A survey of techniques and algorithms in

deformation monitoring applications and the use

of the Locata technology for such applications
M .M. Choudhury, Chris Rizos, Bruce Harvey
University of New South Wales, Australia

BIOGRAPHY used in “slow” structural deformation monitoring

Mohammad Mazher-ul Alam Choudhury is currently a
Ph.D. student at the School of Surveying & Spatial
Information Systems, University of New South Wales
(UNSW), Sydney, Australia. His current research area is
integrating Locata technology into an automated
deformation monitoring application. He holds a Masters
in Computer Science Degree from UNSW, and B.E.
(Computer Science) degree from North South University,
Bangladesh.
Chris Rizos is currently Professor and Head of the School
of Surveying & Spatial Information Systems, UNSW.
Chris has been researching the technology and high
precision applications of GPS since 1985, and has
published over 400 journal and conference papers. He is a
Fellow of the Australian Institute of Navigation and a
Fellow of the International Association of Geodesy
(IAG). He is currently the Vice President of the IAG and
a member of the Governing Board of the International
GNSS Service.
Bruce Harvey is a Senior Lecturer at the School of
Surveying & Spatial Information Systems, UNSW. Bruce
has been researching least squares survey data analysis
and alternatives, high precision industrial survey
measurements, deformation monitoring surveys and 3D
terrestrial laser scanning techniques since 1985.
ABSTRACT
24/7 deformation monitoring of manmade structures is a
challenging research issue due to high labour cost or
dependency on favourable geometry (in the case of
GPS/GNSS). Locata, working on similar principles to
carrier phase-based GPS, is a possible technology for use
in deformation monitoring applications by providing
millimetre level precision and centimetre level accuracy.
This paper reviews current techniques and algorithms
applications and the potential use of Locata technology
within a Locata Deformation Monitoring Software
(LDMS). A simulated deformation experiment has been
conducted for the verification and validation of LDMS.
1. INTRODUCTION
Dams, bridges, and large or tall buildings are examples of
structures that are routinely surveyed and monitored for
their stability. Examples of structural failure in Australia
include the accident during the construction of the West
Gate Bridge in Melbourne and the slope failure in
Thredbo village (Kosciusko National Park, New South
Wales). According to the Department of Consumer and
Employment Protection of the state government of
Western Australia, 883 wall failure incidents have been
reported during the last 15 years. Such incidents
demonstrate the urgency of developing reliable, cost-
effective systems for monitoring engineering
infrastructures.
Slow structural deformation monitoring systems are based
on a variety of technologies. However, the most popular
are total station surveys and GPS/GNSS. These methods
have drawbacks due to cost, labour resources, and
dependency on favourable geometry. The main
motivation for using GPS is its ability to monitor 24/7 and
the centimetre-level accuracy achievable using relative
positioning, carrier phase-based methods. On the other
hand, the accuracy, availability, reliability, and integrity
of GPS solutions depend on the number and geometric
distribution of visible satellites. The variability of the
Dilution of Precision (DOP) value reflects the variable
quality of the position solutions that is attributable to
varying satellite geometry. Furthermore the height
component is generally 2 or 3 times worse than the
horizontal components. In addition, solutions degrade
further when satellites signals are blocked due to
obstructions, or the presence of multipath, as in urban
canyons, dam monitoring in valleys, or in deep, open-cut
mines where GPS technology cannot always provide
accurate and reliable position solutions. Therefore
continuous deformation monitoring using GPS is not
always feasible.
To overcome such GPS deficiencies, Locata
Corporation‟s positioning technology “Locata” was
developed to provides position solutions using a network
(a “LocataNet”) of time-synchronised pseudolite-like
transceivers (the “LocataLites”). These LocataLites
transmit ranging signals in the licence-free 2.4GHz
Industry Scientific and Medical band. When a Locata
receiver tracks four or more LocataLite signals, it can
generate solutions with centimetre-level accuracy (e.g.
Barnes et al., 2004), which offers advantages for use in a
deformation monitoring system where GPS may not be
able to operate. In order to use Locata in slow
deformation monitoring applications the authors have
developed the Locata Deformation Monitoring System
(LDMS). A brief survey of algorithms used in current
structural deformation monitoring systems, and a
description of the design of the LDMS is presented in this
paper.
