An investigation of the criteria used to select the polynomial models employed in local GNSS/leveling geoid determination studies

  • E. TusatEmail author
  • F. Mikailsoy
Original Paper


Ellipsoidal heights are determined with high accuracy using Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) techniques. In infrastructure projects undertaken for engineering purposes, orthometric heights are used. Geoid determination studies based on these two height systems are growing in importance. Although various methods are employed in geoid determination, one of the most commonly used in practice is local geoid determination. Points with known orthometric and ellipsoidal heights are used as reference points. These reference points are utilized to determine local geoid models for project area. The formation and selection of the most appropriate and true-to-reality model during modeling are a matter of extreme significance for practitioners who employ such models. In this study, we aim to establish a GNSS/leveling geoid in a test network that was formed in Konya for the purpose of local geoid determination. Validity tests are carried out for five different geoid models. These geoid models are determined using polynomial models of up to the third degree, and an exploration of the parameters that could be used in the decision-making process is performed. In accordance with the results of these calculations, the selection of an appropriate model among different potential polynomial models in local geoid modeling is explained in terms of theoretical references, an application is examined using the data from the study area, and the results are compared.


Ellipsoidal height Orthometric heights Local GNSS/leveling geoid Geoid modeling Model selection criteria 



We thank Ostem Engineering Company for their support in obtaining the data used in this study and their technical support.

Supplementary material

12517_2018_4176_MOESM1_ESM.rar (145 kb)
ESM 1 Plots showing the differences in the predicted and observed geoid heights for the test points obtained using Models 1–5 (RAR 145 kb)


