there are some
points, and the coordinates of the total station are denoted by
prerequisites of the minimum number and configuration of the
common points, while the point can be established by xts , yts and zts . In (1) to (3), v is the residual of the
measuring two common points by using ordinary GNSS/TS observation equations, and i  1, 2, , n .
combination.
In order to use the least squares method for a network
Here, in this paper, we aim to investigate the RUFRIS adjustment, it is required to linearize these observation
method for its effectiveness in providing reasonable height equations, and use an iterative solution. Equations (1) to (3)
precision. Although the RTK GNSS measurements provide an can be expanded and linearized by a Taylor series as:
acceptable level of uncertainties for horizontal coordinates, its
accuracy in determining the vertical component is not as good  Slope distance:
as the horizontal. Therefore, the RUFRIS method can be
applied to improve the uncertainty of height estimation by xi0 y 0 z 0
combining the RTK GNSS and total station measurements. SDi  vSD  SDi0  0
 xts  i0  yts  i0  zts
SDi SDi SDi
A number of RUFRIS stations have already been (4)
xi0 y 0 z 0
established in the East Link project in Sweden, where a high-  0
 xcp  i0  ycp  i0  zcp
speed railway is to be constructed by The Swedish Transport SDi SDi SDi
Administration. The purpose is to use those RUFRIS stations to
control the details of the construction work. This paper  Horizontal direction:
describes the study which is conducted to investigate the
applicability of the RUFRIS method in replacement of the
traditional leveling approaches for the East Link project. yi0 xi0
HDi  vHD  HDi0   xts   yts
D  D 
0 2 0 2
i i
II. METHODOLOGY (5)
yi0 xi0
  xcp   ycp  i
A. RUFRIS D  i
0 2
D  i
0 2

When using this method in determining the coordinate of

an unknown station, we need to observe the distances and  Vertical angle:
directions from the station to a number of common points.
Additionally, the coordinates of the common points should be
xi0 zi0 yi0 zi0 Di0
achieved by the RTK GNSS measurements. The required VAi  vVA  VAi0   xts   yts   zts
Di0  SDi0  Di0  SDi0   SD 
2 2 0 2
observation equations can be written as [8, pp. 85-92]: i
(6)
 Slope distance (SD) between the total station (ts) and n xi0 zi0 yi0 zi0 Di0
common points (cp):   xcp   ycp   zcp
Di0  SDi0  Di0  SDi0   SD 
2 2 0 2
i

x  xts    ycp  yts    zcp  zts 

2 2
SDi  vSD  cp
 Horizontal direction (HD) of the common points that
are measured relative to the zero direction of the total
station. The orientation angle (  ) between the zero
direction and the North axis must be computed in order
to establish the orientation of TS with respect to the
coordinate system.
2
(1) where the superscript 0 represents the approximate value of the
variable, and Di0 is the approximate horizontal distance. xi0 ,
yi0 and zi0 are the differences between the approximate
coordinate of the total station and the ith common point. The
differential changes in the initially given coordinates of the
total station (ts) and the common points (cp) are denoted by  x
,  y and  z with corresponding subscripts.
A set of observation equations can be written for the GNSS
observations (rtk) of the common points. In fact, the common
points are subject to two sets of observations, i.e. total station
and RTK GNSS measurements. For each common point (cp)
we can write:
xrtk  vx  xcp
yrtk  v y  ycp
zrtk  vz  zcp
with the assumption of having transformed GNSS coordinates
into a coordinate system in the cartographic plane combined
with a height system.
The least squares solution for the system of linear equations
in (4) to (6) can be written for n common points as:
X   AT PA  AT PL
1
where A is a 6n  3n  4 design matrix consisting of the
coefficients in (4) to (7). P is a weight matrix and can be
defined for n uncorrelated observations as:
P6n6n  diag  Pi  , i  1,2, ,n
with

Pi  diag  02  SD
2
 HD
2
VA
2
 xrtk2  yrtk2  zrtk2 
where  02 is the a priori variance factor, and  2 is the variances
of the observations. In this study, the weight matrix is
numerically defined according to the technical specifications of
the used TS instrument (  SD  1mm  1.5ppm ,  HD  VA 
0.3 mgon), and the uncertainty of the RTK measurements. The
variances of distances and RTK measurements are in meters,
while the variances of horizontal directions and vertical angles
are in radians. The vector L in (8) is a 6n 1 vector containing
the observations in (4) to (7). The units of observations in this
vector are meters for slope distances and radians for horizontal
and vertical angles. And eventually, X is the vector of
unknowns consisting of 3D coordinates of n common point and
one total station, as well as one orientation parameter.