This paper is organised as follows. In section 2 the Locata
technology is briefly introduced; in section 3 current
structural deformation monitoring algorithms and
techniques are reviewed; in section 4 use of Locata is
introduced; and in section 5, a description of the design of
the LDMS is given; in section 6 simulation experiments
and results are presented; and finally, section 7 draws
conclusions.
2. LOCATA TECHNOLOGY
Locata Corporation‟s technology, Locata, was developed
to provide high accuracy positioning in any environment
via a network of time synchronised pseudolite-like
transceivers. The Locata positioning technology is
composed of three basic components: (1) the LocataLite
(a transceiver), (2) the LocataNet (a collection of
LocataLites), and (3) the Locata receiver used for making
range and phase measurements from the LocataLites. One
special property of the LocataNet is the time
synchronisation of LocataLites, which permits single
point positioning (i.e. no differential methods or
transmitted data corrections). The LocataLites transmit
strong signals in the licence-free 2.4GHz Industry
Scientific and Medical band that can penetrate through
different materials (Tambuwala et al., 2007). When a
Locata receiver tracks four or more signals from different
locataLites, it can compute 3D position entirely
independent of GPS. A detail description of the Locata
technology can be found in, for example, Barnes et al.
(2004).
3. CURRENT DEFORMATION MONITORING
TECHNIQUES, ALGORITHMS AND SOFTWARE
3.1. Deformation Monitoring Techniques
Deformation monitoring applications can be classified
into several categories according to the phenomenon
being monitored: tectonic movement, landslides, glacier
ice movement, ground subsistence, seismic deformation,
beach erosion, man-made structure, etc. (Caspary, 2000).
Different applications require different types of
measurement instruments and techniques. Depending on
the measurement techniques, structural deformation
monitoring techniques can be categorised into two groups,
namely geodetic and non-geodetic (e.g.,
geotechnical/structural) methods (Setan et al., 2003; Erol
et al., 2002). Geodetic deformation monitoring can be
further subdivided, depending on the instrument
technology being used, into terrestrial methods and space
methods. Instrument used in terrestrial geodetic
measurement techniques include precision tape,
crackmeter, digital levelling instrument, EDM (Electronic
distance meter), theodolites, TS (total stations), RTS
(robotic total stations), terrestrial laser scanning, laser
tracker, hydrostatic levelling, invar distance measurement,
photogrammety, etc., while instruments for space
geodetic measurement techniques include VLBI (Very
Long Base Interferometry), SLR (Satellite Laser
Ranging), SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) techniques
(DInSAR and PSInSAR), and more commonly GNSS
(Global Navigation Satellite System). Currently the
Global Positioning System (GPS) is the only fully
operational GNSS, although GLONASS will be
operational within a year or two. On the other hand, non-
geodetic instrumentation for deformation monitoring
include accelerometer, extensometer, inclinometer,
magnetic column, piezometer, tiltmeter, vibration meter,
strain/stress, etc. Detailed descriptions of these devices
can be found in, for example, Forward (2002), Erol et al.
(2002) and Rüeger (2006).
Traditional theodolites, EDM, TS and RTS based
terrestrial deformation survey can deliver millimetre-level
accuracy and sub-millimetre-level precision (Harvey &
Coleman, 1993; USACE, 2002) but typically are labour
intensive. On the other hand, space geodetic measurement
techniques can provide sub-centimetre to centimetre-level
accuracy with 24/7 deformation monitoring capability.
However, in terms of budget and deformation monitoring
frequency, GPS-based deformation monitoring challenges
conventional surveying methods and photogrammetry due
to recent developments in GPS hardware and software
(Ogaja et al., 2007). On the other hand, accuracy,
availability, reliability and integrity of the position
solutions, derived from GPS, are not only dependent on
satellite geometry, but also differential corrections or
measurements from a single reference station or a
Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS)
network (Barnes et al., 2007a). Thus combinations of
GPS with other deformation monitoring technologies,
such as RTS (Bond, 2007), accelerometers (Meng, 2002),
and pseudolites (Barnes et al., 2004), have been used in
GPS-challenged areas such as urban canyons,
deepvalleys, or deep open-cut mines. On the other hand,
Locata provides a new opportunity to address
shortcomings of current GPS-based structural
deformation monitoring systems. Barnes et al. (2004,
2007a, 2007b) have demonstrated that the Locata
technology can be used for structural deformation
monitoring, with high accuracy, availability, reliability
and integrity.

