National Spatial
Reference System
|
|
|
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 |
|
(NAVD 88) |
|
|
|
SEMINAR |
|
|
|
|
|
January 15, 2003 |
|
Catskill, New York |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward J. McKay |
OUTLINE
|
|
|
Vertical Datums |
|
Height Systems |
|
NAVD 88 Project |
|
NAVD 88 Implementation |
|
FEMA & NAVD 88 |
|
NAVD 88 Conversion Techniques |
NATIONAL SPATIAL
REFERENCE SYSTEM
|
|
|
The National Spatial Reference System
(NSRS) is the name given to all geodetic control contained in the National
Geodetic Survey (NGS) Data Base. This
includes: A, B, First, Second and
Third-Order horizontal and vertical control, Geoid models such as GEOID 99,
precise GPS orbits and Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS),
observed by NGS as well as data submitted by other Federal, State, and local
agencies, academic institutions and the private sector |
VERTICAL DATUMS
|
|
|
|
|
SEA LEVEL DATUM OF 1929 |
|
|
|
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM
OF 1929 |
|
(As of July 2, 1973) |
|
|
|
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 |
|
(As of
June 24, 1993) |
COMPARISON OF VERTICAL
DATUM ELEMENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NGVD 29 NAVD
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
DATUM DEFINITION 26 TIDE GAUGES FATHERS POINT/RIMOUSKI |
|
IN THE U.S. & CANADA QUEBEC, CANADA |
|
|
|
BENCH MARKS 100,000
450,000 |
|
|
|
LEVELING (Km) 102,724
1,001,500 |
|
|
|
GEOID FITTING Distorted to Fit MSL Gauges Best Continental Model |
|
|
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL
DATUM 88
|
|
|
WHAT IS A VERTICAL CONTROL NETWORK? |
|
|
|
An
Interconnected System of Bench Marks |
|
|
|
Each Bench Mark Is Assigned A height
Referenced To A Common Surface |
NORTH AMERICA VERTICAL
|
|
|
WHY DO WE NEED A VERTICAL CONTROL
NETWORK? |
|
|
|
Reduces The Amount Of Future Leveling
Required |
|
|
|
Enables Surveyors To Check Their New
Leveling |
|
|
|
Provides Backups For Destroyed Or
Disturbed Bench Marks |
|
|
|
Assists In Monitoring Changes In Local
Areas |
|
|
|
Provides A Common Framework |
HEIGHT SYSTEMS
|
|
|
FIVE STEPS TO CREATING A VERTICAL
CONTROL NETWORK |
|
|
|
Recon level line and set new bench
marks |
|
|
|
Observe height differences between
bench marks |
|
|
|
Correct observations for known
systematic effects |
|
|
|
Minimize discrepancies in the results
obtained by leveling along different routes between the same two points |
|
|
|
Define the surface datum to which
heights may be referred |
|
|
Slide 9
Slide 10
Slide 11
Heights Based on Geopotential
Number
|
|
|
|
Normal Height (NGVD29) H* = C / g |
|
g = Average normal gravity along plumb line |
|
Dynamic Height (IGLD55,85) Hdyn = C / g45 |
|
g45 = Normal gravity at 45°
latitude |
|
Orthometric Height H = C / g |
|
g = Average gravity along the plumb
line |
|
Helmert Height (NAVD 88) H = C / (g +
0.0424 H) |
|
g = Surface gravity measurement (mgals) |
The Geoid
|
|
|
The geoid is the equipotential surface
of the earths attraction and rotation which, on the average, coincides with
mean sea level in the open ocean. |
Execution of Surveys;
Sources of Error
|
|
|
|
Errors may be characterized as random, systematic,
or blunders |
|
Random error represents the effect of
unpredictable variations in the instruments, the environment, and the
observing procedures employed |
|
Systematic error represents the effect
of consistent inaccuracies in the instruments or in the observing procedures |
|
Blunders or mistakes are typically
caused by carelessness and are detected by systematic checking of all work
through observational procedures and methodology designed to allow their
detection and elimination |
Geodetic Control
|
|
|
Network of Monumented Points |
|
Precisely Measured in Accordance with
Standard Procedures |
|
Meet Accuracy Specifications |
|
Adjusted to Tie Together |
|
Documented for Multiple Use |
HEIGHT
SYSTEMS
GEOPOTENTIAL NUMBERS
|
|
|
|
Although geopotential numbers are