B. Leveling
Leveling is performed as a precise method in surveying
engineering to determine height differences between points.
The procedure is conducted by a leveling instrument, which is
typically set-up in the same sight distance from the two points
to possibly reduce the leveling errors, e.g. collimation and
refraction errors [9, p. 207]. The difference of the back and
foresight rod readings will be the height differences. To
determine the height differences over longer distances, it is
required to set some temporary points and transfer the heights
through them. As it is inevitable to have zero errors in the
measurements and to avoid accumulation of errors on one
point, it is common among surveyors to distribute the errors on
all leveled points in relation with their corresponding distances
from the instrument by applying a least squares adjustment.
III. NUMERICAL STUDIES
A. Study Area
To investigate the possibility of replacing the traditional
(7) leveling methods by RUFRIS, it was required to perform a
number of experiments. In this study, we used the total station
and leveling data from the East Link project in Sweden. This
project is the first step toward a first generation of high-speed
railways in Sweden. The construction of this railway, for about
150 km, provides a fast and sustainable transportation between
the cities of Järna and Linköping. The precision of the RUFRIS
method in determining the height of points is evaluated in this
paper based on data obtained from the East Link project.
B. Data Description
(8) The East Link project is located in two neighbor projection
zones in the Swedish national reference frame, i.e. SWEREF
99 16 30 and SWEREF 99 18 00. The RUFRIS points in these
two zones are depicted in the study area in Fig. 1. The two
projection zones have different central meridians with the scale
factor of 1, and are in particularly used due to the reduction of
the scale errors. The geoid model that is used in this project for
(9) height determination is the national Swedish geoid model
SWEN08_RH2000. The expected uncertainty for this model is
about 10 to 15 millimeters [10]. For more information on
Swedish reference systems, see for instance [11] and [10].
 (10) Totally, 97 stations are established along the project
corridor by the RUFRIS method. The 3D coordinates of these
stations were computed by measuring a minimum number of
15 common points and performing the free station approach.
Besides, the coordinates of the common points were obtained
by the RTK GNSS measurements based on the SWEPOS
network. The available SWEPOS stations at the time of RTK
GNSS measurements were relatively sparse in the area
(approx. 35 km between reference stations). However, these
stations have recently been densified along the East Link
project, which is now expected for the RUFRIS measurements
to yield better results with the help of the current SWEPOS
network.
Moreover, a connection network of 217 points, including
97 RUFRIS stations, was established in the area. The heights of
the points were determined by precise double-run leveling
using 43 benchmarks. Therefore, the heights of the mentioned
97 points were separately measured by the RUFRIS and
leveling methods for further investigations.
C. Results
To investigate the level of precision provided by the
RUFRIS method for the height of stations, we compared
obtained heights from RUFRIS with the leveling data. The
aforementioned RUFRIS method was implemented in Matlab
scripting language to be used for computing the 3D coordinates
of all available data. For evaluating our results, the surveying
engineering software, SBG Geo [12], was used in parallel. The
raw measurement files were input to the SBG Geo as a first
step to perform measurement corrections. In order to apply the
geometrical calculations on the performed distance and angle
observations, the measurements were corrected with respect to
the cartographic plane. These corrections consisted of
correction for the earth curvature, correction for height over
local ellipsoid, correction for distance to central longitude of
the map projection and correction for atmosphere. Thereafter,
data snooping [13] was performed in Matlab to detect possible
gross errors in the measurements. Our data snooping algorithm
was developed based on an iterative solution, where in each
iteration the biggest gross error was detected and deleted from
the adjustment procedure. Detected gross errors in any of
distance, horizontal or vertical angle observations led the
corresponding common point to be excluded from the list of
measurements. The coordinates of the stations were then
computed in both Matlab and SBG Geo for further evaluation.