3.2. DEFORMATION MONITORING

ALGORITHMS

Deformation monitoring and detection, using geodetic

methods, generally involves least square estimation (LSE)
of each epoch and detection of deformation (or change in
coordinates) between epochs (e.g. Setan et al., 2003;
Harvey, 2006). However, GPS-based deformation
monitoring systems also uses sequential least square
estimation (SLSE) (e.g. Andersson, 2008). Deformation
monitoring systems use algorithms for datum analysis,
indentification of gross errors and blunder detection, and
deformation network analysis. Following LSE, algorithms
for outlier detection, statistical testing and relative
deformation body analysis are also needed (Caspary,
2000; Welsch & Heunecke, 2001; USACE, 2002).

In general, a deformation monitoring system involves four

fundamental steps, namely measurement collection, LSE
and statistical testing, reference point stability checking,
and deformation detection and analysis (Harvey, 2006).

In the first step, a deformation monitoring network and

observation scheme is established to achieve some
Figure 1: Flowchart of least square estimation with
specified accuracy and precision (Caspary, 2000).
statistical testing.
Measurements are collected during different epochs (i.e.
different time period).
Datum analysis defines the fixed parameters in a
deformation network whose stability can be analysed at
In the second step, each epoch‟s measurements are
single epochs, two epoch adjustment and/or multi-epoch
separately adjusted using a LSE procedure, which may be
adjustment (Caspary, 2000). Datum defects (Ibid, 2000)
checked using a global test (Chi-square), local test
can also be removed by the Bayesian least square method
(Pope‟s Tau test or Baarda‟s Data Snooping), or residual
(Harvey, 2006) or an S-transformation (similarity
testing. It is essential to perform initial checking on the
transformation) which can facilitate the change of datum
raw data and test the aposteriori variance factors of both
definition without repeating the LSE process (Caspary,
epochs before deformation analysis (Setan & Sing, 2001;
2000). On the other hand, network analysis helps to detect
Erol et al., 2003; Harvey, 2006). Datum and deformation
over-constrained networks and the defects of deformation
network analysis is necessary before designing the LSE,
network configuration which can be improved by
because of issues such as rank deficiency and the internal
additional measurements. A flowchart of the LSE is
geometry of the monitoring network.
presented in Figure 1.
SLSE is a version of LSE where observations are
continuously accumulated over time and LSE executed. A
discussion of SLSE can be found in Andersson (2008).
(IWST), Least Absolute Sum (LAS), Danish method, and
M-estimation (Huber) method. The IWST and LAS
methods are popular for space geodetic deformation (i.e.
GPS-based) monitoring techniques as well as other 24/7
terrestrial geodetic deformation (i.e. RTS-based)
monitoring techniques. The IWST and LAS methods use
the S-transformation (commonly known as the Helmert
transformation) to help identify the unstable reference
points.

Figure 2: Flowchart of reference point stability.

The third step focuses on the stability of the reference

points. This process commonly involves „two epoch
analysis‟ and free network solutions. After freenet
analysis, the coordinate differences (between epochs) and
cofactor matrix of common reference points are
determined. Then the stability of the reference points is
analysed. There are two common methods used for
analysing the stability of reference points, namely the
congruency testing method and the robust method. In
congruency testing method, after the LSE calculation of
the networks separately, the combined LSE is applied to
both epochs‟ measurement. The results from free network
adjustment are checked according to congruency test
method. Failure of the congruency test leads to single
point diagnosis for identifying unstable reference points
that direct to second step as the datum is changed
(Caspary, 2000; Harvey, 2006). This looping will stop
when all the unstable reference points are removed.

Figure 2 illustrates the process of identifying unstable

Figure 3: Flowchart of free network analysis.
reference points. Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the flowchart of
free network analysis, the congruency test method and the
single point diagnosis method, respectively.