useful for the adjustment of vertical networks, for many purposes true
orthometric heights above a physically defined reference surface are still
necessary |
|
|
|
A geopotential number can be converted
to a true orthometric height |
|
by dividing the geopotential number by
the mean value of gravity along the plumb line between the point and the
reference surface |
|
|
|
H = C/gm |
|
|
|
Since the mean value of gravity cannot
be directly measured (because the reference surface lies within the Earth
beneath the point), a model must be used to derive the value as a point, and
other variables |
HEIGHT
SYSTEMS
GEOPOTENTIAL NUMBERS
|
|
|
|
|
The geopotential number of a point is a
measure of the difference in potential from the reference surface to the
equipotential surface passing through the point |
|
|
|
The geopotential number is numerically
equivalent to the work required to raise a mass of 1 Kg against gravity (g)
through the orthometric height (H) to the point: H |
|
Geopotential number (C) = g dH |
|
0 |
|
The difference in height (dh) measured
during each setup of leveling can be converted to a difference in potential
by multiplying dh by the mean value of gravity (gm) for the setup |
|
|
|
Geopotential difference = gm*dh |
HEIGHT
SYSTEMS
GEOPOTENTIAL NUMBERS
|
|
|
|
The geopotential number C is measured
in geopotential units (gpu) |
|
|
|
1 gpu = 1 Kgal meter = 1000 gal meter |
|
|
|
g = 0.98 Kgal \ c @ 0.98 H |
|
|
|
(Reference: Physical Geodesy by
Heiskanen and Moritz) |
HEIGHT
SYSTEMS
SEA LEVEL HEIGHTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heights measured above local mean sea
level |
|
|
|
The National Tidal Datum epoch is a
particular 19 - year series over which the phases (such as mean lower low
water) are determined. |
|
|
|
Encompasses all significant tidal
periods |
|
|
|
Including the 18.6 - year period for
the regression of the Moons nodes |
|
|
|
Averages out practically all of the
meteorological, hydrological, and oceanographic variability |
|
|
|
Leveling is used to determine the
relationship between bench marks and tidal gages |
HEIGHT
SYSTEMS
DATUMS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any surface defined as the reference
surface from which heights are measured, can be called a datum |
|
|
|
International Great Lakes Datum
(IGLD)1955 |
|
|
|
Defined by one height (Father Point) |
|
|
|
Water - level transfers used to connect
leveling across the Great Lakes |
|
|
|
Dynamic heights |
|
|
|
H - C/GΞ; Ge - 980.6294 gals |
|
(Normal gravity at 45 degrees latitude
as defined in 1955) |
HEIGHT
SYSTEMS
DATUMS
|
|
|
|
|
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of
1929 (NGVD 29) |
|
|
|
Defined by heights of 26 tidal stations
in the U.S. and Canada |
|
|
|
Tide gages were connected to the
vertical network by leveling from tide gage staffs to bench marks |
|
|
|
Water - Level transfers used to connect
leveling across the Great Lakes |
|
|
|
Normal orthometric heights |
|
|
|
H - C/Ga; Ga - Normal gravity based on
formula |
HEIGHT
SYSTEMS
DATUMS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North American Vertical Datum of 1988
(NAVD 88) |
|
|
|
Defined by one height (Father
Point/Rimouski) |
|
|
|
Water-level transfers used to connect
leveling across the Great Lakes |
|
|
|
Geopotential Numbers |
|
|
|
Helmert orthometric heights |
|
|
|
Hhel - C/Ga; Ga = Mean value of gravity along the plumb
line |
|
between the geoid and
surface, estimated using |
|
Helmerts reduction, I.e., g
+ 0.0424xHo. |
|
g = gravity at the surface in gals |
|
Ho = approximate height in kilometers |
|
|
|
|
HEIGHT
SYSTEMS
DATUMS
|
|
|
|
|
INTERNATIONAL Great Lakes Datum (IGLD)
1985 |
|
Same as NAVD 88, except published in
Dynamic Heights |
|
Dynamic Heights |
|
|
|
Hdym = C/Go; Go = 980.6199 gals |
|
(Normal gravity at 45 degrees latitude
as defined in 1985) |
Slide 24
EXECUTION OF
SURVEYS
SOURCES OF ERROR
|
|
|
|
|
|
Errors may be characterized as random, systematic,
or blunders |
|
|
|
Random error in leveling results
represent the effect of unpredictable variations in the instruments, the