A concise workflow of this step of the study is illustrated
diagrammatically in Fig. 2.
A comparison between the Matlab and SBG Geo results
indicates negligible differences in the coordinate computations
(Table I). The standard deviation of one millimeter in all three
coordinate components can be explained as a rounding error.
However, the different adjustment procedures in SBG Geo and
Matlab, i.e. 3D vs. 2+1D adjustment, can also be the cause of
the insignificant differences.
Fig. 1. Illustration of study area and RUFRIS stations along the East Link
high-speed rail project in Sweden. The project is located in two Swedish
projection zones, i.e. SWEREF 99 16 30 and SWEREF 99 18 00.
Input from Matlab:
Total Station: Coordinate
.plm file Estimation
SBG Geo:
Matlab: Coordinate
Measurement
Data Snooping Comparison
Correction
SBG Geo:
Coordinate
Estimation
Fig. 2. Workflow of the computation steps. The coordinates of the RUFRIS
stations are computed separately by SBG Geo and Matlab.
TABLE I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
COMPUTED RUFRIS COORDINATES BY SBG GEO AND MATLAB.
N (m) E (m) H (m)
Mean Value 0.000 0.000 0.001
Standard
Deviation
0.001 0.001 0.001
Maximum
0.003 0.002 0.004
Difference
The heights of the benchmarks in the project area were
transferred to the points of interest (RUFRIS stations) by
traditional leveling. The leveling was performed by using invar
rods, thus according to specifications of the leveling
instrument, an accuracy of 0.3 millimeter per kilometer for the
leveling measurement was sought. However, standard
deviation from adjustment of the leveling was a maximum of 1
millimeter for the heights determined. The adjustment of these
data was carried out in relation to the sight distance readings in
SBG Geo.
Eventually; the differences between the computed heights
by RUFRIS and leveling were determined using the SWEN08
RH2000 geoid model and depicted in Fig. 4. After statistically
analyzing the residuals obtained from 94 points, only one gross
error can be seen, which indicates around 35 millimeters
difference. The reason for this gross error is possibly due to the
wrong input of the instrument height in the field. However,
after excluding this point, the standard deviation of residuals
becomes 11 millimeters (Table II). It can easily be noticed in
Fig. 4 that the residuals follow a systematic trend from the
northern point toward the south, i.e. small positive residuals in
the north, increasing values in the middle, and finally turning to
negative values in the southern part of the area.
To improve the height system of the project area, The
National Surveying and Mapping Authority of Sweden
(Lantmäteriet) developed a new geoid model. The new model
is similar to the national Swedish geoid model,
SWEN08_RH2000, but with improvements along the East
Link project [14]. In other words, about 50-100 kilometers
away from the project, the two models become identical. The
new geoid model is computed based on 4 and 48 hours static
GNSS observations on 16, respectively 5 stations in the project
area. The maximum and minimum reported differences
between the new and old model is +18 and -12 millimeters,
changing from the north to south (Fig. 3). In addition, the
standard deviation of the height differences from RUFRIS and
leveling is improved from 12 to 3 millimeters. However, this
improvement is only valid on the points, where the
measurements were performed.
The implementation of this new geoid model in
computation of the heights of the RUFRIS stations in our
study, significantly affected the residuals. As can be seen in
Table II, the standard deviation of residuals decreased from 11
to 7 millimeters when the new geoid model is used. Inspection
of the remaining residuals reveals a random behavior. The
reason for the remaining residuals in Fig. 5 can be due to
uncertainties of the developed geoid model, the RUFRIS
method, and the leveling. Assuming the uncertainties of 3
millimeters for the geoid model and maximum 1 millimeter for
the leveling, also applying the error propagation law, the
uncertainty of the RUFRIS method itself can be estimated to be
about 6 millimeters in determination of height.
Fig. 3. Differences between SWEN08_RH2000 and SWEN08_OSTL geoid
models. The differences are evident along the East Link project.