On the other hand, different robust methods are available,

such as Iterative Weighted Similarity Transformation
 Figure 4: Flowchart of congruency testing method.
Further details on free network solutions and the
congruency testing method can be found in Caspary
(2000) and Setan & Sing (2001). Details of IWST and
LAS can be found in Chen et al. (1990), Setan & Sing
(2001), USACE (2002) and Welsch & Heunecke (2001).
The last step is focused on deformation detection and
analysis. Deformation detection is similar to the LSE of
stage two mentioned earlier. However, this LSE requires
both epochs‟ measurements for adjustment and to derive
the combined variance covariance matrix necessary for
generating relative error ellipses, for calculating the
distances between points and for generating the standard
Figure 5: Flowchart of single point diagnosis.
deviations. Statistically significant deformation of a point
is associated with the 95% confidence interval of the
displacement of points between epochs. This will be
referred as „statistical threshold‟ for the remainder of this
paper. Formulas and procedures for identifying „statistical
threshold‟ are described in Harvey (2006).
However, there is another method of deformation
detection, described by USACE (2002). In this method
separate LSE adjustment of both epochs is not required,
rather displacements (i.e. coordinate difference of points
between epochs) and each point‟s standard deviation are
calculated from stage two. Statistically significant
deformation of a point exists if the magnitude of the
displacement is greater than the 95% confidence ellipse
for that point.
Deformation analysis is mainly focused on geometrical
deformation analysis, i.e. analysis for single point
displacement, rigid body movement, homogeneous strain,
and development of deformation model with respect to
time and space, as well as graphical representation of the
deformation (e.g. as error ellipses). Chen et al. (1983),
Seten & Sing (2001) and USACE (2002) describe
different analysis procedures.
3.3. DEFORMATION MONITORING SOFTWARE
Software is a key element of a Deformation Monitoring
System (DMS). An enormous amount of data may be
collected from a large number of „rover‟ receivers,
processed and analysed, in order to detect deformation.
There are several well known DMS software packages,
including ALERT (Wilkins et al., 2004), UGPS
(Andersson, 2008), GOCA (Jäger & Gonzales, 2005),
from different university and research groups. In addition,
there are vendor-based DMS software such as Leica‟s
GeoMoS. In principle DMSs can be categorised into two
main groups: Automated Deformation Monitoring System
(ADMS) and Post-processing Deformation Monitoring
System (PDMS). All of these software packages have
similar functionality. DMS software components are: (1)
data acquisition, (2) quality control and validation, (3)
position solution through carrier phase differential
correction and quality control, and (4) statistical testing
for deformation alarm. In the data acquisition component
the measurements are collected from receivers or devices
via some form of network communications, e.g. ethernet
or wireless communications. These measurements are
checked for random, systematic and gross errors, cycle
slips (in the case of GPS), and possibly for vendor
specified quality control criteria. Once all the checking is
completed then the position solution module determines
coordinates from “clean” measurements.
4: USE OF LOCATA IN DEFORMATION
MONITORING APPLICATION
Locata Corporation‟s positioning technology “Locata”
provides reliable positioning accuracy using a network of
time synchronised pseudolite-like transceivers. This
technology can provide centimetre-level accuracy without
using traditional line-of-sight methods. Furthermore GPS
requires a reference station to achieve centimetre-level
relative accuracy. During the last five years Locata has
demonstrated its capability for different positioning
applications. Barnes et al (2004) first used Locata for
structural deformation monitoring in a trial conducted at
Parsley Bay Suspension Footbridge, Sydney, Australia.
Using epoch by epoch solutions, Locata identified the
smallest movement of 2cm, and the derived standard
deviation of the horizontal and vertical components was
below 5mm and 3cm respectively. However, the stability
of the LocataNet as well as the kinematic deformation
models were not tested.
Barnes et al (2007a) have investigated the long term
stability of Locata positioning solutions, and the results
have demonstrated that Locata successfully identified
centimetre-level movement.
Stability analysis of Locatalite is a research challenge. As
of 2009, Locatalite cannot measure the distance (or carrier
phase measurement) from another LocataLite except the
master locataLite (i.e. the nominated LocataLite for time