environment, and the procedure of leveling |
|
|
|
Random error cannot be completely
eliminated, although it can be kept small |
|
|
|
Therefore, it represents the noise
level, a limit on the accuracy with which leveling may measure elevation
differences |
EXECUTION OF
SURVEYS
SOURCES OF ERROR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Errors may be characterized as random, systematic,
or blunders |
|
|
|
Systematic error represents the effect
of consistent inaccuracies in the instruments or in the leveling procedures |
|
|
|
Systematic error may be small in a
single measurement; it accumulates when measurements made under similar
circumstances are totaled |
|
|
|
Therefore, it can result in a
significant discrepancy in the height differences measured between two
control points by different leveling systems and/or routes |
|
For leveling to provide accurate height
differences, systematic error must be minimized, either by procedure or by
applying corrections to the data |
VERTICAL DATA REDUCTION
COMPUTATIONS
|
|
|
|
Systematic errors which cannot be
sufficiently controlled by instrumentation or observational techniques are
minimized by applying appropriate corrections to the observed data. |
|
(See Balazs and Young, 1982). |
|
|
|
NGS applies seven corrections |
|
Level Collimation |
|
Scale Imperfections |
|
Refraction |
|
Curvature |
|
Tidal Accelerations |
|
Gravity Field |
|
Magnetic Fields |
EXECUTION OF
SURVEYS
SOURCES OF ERROR
|
|
|
|
|
Blunders |
|
|
|
The sources of error in leveling can be
classified into three groups: |
|
|
|
Those affecting the line of sight |
|
|
|
Those affecting the heights computed |
|
|
|
Blunders |
Error Sources Associated
With Differential Leveling
|
|
|
|
Error Source Typical Size of Error |
|
in mm Per 1 km Section |
|
Blunders: |
|
Forward pin or plate movement between
setups
10.0 |
|
One rod unit or larger error in reading
the rod
.. 5.0 |
|
|
|
Systematic Errors: |
|
Rod verticality error
... 1.0 |
|
Rod scale error
. 2.0 |
|
Thermal expansion of Invar rod
. 0.2 |
|
Rod index error
.. 1.0 |
|
Movement of tripod during setup (if set
up correctly)
0.2 |
|
Gradual movement of turning points: |
|
during setups
0.6 |
|
between setups
0.6 |
|
|
Error Sources Associated
With Differential Leveling
|
|
|
Error Source Typical Size of Error |
|
in mm Per 1 km Section |
|
Systematic Errors Continued: |
|
|
|
Collimation
..
. 2.4 |
|
Under and over compensation
.. 0.4 |
|
Refraction
.. 2.0 |
|
Refraction change during setup
. 0.6 |
|
Diurnal Earth tides
0.1 |
|
Earths magnetic field
.. 1.0 |
|
NI 002 parallax
. 0.6 |
Error Sources Associated
With Differential Leveling
|
|
|
Error Source Typical Size of Error |
|
in mm Per 1 km Section |
|
Quasi Random Errors: |
|
|
|
Scintillation, short-period
. 1.0 |
|
Scintillation, long-period
...
.. 5.0 |
|
Pointing error (experienced observer)..
...
..
0.4 |
|
Rod error in individual graduations
..
. 0.1 |
|
|
|
*** |
|
|
|
NOTE: Assumes 50 meter sight lengths
and 10 setups per 1 kilometer section. |
|
|
NAVD 88 DATUM DEFINITION
AND RESULTS
Slide 33
NAVD 88 PROGRAM
DEFINITION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NAVD 88 is a program which combined
1,300,00 kilometers of leveling surveys held in the NGS National Spatial
Reference System (NSRS) data base, into a single least squares adjustment to
provide users with improved heights for over 500,000 vertical control points
distributed throughout the United States, on a common datum. |
Slide 35
Slide 36
PRESENT NETWORK FOR NAVD
88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ORIGINAL LEVELING 700,000 KM |
|
|
|
REPEAT LEVELING 200,000 KM |
|
|
|
NEW BNA LEVELING 81,500 KM |
|
|
|
NEW OUTSIDE LEVELING 20,000 KM |
|
|
|
TOTAL FOR NAVD 88 1,001,500 KM |
|
(620,000
MILES) |
Slide 38
Slide 39
NEW YORK VERTICAL NETWORK
|
|
|
NGVD 29 bench marks . . . . . . . . . 12,927 |
|
|
|
NAVD 88 bench marks . . . . . . . . . 14,529 |
|
(INCLUDES POSTED DATA) |
|
|
|
POSTED bench marks . . . . . . . . .