Fig. 4. Comparing the obtained heights from RUFRIS and leveling for
established points along the East Link project. The RUFRIS heights were
computed based on the SWEN08_RH2000 geoid model. The upward arrows
show positive differences in subtracting leveled heights from RUFRIS
heights. Contrariewise, the downward arrows represent the negative
differences.
Fig. 5. Comparing the obtained heights from RUFRIS and leveling for
established points along the East Link project. The RUFRIS heights were
computed based on the SWEN08_OSTL geoid model.
TABLE II. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
COMPUTED RUFRIS HEIGHTS AND LEVELING HEIGHTS.
SWEN08 RH2000 SWEN08 OSTL
REMOVING REMOVING
GROSS ERRORS GROSS ERRORS
Mean Value 0.007 0.006 0.001 0.000
Standard
0.012 0.011 0.009 0.007
Deviation
IV. CONCLUSION
The precision of height determination using the RUFRIS
method is investigated and discussed in this paper. As there is
no need for known points in establishing a RUFRIS station, the
method becomes practical in projects with limited access to
known control points. In this study, we used data from the East
Link high-speed railway project in Sweden. The established
points were measured according to the RUFRIS method to
estimate their coordinates. At the same time, the heights of
these points were determined with traditional leveling. Using
the Swedish national geoid model (SWEN08_RH2000) as the
basis for computations, the standard deviation of the height
differences from RUFRIS and leveling becomes around 11
millimeters. A modified geoid model for the project,
SWEN08_OSTL, was introduced in this study as well. Further
computations applying this new model yield a standard
deviation of 7 millimeters for the determined height differences
between RUFRIS and leveling. These results indicate that it is
indeed possible to use the RUFRIS method in estimating the
height component of points in projects where an uncertainty of
for instance 1 centimeter is required.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The first author thanks the WSP Group in Sweden for
financially supporting his PhD study. The Swedish Transport
Administration (Trafikverket) is also very much acknowledged
for supporting the project: “RUFRIS as an alternative method
for determination of height, a verification study”.
REFERENCES
[1] Lantmäteriet, "HMK-Geodesi: GNSS-baserad detaljmätning," Gävle,
Sweden , 2015 (in Swedish).
[2] G. Seeber, Satellite Geodesy: Foundations, Methods and Applications,
Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003.
[3] B. Jonsson, G. Hedling and P. Wiklund, "SWEPOS Network-RTK
Services - status, applications and experiences," in ION GPS/GNSS,
Portland, Oregon, U.S., 2003.
[4] H. Kahmen and W. Faig, Surveying, Berlin; New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 1988.
[5] M. Horemuž and J. V. Andersson, "Analysis of the Precision in Free
Station Establishment by RTK GPS," Survey Review, vol. 43, no. 323,
pp. 679-686, 2011.
[6] M. Horemuž and P. Jansson, "Optimum Establishment of Total Station,"
Journal of Surveying Engineering, p. 06016004, 2016.
[7] M. Horemuž and A. B. O. Jensen, “Analysis of Temporal Correlation in
Free Station Establishment with RTK GNSS,” European Journal of
Navigation, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 15-20, 2016.
[8] S. Kuang, Geodetic Network Analysis and Optimal Design: Concepts
and Applications, Chelsea, Michigan, USA: Ann Arbor Press, Inc, 1996.
[9] W. Torge, Geodesy, Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2001. [13] W. Baarda, "A Testing Procedure for Use in Geodetic Networks," Delft,
[10] L. E. Engberg, B. Andersson, L. Jivall, M. Lilje and B.-G. Reit, "A New 1968.
Coordinate System for Sweden," in FIG XXII International Congress, [14] J. Ågren and K. Ohlsson, "SWEN08_OSTL, en Specialanpassad
April 19-26, Washington DC, USA, 2002. Geoidmodell för Ostlänksprojektet," Technical Report, Lantmäteriet,
[11] J. Ågren, "Beskrivning av de Nationella Geoidmodellerna Gävle, 2016 (in Swedish).
SWEN08_RH2000 och SWEN08_RH70," Technical Report,
Lantmäteriet, Gävle, Sweden, 2009 (in Swedish).
[12] Geo Professional version 2015.2.942.22, Sweden: Svensk
Byggnadsgeodesi AB (SBG), 2015.