synchronisation (Barnes et al., 2004)). This drawback
prevents the use of free network or minimum constraint
solutions which are generally used in stability analysis.
Free network or minimum constraint solutions depend on
measurements (e.g. distance, angle, etc.) between the
stable points in order to make the design matrix
consistent. This consistency means, in terms of the design
matrix, that the number of unknown parameters becomes
greater than the number of observations. However,
pseudo-observations might increase the number of
observations, but the design matrix is still singular (not
invertible) even though the S-transformation is implied.
On the other hand, the combination of RTS or GPS with
Locata can be used for free network analysis for
identifying unstable reference points.
According to the Locata system design, variations of the
distance (or carrier phase) measurements between the
master LocataLite and the other LocataLites can monitor
the stability of the LocataLites. However, this needs to be
validated.
5. CONCEPT DESIGN OF LOCATA
DEFORMATION MONITORING SOFTWARE
In order to use Locata for deformation monitoring a
software prototype of the Locata Deformation Monitoring
System (LDMS) was developed using Matlab. The LDMS
is divided into four fundamental components, namely data
acquisition, quality control and validation, coordinate
solution, and deformation monitoring analysis.
The data acquisition component is responsible for
collecting the data from all receivers and monitoring
stations in the network. The quality control and validation
step involves the identification of gross errors, cycle slip
detection and correction, Locata-defined QC checking
(such as minimum signal to noise ratio, maximum
pseudorange and carrier phase difference, etc.), maximum
carrier phase difference between successive epochs and
cluster carrier phase differences. The coordinate solution
component and the deformation monitoring component
complete the LDMS. This paper focuses on the post-
processing version of the software. Measurement data is
manually input and checked. All monitoring point
coordinates are then computed and their coordinates are
subsequently used in the network adjustment. At each
epoch the Locata deformation network is separately
adjusted, and each adjustment is checked for outliers.
Data definition for each epoch consists of five seconds of
accumulated Locata observations. This epoch definition
ensures sub-millimetre precision in horizontal position
components and millimetre-level precision in the vertical
component.
After each epoch‟s separate LSE, a combined LSE is
applied for identifying the statistical threshold as well as
the change in adjusted coordinates for a point across
different epochs. For example, the change in the
coordinates of monitoring point 1 between epoch 1 and 2
is calculated. A pre-deform-alert is generated when this
difference is more than the statistical threshold.
Consecutive pre-deform-alerts trigger the alert for
verifying the reference points‟ (i.e., the LocataLites‟)
stability. At this stage, the LocataLites‟ stability is
checked by continuously monitoring the signal variance
between LocataLites. A stability alarm for the LocataLite
is generated when the distance variance between the
master LocataLite and the other LocataLites is more than
a predefined threshold. If there is a stability alarm for a
LocataLite, then the network is readjusted excluding that
unstable LocataLite, and all alarms are turned off. On the
other hand, if there is no stability alarm, then the
deformation alarm is set for detailed deformation analysis
and modelling. A simple graphical presentation of LDMS
is presented in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Block diagram of LDMS
6. RESULTS
6.1 Experiment Purpose
The primary objective of a slow structural deformation
monitoring application is identifying millimetre to
centimetre-level movement. The purpose of this simulated
test was to determine the theoretical smallest simulated
movement by using LDMS.
The LDMS software was used for detecting simulated
deformation in a 3D network. A 3D experiment was
conducted in February 2009 at the University of New
South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia. In this
experiment four LocataLites were used together with four
Locata receivers on known pre-surveyed positions for one
hour. The receiver was configured to output data at 2Hz.
6.2 Results
Position solutions for the four network points are plotted
in Figures 7, 8, 9 and 10. The precision of the points as
well as the statistical deformation threshold for each point
is presented in Figures 11 and 12 respectively. Each of the
monitoring points has sub-millimetre precision on
horizontal components and millimetre-level precision on
vertical component.
Figure 7: Coordinate solution for point 1.
Figure 8: Coordinate solution for point 2.