. 609 |
|
|
|
Bench marks without |
|
NAVD 88 heights . . . . . .
. . . . 599* |
|
|
|
*Includes TBMs, some RESETS, and new
marks on lines not included in NAVD 88 general adjustment |
Slide 41
Slide 42
Slide 43
NORTH AMERICALN VERTICAL
DATUM
OF 1988 (NAVD 88)
|
|
|
THE U.S. PORTION OF THE PROJECT
INCLUDED THE REMONUMENTATION AND REOBSERVATION OF AN 80,000 KILOMETER SUBSET
OF THE VERTICAL CONTROL PORTION OF THE NATIONAL SPATIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM. |
|
|
|
A MINIMUM-CONSTRAINT LEAST SQUARES
ADJUSTMENT OF LEVELING DATA INVOLVING 709,000 MARKS WAS PERFORMED. |
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL
DATUM
OF 1988 (NAVD 88)
|
|
|
IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS ON
USGS NATIONAL MAPPING PRODUCTS (NMPs), AS REQUESTED BY USERS, NGS SELECTED
THE NEW INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES DATUM OF 1985 (IGLD 85) LOCAL MEAN SEA
LEVEL HEIGHT VALUE AT MINIMUM-CONSTRAINT DATUM POINT FOR NAVD 88. THE DATUM POINT IS LOCATED AT THE MOUTH OF
THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER IN QUEBEC, CANADA. |
|
|
|
USING FATHER POINT/RIMOUSKI AS THE
DATUM POINT FOR BOTH IGLD 85 AND NAVD 88 MINIMIZES THE IMPACT ON NMPs, AND
ALLOWS NAVD 88 TO REPLACE BOTH NGVD 29 AND IGLD 55. |
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL
DATUM
OF 1988 (NAVD 88)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FISCAL THE GENERAL ADJUSTMENT DID NOT
INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 25 PERCENT OF THE VERTICAL CONTROL NETWORK. BENCH MARKS IN STABLE AREAS WHICH WERE
REMOVED FROM THE ADJUSTMENT (DENOTED AS POSTED) BECAUSE OLDER DATA DID
NOT FIT WITH THE LATEST DATA. THIS
DATA WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE NAVD 88 DURING YEARS 1992-1993. |
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL
DATUM
OF 1988 (NAVD 88)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NAVD 88 DOES NOT CONTAIN USGS, COE, OR
STATE DOT THIRD-ORDER LEVELING DATA. |
|
|
|
USGS PERSONNEL HAVE PERFORMED PILOT
STUDIES TO DETERMINE HOW TO BEST INCORPORATE THEIR THIRD-ORDER DATA INTO NAVD
88 (ABOUT A 5-10 YEAR PROGRAM) |
NAVD 88 DATUM DEFINITION
|
|
|
Vertical datum based upon an
equipotential surface |
|
|
|
Minimally constrained adjustment held
fixed at one point, Father Point/Riouski (Point-au-Pere) |
|
|
|
1.3 million kms of leveling data used |
|
|
|
Heights of 585,000 permanent bench
marks estimated. |
|
|
|
Both orthometric heights and
geopotential numbers have been published |
NAVD 88 GENERAL
ADJUSTMENT COMPLETION DATE OF JUNE 1991:
WHAT DOES THIS REALLY MEAN?
|
|
|
|
|
The general adjustment of NAVD 88 was
completed in June 1991. This means
that bench marks included in the NAVD 88 Helmert blocking phase
(approximately 80 percent of the total) have final adjusted heights
available. |
|
|
|
Bench marks in stable areas which
were removed from the adjustment (denoted as POSTed) because older data did
not fit with the latest data was
incorporated into NAVD 88 during fiscal years 1992-1993. |
NAVD 88 GENERAL
ADJUSTMENT COMPLETION
DATE OF JUNE 1991:
WHAT DOES THIS REALLY MEAN?
|
|
|
|
|
Bench marks POSTed in large crustal
movement areas, e.g., southern California, Phoenix, Arizona, Houston, Texas,
and southern Louisiana was published as special reports after the final
adjustment was completed. This is an
on-going, long-term task which was started in January 1992. It is important to note that some bench
marks in crustal movement areas, i.e., bench marks which were included in the
NAVD 88 Helmert blocking phase, is available.
