Cited by 134Geodetic Measurements and Engineering StructuresGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsGNSS positioning and interference

Geodetic leveling and its applications

Vanicek, Petr, Castle, Robert O., Balazs, Emery I.·1980·Reviews of Geophysics

Abstract

The inherent precision of spirit leveling has preserved its utility as a geodetic measurement system for over a century. While various instrumental and procedural modifications designed to enhance this precision have been introduced over the years, the basic measurement system has remained virtually unchanged since the mid‐nineteenth century. Possible systematic error has dictated the majority of the procedural and instrumental requirements associated with geodetic leveling; the physical source(s) of several of these errors remain poorly understood. Statistically independent random errors, which accumulate according to the square root of the survey distance, are generally controlled through redundancy and procedural randomization; they range from 0.5 mm L 1/2 for the highest‐order modern leveling to about 6 mm L 1/2 for the lowest‐order nineteenth‐century geodetic surveys, where L is the survey distance in kilometers. Height differences are conceptually distinct from observed or measured elevation differences in the sense that the former are uniquely defined, whereas the latter are path dependent, a distinction that arises from the nonparallelism of the equipotential surfaces of the earth’s gravity field. The number of possible height systems is virtually limitless. They include the systems of geopotential numbers and dynamic heights; although neither of these systems is geometrically informative, each provides perfectly valid height characterizations that may be especially useful in the solution of certain physical problems. The most generally used system of heights is the orthometric height system; the resulting heights are true geometric heights above the geoid. Normal height systems are referred to the quasi‐geoid rather than the geoid. Each of the various height systems meets the requirement of uniqueness, and none can be viewed as being conceptually superior. Conversion of the observed elevation differences obtained from leveling into uniquely defined height differences requires the application of a gravity‐dependent correction. Because gravity coverage in North America was generally sparse until recently, an approximation for this correction, which provides for the effects of the poleward covergence of the equipotential surfaces, has usually been used on this continent. Heights have been traditionally referred to mean sea level as a datum, a usage that implies coincidence between mean sea level and the geoid (or quasi‐geoid). Because the determination of mean sea level is dependent on the length of the observation period, because its definition makes no allowance for vertical crustal displacements or changes in eustatic sea level, and because its definition disregards the demonstrable existence of sea surface topography, local mean sea level generally departs from the geoid. This introduces errors in computed heights that probably equal or exceed those due to leveling. Repeated levelings continue to provide the best basis for determining terrestrial vertical displacements. These displacements are necessarily measured with respect to the time‐dependent (instantaneous) geoid. Analysis of changes in the orthometric correction and changes in the geoid as a function of changes in gravity indicates that height determinations are almost insensitive to temporal variations in gravity. The simplest and probably the most accurate procedure for determining vertical displacements is based on direct comparisons between observed elevations derived from repeated levelings along the same line. The estimated errors associated with these displacements are a function of the precision of the utilized levelings and have been shown to be much smaller than those associated with heights. A smoothed representation of the vertical displacement field can be obtained by the fitting of a mathematical surface to the results of segmented relevelings. Surface‐fitting techniques usually tend to subdue short‐wavelength features, but they are especially useful in depicting artificially induced subsidence and broadly defined tectonic uplift or collapse.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/rg018i002p00505

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Relative heights between two nearby locations, as much as a few hundred km apart, can be determined with millimetre resolution by spirit levelling.

    “Relative heights between two nearby (as much as a few hundred km) locations can be determined with millimetre resolution by spirit levelling 19”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 41 · Cited by 134

Authors
Vanicek, P., Castle, R. O., & Balazs, E. I.
Venue
Reviews of Geophysics
Published
1980-05
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
505-524
ISSN
  • 0096-1043 (ISSN-L)
  • 8755-1209
  • 1944-9208
OpenAlex
W1979262708
Cited by
134
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
74.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Reviews of Geophysics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geodetic Measurements and Engineering Structures
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Geophysics and Gravity Measurements
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › GNSS positioning and interference
Keywords
geodetic leveling, spirit leveling, systematic errors, random error, height systems, orthometric height, normal height, geoid, quasigeoid, mean sea level, equipotential surfaces, dynamic height, geopotential numbers, North America, eustasy, sea surface topography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review