Figure 11: Precision of all points.

In real-world situations, when there is no/little movement,

the statistical threshold is always higher or the same as the
position difference between the 1st epoch and the last
epoch (i.e. epoch number 2, 3, 4…..etc.), plotted in Figure
12.

However, to validate the performance of LDMS,

simulated deformation was introduced into point 4 in five
different test cases. These test cases are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Case studies.

Case Direction Simulated deformation(cm)
1 East 1
Figure 9: Coordinate solution for point 3. 2 North 1
3 Height 1
4 East & North 0.4cm in East & 0.3cm in North
(0.5cm total position change)
5 East, North & 0.2cm in East, 0.2cm in North
Height and 0.3cm in height (0.41cm
total position change)

Figure 10: Coordinate solution for point 4.

 epoch‟s data was changed from „every five seconds‟
accumulated data to „every ten seconds‟ accumulated
data. After changing the configuration file the LDMS
identified that simulated deformation. Because of the 50%
improvement in the precision of the height the lower
statistical threshold is able to identify the simulated
deformation. This result is plotted in Figure 14.

In case 4, although 0.4cm movement in East and 0.3cm

movement in North are introduced, the results indicate
0.5cm total position movement. However, LDMS faces
some challenges to identify simulated deformation when
the epoch data definition is „every five seconds‟
accumulated data, whereas LDMS successfully identifies
the simulated deformation when the epoch data is
changed to „every ten seconds‟ accumulated data. Figure
15 shows the comparison of both epoch data definitions.

Figure 12: Statistical deformation thresholds for four

different points.

Figure 14: Deformation identification case 3.

Figure 13: Deformation identification for cases 1 and 2.

Results for cases 1 and 2 are presented in Figure 13.

Although LDMS successfully identified cases 1 and 2 it
can be observed that deformation in the height component
(i.e., case 3) can not be (statistically) identified because of
the low precision of the height component determination.
This low precision is inversely proportional to the
statistical threshold. To improve precision LDMS
configurations need to be changed. Definition of every
 Figure 16: Deformation identification case 5.

Figure 15: Deformation identification case 4.

Finally, in case 5 the total position change is less than

0.5cm and is designed to check LDMS‟s capability of
detecting very small simulated position change, of the
order of 0.2cm in East, 0.2cm in North and 0.3cm in
height (total position change 0.41cm). Three different
epoch data definitions were used: „every five seconds‟,
„every ten seconds‟, and „every fifteen seconds‟
accumulated data. LDMS struggles to identify very small
simulated deformations with first two epoch data
definition, whereas it can successfully detect the
deformation using the 3rd epoch data definition, presented
in Figure 16, because of the improved precision (plotted
in Figure 17).