The heights of these bench marks will be based on the latest available
data, but still may be influenced by crustal movement effects. |
Most surveying
applications should not be significantly affected because the changes in relative
height between adjacent bench marks should be less than 1 cm. As stated above, the absolute height values
will change much more, but this should not be a major concern to the
surveyor. The greatest problem the
surveyor will have is ensuring that all height values of bench marks in the
project area are referenced to the same
vertical datum, preferably NAVD 88 and labeled correctly (metadata). Other agencies bench marks, e.g., COE, FL
Department of Transportation, FL Department of Environmental Protection, and
USGS, were incorporated into NAVD 88 by NGS as these agencies provided, and
still do, their data in computer-readable form.
However, the leveling data associated with over 500,000 third-order
bench marks established by USGS have not been placed in computer-readable form
and do not have NAVD 88 heights. In
addition, COE has established hundreds of thousands of bench marks across the
nation which do not have NAVD 88 heights.
IMPACT OF NAVD 88
|
|
|
|
|
|
Data Bases containing heights
referenced to NGVD 29 will have to be updated to NAVD 88 |
|
|
|
Depending upon the accuracy required,
in many areas a Bias Factor could be used for
bench marks not included in the readjustment |
|
|
|
In Moving areas a Bias Factor
probably will not be sufficient for most applications |
IMPACT OF NAVD 88
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published Heights of Bench Marks Have
Changed |
|
|
|
Published height values has shifted as
much as 5 decimeters |
|
|
|
In Stable areas, Relative height
changes between adjacent bench marks should only be millimeters |
|
|
|
In Moving areas, Relative height
changes have been dependent upon the reasons for the movements. |
IMPACT OF NAVD 88
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maps depicting NGVD 29 Heights will
have to be modified for NAVD 88
Heights |
|
|
|
In many areas a Single Bias Factor,
Describing the Difference between NGVD 29 and NAVD 88, could be used for most
Mapping Applications |
|
|
|
In Moving areas, maps depicting the
rates of movements will have to be compiled |
REASONS TO CONVERT
PRODUCTS TO NAVD 88
|
|
|
Surveys between bench marks will often
close better |
|
NAVD 88 has provided a better reference
to compute GPS-Derived Orthometric Heights |
|
40,000 Additional bench marks of
First-Order accuracy is available on NAVD 88 |
|
Data and NAVD 88 adjusted height values
is readily available and accessible in a convenient format from NGSs web
site: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov |
|
Federal Surveying and Mapping agencies
will stop publishing on NGVD 29 and will publish only on NAVD 88 |
|
Surveys performed for the Federal
Government requires the use of NAVD 88 |
REASONS TO CONVERT
PRODUCTS TO NAVD 88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE AMERICAN CONGRESS ON SURVEYING AND
MAPPING (ACSM) AND THE FEDERAL GEODETIC CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE (FGCS) RECOMMEND
NAVD 88. |
|
|
|
National Geodetic Survey no longer
adjust to NGVD 29 |
BENEFITS OF NAVD 88
|
|
|
Improved set of heights on a single
vertical datum for North America |
|
|
|
Improved FGCS Leveling procedures with
higher production and lower error rates |
|
|
|
All NGS National Spatial Reference
System data is validated in a single data base, with easy access by users for
crustal motion studies, adjustments, latest official heights, and
descriptions |
|
|
|
Removal of height discrepancies caused
by inconsistent adjustment constraints |
BENEFITS OF NAVD
88
(CONTINUED)
|
|
|
Detection and Removal of height errors
due to blunders |
|
|
|
Minimization of effects of systematic
errors in leveling data |
|
|
|
Replacement of both NGVD 29 and IGLD 55
with a single datum |
|
|
|
Remonumentation and incorporation of
80,000 km of new leveling data not previously adjusted to NGVD 29 |
|
|
|
Orthometric Heights compatible with
GPS-Derived Orthometric Heights computed using the High-Resolution Geoid
Model called Geoid99 |
Slide 59
NAVD 88 IMPLEMENTATION
NAVD 88 IMPLEMENTATION
|
|
|
Published and distributed NAVD 88
height values |
|
|
|
Processed and distributed height values
for POSTed data |
|
|
|
FGCS Vertical Workgroup input from ACSM
Ad Hoc Committee |
|
|
|
USGS third-order vertical data |
|
|
|
FEMA/National Flood Insurance program |
FGCS VERTICAL WORK GROUP
|
|
|
MEMBERS: |
|
|
|
National Geodetic Survey (Chair) |
|
U.S. Geological Survey |
|
Federal Highway Administration |
|
International Boundary Commission |
|
Bureau of Land Management |
|
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers |
|
U.S. Forest Service |
|
Federal Emergency Management Agency |
ACSM AD HOC
COMMITTEE
GEOGRAPHIC MAKEUP
|
|
|
East Coast (Florida to Massachusetts) |
|
|
|
Gulf Coast |
|
|
|
Interior Southern States |
|
|
|
Great Lakes area |
|
|
|
Plains and Mountain States |
|
|
|
Pacific Coast (California to
Washington) |
ACSM AD HOC
COMMITTEE
DISCIPLINE MAKEUP
|
|
|
Land Surveyors |
|
|
|
Geodetic Surveyors |
|
|
|
Mappers |
|
|
|
ACSM Private Members |
|
|
|
ACSM Government Members |
FEMAS RESPONSE
TO NAVD 88
FEMAS Response to NAVD
88
|
|
|
|
Local Mean Sea Level (LMSL) |
|
determined at individual tide gages |
|
|
|
Sea Level Datum (SLD) of 1929 |
|
constrained at 26 tide gages in the
U.S. and Canada |
|
|
|
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of
1929 (NGVD 29) |
|
renamed from SLD of 1929 to avoid
confusion with LMSL |
|
|
|
North American Vertical Datum of 1988
(NAVD 88) |
|
constrained only at Pointe au Pere gage
on St. Lawrence River |
FEMAs Response to NAVD
88
|
|
|
|
FEMA mapped and prepared Flood
Insurance Studies (FISs) for thousands of communities with flood elevations |
|
vertical reference is the datum as
defined by NGS |
|
|
|
FISs contain flood profiles |
|
|
|
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)
contain flood elevations and Elevation Reference Marks (ERMs) |
|
|
|
Letters of Map Amendment and Revision
(LOMAs and LOMRs) are issued based on elevation comparisons |
FEMAs Response to NAVD
88
|
|
|
FEMA Users Include: |
|
Banks and mortgage institutions
(lenders) |
|
Flood insurance agents |
|
Surveyors, engineers, architects, and
planners |
|
Community floodplain, planning, and
zoning officials |
|
|
|
FEMA Contractors Include: |
|
Federal and State water resources
agencies |
|
Regional water resources commissions |
|
Private architectural and engineering
firms |
FEMAs Response to NAVD
88
|
|
|
Lenders initiate flood insurance
purchase requirement based on FIRMs |
|
|
|
Surveyors provide Elevation
Certificates for flood insurance agents and lenders |
|
|
|
Community officials enforce floodplain
management regulations, which are based on FIS and FIRM |
|
|
|
Federal contractors must know how and
when to implement conversion |
FEMAs Response to NAVD
88
|
|
|
|
Responsibility of Map Users |
|
|
|
ensure use of datum consistent with FIS
and FIRM |
|
|
|
|
|
Responsibility of FEMA Contractors |
|
|
|
adherence to FEMA guidelines for
conversion |
|
documentation of datum used in FIS and
FIRM |
|
ensure datum consistency throughout FIS
and FIRM |
FEMAs Response to NAVD
88
|
|
|
How Will FEMA Accomplish Conversion? |
|
|
|
Educate staff* |
|
Educate contractors* |
|
Educate users* |
|
Close coordination with NGS |
|
|
|
*FEMA has published two documents: |
|
Appendix 6, Conversion to the North
American Vertical Datum 1988 |
|
Converting the NFIP to the NAVD 88 |
FEMAs Response to NAVD
88
|
|
|
|
FEMAs Original Plan |
|
New Studies - FY 93 FISs |