7. CONCLUDING REMARKS Figure 17: Precision of coordinates in case 5.

This paper discussed surveying-based deformation REFERENCES

monitoring techniques and algorithms, the useability of
the Locata technology for slow deformation monitoring,
and the concept design of a Locata deformation
monitoring system. Using simulated case studies it has
been shown that the Locata technology can be used to
detect millimetre-level position movement. However,
further real-world experiments are needed to establish the
applicability of LDMS for detecting millimetre-level
deformation. Five simulated case studies have been used
to test centimetre to millimetre-level deformation
monitoring. In all cases LDMS successfully detected the
movement.
1. Andersson, J.V., 2008. A Complete Model for
Displacement Monitoring Based on
Undifferenced GPS Observations. Ph.D. Thesis,
Division of Geodesy, Geodesy Report No 1066,
Royal Institute of Technology , Stockholm,
Sweden.
2. Barnes, J., Wang, J., Rizos, C., & Tsujii, T.,
2002. The performance of a pseudolite-based
positioning system for deformation monitoring.
2nd Symposium on Geodesy for Geotechnical &
Structural Applications, Berlin, Germany, 21-24
May, 326-337.
3. Barnes, J., Rizos, C., Kanli, M., Small, D.,
Voigt, G., Gambale, N., & Lamance, J., 2004.
Structural deformation monitoring using Locata.
 1st FIG Int. Symposium on Engineering Surveys
for Construction Works & Structural Eng.,
Nottingham, U.K., 28 June - 1 July, paper
TS4.4., CD-ROM proceedings.
4. Barnes, J., Cranenbroeck, J. van, Rizos, C.,
Pahwa, A., & Politi, A., 2007a. Long term
performance analysis of a new ground-
transceiver positioning network (LocataNet) for
structural deformation monitoring applications.
FIG Working Week "Strategic Integration of
Surveying Services", Hong Kong, 13-17 May,
Session TS5A GNSS2.
5. Barnes, J., Rizos, C., Pahwa, A., Politi, N., &
Cranenbroeck, J. van, 2007b. The potential for
Locata technology for structural monitoring
applications. Journal of GPS, 6(2), 166-172.
6. Bond, D.J., 2007. Bringing GPS into Harsh
Environments for Deformation Monitoring.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geodesy and
Geomatics Engineering, Technical Report No.
253, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton,
New Brunswick, Canada, 268pp.
7. Caspary, W.F., 2000. Concepts of Network and
Deformation Analysis. School of Geomatic
Engineering, Monograph 11, The University of
New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
8. Chen, Y.Q., 1983. Analysis of deformation
surveys – A generalised method. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Geodesy and
Geomatics Engineering, Technical Report No.
94, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton,
New Brunswick, Canada, 262pp.
9. Chen, Y.Q., Chrzanowski, A., & Secord, J. M.,
1990. A strategy for the analysis of the stability
of reference points in deformation surveys. CISM
Journal, 44(2), 141–149.
10. Erol, S., Erol B., & Ayan T., 2004. A general
review of the deformation monitoring techniques
and a case study: Analyzing deformations using
GPS leveling. XXth ISPRS Congress, 12-23 July,
Istanbul, Turkey, 622-628.
11. Forward, T.A., 2002. Quasi-Continuous GPS
Steep Slope Monitoring:Aa Multi-Antenna Array
Approach. PhD Thesis, Department of Spatial
Sciences, Curtin University of Technology,
Perth, Western Australia.
12. Harvey, B.R., 2006. Practical Least Squares and
Statistics for Land Surveyors. School of
Surveying and Spatial Information Systems,
Monograph 13, The University of New South
Wales, Sydney, Australia.
13. Harvey, B.R., & Coleman R, 1993. Surveying
the deflection of an arch bridge to sub-millimetre
precision. The Australian Surveyor, March,
38(1), 4-14.
14. Jäger, R., & Gonzales, F., 2005. GNSS/GPS/LPS
based Online Control and Alarm System
(GOCA) - Mathematical Models and Technical
Realisation of a System for Natural and
Geotechnical Deformation Monitoring and
Hazard Prevention. International Symposium on
Geodetic Deformation Monitoring: From
Geophysical to Engineering Roles. Jaen, Spain,
17- 18 March.
15. Meng, X., 2002. Real-time Deformation
Monitoring of Bridges Using
GPS/Accelerometers, Ph.D. dissertation,
Institute of Engineering Surveying and Space
Geodesy, The University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, United Kingdom.
16. Ogaja, C., Li, X., & Rizos, C., 2007. Advances
in structural monitoring with Global Positioning
System technology: 1997-2006. Journal of
Applied Geodesy, 1(3), 171-179.
17. Rüeger, J.M., 2006. Overview of geodetic
deformation measurements of dam. Annual
Congress of the Australian National Committee
on Large Dams (ANCOLD), 20-22 November,
Sydney, Australia.
18. Setan, H., & Sing, R., 2001. Deformation
analysis of a geodetic monitoring network.
Geomatica, 55(3), 333-346.
19. Setan, H., Som, Z.A.M., & Idris, K.M., 2003.
Deformation detection of lightweight concrete
block using geodetic and non-geodetic methods.
11th FIG Symposium on Deformation
Measurements, Santorini, Greece, 25-28 May.
20. Tambuwala, N., Jamaluddin, M., Politi, A., &
Dempster, A.G., 2007. Effect of different
construction materials on the propagation of
Locata‟s 2.4GHz signal. IGNSS2007 Symposium
on GPS/GNSS, Sydney, Australia, 4-6
December, paper 160, CD-ROM proceedings.
21. USACE, 2002. Structural Deformation
Surveying (EM 1110-2-1009). US Army Corps
of Engineers, Washington, DC.
22. Welsch, W., & Heunecke, O., 2001. Models and
terminology for the analysis of geodetic
monitoring observations. International
Federation of Surveyors, Publication No.25.
23. Wilkins, R., Chrzanowski, A., & Bastin, G.,
2003. ALERT - A fully automated real time
monitoring system. 11th International (FIG)
Symposium on Deformation Measurements,
Santorini, Greece, 25-28 May, 209-216.