|
(scope of work April 92) |
|
Map actions FY93 as practicable |
|
FEMAs Current Proposal |
|
Update Appendix 6, Conversion to the
NAVD 88 |
|
Refine strategy for an orderly
transition of FISs and FIRMs to NAVD 88 |
|
Gradually convert based on
opportunities to republish FISs and FIRMs for other reasons. |
|
Ultimate goal is to convert all FISs to
NAVD 88 |
Slide 73
Slide 74
Slide 75
Slide 76
Slide 77
Slide 78
Slide 79
Slide 80
Slide 81
Slide 82
Slide 83
Slide 84
Slide 85
NGS RESPONSIBILITIES
|
|
|
Performed procedures to officially
replace NGVD 29 with NAVD 88 |
|
|
|
Compiled documentation to brief
Congress and State officials on NAVD 88 impacts and benefits to minimize
problems with uniformed users |
|
|
|
Provided documentation and publication
of NAVD 88 final results |
NGS RESPONSIBILITIES
|
|
|
Estimated conversion (bias) shifts
between NGVD 29 and NAVD 88 |
|
|
|
Analyzed bias shift computations to
determine where other data, e.g., COE and/or USGS data, may be required (in
computer-readable form) to improve the estimate of the bias factor |
|
|
|
Analyzed the vertical control network
to determine local areas where height changes are due to crustal movement |
NGS RESPONSIBILITIES
|
|
|
Analyzed the vertical control network
to separate bias shifts into components: changes due to datum definition,
crustal movement, improved corrections applied to leveling data to account
for systematic errors, and removal of adjustment distortions in NGVD 29 |
|
|
|
Incorporate other data, e.g., COE
and/or USGS data, into NAVD 88 (data must be in computer-readable form) |
|
|
|
Educate NAVD 88 users |
NAVD 88 USERS
RESPONSIBILITIES
|
|
|
Provide Kinds Of Data, Reports,
Routines, and Training Required To Implement NAVD 88 |
|
|
|
Relay (In A Timely Manner) To NGS
Problems with Implementation Of NAVD 88 |
NAVD 88 CONVERSION
TECHNIQUES
BASIC CONVERSION
TECHNIQUES
|
|
|
Estimation of bench mark heights by
incorporating the original
leveling data into NAVD 88 using least squares adjustment techniques |
|
|
|
A rigorous transformation of bench mark
heights for a particular project using datum conversion correctors estimated
from the projects original adjustment constraints and their differences
between NAVD 88 and NGVD 29 |
|
|
|
A simplified transformation of bench
mark heights using an average bias shift for the area (VERTCON) |
CONVERSION
TECHNIQUES
(CONTINUED)
|
|
|
Technique number 1 is the most rigorous
technique because the bench mark heights will retain their original relative
accuracy. These heights will be useful
to all users. In addition, NGS will adjust and publish the results if the
data are submitted to NGS in computer-readable form. Technique number 2 may meet many users
requirements, but depending upon the accuracy requirements and the complexity
of the userss leveling network, may prove to NGS to process. Technique number 3 should be the easiest
method to implement, but in general is only sufficiently accurate enough to
meet mapping requirements. |
CONVERSION TECHNIQUES
|
|
|
The use of GPS data and a
high-resolution geoid model (Geoid99) to estimate accurate GPS-derived
orthometric heights will be directly associated with the implementation of
NAVD 88. It is important that users
initiate a program to convert their products to NAVD 88. The conversion process is not a difficult
one, but will require time and resources.
There will be several different conversion techniques available. The technique used will depend on the
accuracy requirement of the user, I.e., procedures developed for conversion
of less accurate GIS/LIS products will be different than procedures developed
for conversion of USGS NGVD 29 published height values. |
Slide 94
Review
|
|
|
Vertical Datums |
|
Height Systems |
|
NAVD 88 Project |
|
NAVD 88 Implementation |
|
FEMA & NAVD 88 |
|
NAVD 88 Conversion Techniques |
Slide 96