  1. Akaike H (1973) Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csaki F (eds) Second international symposium on information theory. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  2. Aksoy A, Gunes IH (1990) Geodesy 1. ITU Library No. 1422, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  3. Aktas R (2012) Some extensions in the properties of orthogonal polynomials with several variables, Ph.D. Thesis, Ankara University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, p 95Google Scholar
  4. Archontoulis SV, Miguez FE (2015) Nonlinear regression models and applications in agricultural research. Agron J 107:786–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold V (1957) On functions of three variables. Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR 114:679–681 English Translation: American Math Soc Transl (2), 28, 51–54, 1963Google Scholar
  6. Arslan E, Yilmaz M (2005) Geoid determination methods. Union chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects Chamber of Survey and Cadaster Engineers 10th Turkish Council of Mapping, 28 March-1 April 2005, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  8. Cakir L, Yilmaz N (2014) Polynomials, radial basis functions and multilayer perceptron neural network methods in local geoid determination with GPS/levelling. Measurement 57:148–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camargo AP, Sentelhas PC (1997) Performance evaluation of different potential evapotranspiration estimating methods in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Rev Brasileira Agrometeorol 5:89–97Google Scholar
  10. Chapra SC, Canale RP (2010) Numerical methods for engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. Doganalp S, Selvi HZ (2015) Local geoid determination in strip area projects by using polynomials, least-squares collocation and radial basis functions. Measurement 73:429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erol B, Celik RN (2004) Modelling local GPS/levelling geoid with the assessment of inverse distance weighting and geostatistical kriging methods. In: 20th ISPRS congress, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 76–80Google Scholar
  13. Erol B, Erol S (2013) Learning-based computing techniques in geoid modeling for precise height transformation. Comput Geosci 52:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Featherstone WE, Dentith MC, Kirby JF (1998) Strategies for the accurate determination of orthometric heights from GPS. Surv Rev 34:278–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gujarati DN (2004) Basic econometrics. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  16. Haitovsky Y (1969) A note on the maximization of R2. Am Stat 23:20–21Google Scholar
  17. Hoffmann JP (2010) Linear regression analysis: applications and assumptions. Brigham Young University, Provo, UTGoogle Scholar
  18. Hurvich CM, Tsai C-L (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76:297–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Inal C, Yigit CO (2004) Usability of interpolation techniques for the transformation from ellipsoidal height to orthometric height. J Fac Eng Arch Selcuk Univ 19:73–84Google Scholar
  20. Ismayilov A, Mikailsoy F (2015) Mathematical models of fertility for the soils of Azerbaijan. Eurasian J Soil Sci 4:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kao S-P, Chen C-N, Huang H-C, Shen Y-T (2014) Using a least squares support vector machine to estimate a local geometric geoid model. Bol Ciênc Geodésicas 20:427–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kartal A (2001) Determination of orthometric heights using GPS and a application of the interpolation methods. YTU J 1:27–41Google Scholar
  23. Kavzoglu T, Saka MH (2005) Modelling local GPS/levelling geoid undulations using artificial neural networks. J Geod 78:520–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kayikci ET, Karaaslan O (2015) Using interpolation method to define local geoid heights for Trabzon. In: 15th Turkish counsil of mapping, 25-28 March 2015, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirici U, Sisman Y (2014) The determination of best fitting polynomial: a case study of Samsun. In: 7th national symposium of engineering surveying, 15–17 October 2014, Hitit University Corum,Google Scholar
  26. Kolmogorov AN (1957) On the representation of continuous functions of many variables by superposition of continuous functions of one variable and addition. Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR 114:953–956Google Scholar
  27. Kurt O, Arslan O, Konak H (2007) Double stage semi dynamic polynomial surface fitting for modelling the local geoid. In: International earthquake symposium, 22–26 October 2007, Kocaeli, Turkey, pp 265–274Google Scholar
  28. Lewis F, Butler A, Gilbert L (2011) A unified approach to model selection using the likelihood ratio test. Method Ecol Evol 2:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Montgomery DC, Peck EA, Vining GG (2012) Introduction to linear regression analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  30. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ollikainen M (1997) Determination of orthometric heights using GPS levelling. Finnish Geodetic Institute, KirkkonummiGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6:461–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Senturk E, Ince CD (2015) Determination of local geoid in Kocaeli city using interpolation techniques. In: 15th Turkish council of mapping, 25-28 March 2015, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  34. Sit V, Costello MP (1994) Catalog of curves for curve fitting. biometrics information hand book series. Ministry of Forests, B. C., Victoria, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  35. Stone MH (1948) The generalized weierstrass approximation theorem. Math Mag 21:237–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suetin PK (1988) Orthogonal polynomials in two variables. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  37. Sugiura N (1978) Further analysts of the data by Akaike' s information criterion and the finite corrections. Commun Stat Theory Method 7:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Teke K, Yalcinkaya M (2005) Interpolation methods using in determination of local geoid surface. In: TUJK 2005 geoid and vertical datum workshop, 22–24 September 2005, Trabzon, Turkey, vol 1, pp 304–313Google Scholar
  39. Theil H (1958) Economic forecasts and policy. North-Holland, Amsterdam, NLGoogle Scholar
  40. Theil H (1966) Applied economic forecasting. North-Holland, Amsterdam, NLGoogle Scholar
  41. Theil H (1971) Principles of econometrics. Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  42. Turker ES, Can E (1997) Computer applied numerical analysis methods. Degisim Publications, Adapazari, Turkey, p 460Google Scholar
  43. Tusat E (2011) A comparison of geoid height obtained with adaptive neural fuzzy inference systems and polynomial coefficients methods. Int J Phys Sci 6:789–795Google Scholar
  44. Tusat E, Ozyuksel F (2018) Comparison of GPS satellite coordinates computed from broadcast and IGS final ephemerides. Int J Eng Geosci 3:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weierstrass K (1885) Über die analytische Darstellbarkeit sogenannter willkürlicher Functionen einer reellen Veränderlichen Sitzungsberichte der Akademie zu Berlin 633–639 and 789–805. (This appeared in two parts. An expanded version of this paper with ten additional pages also appeared in Mathematische Werke, Vol. 3, 1–37, Mayer & Muller, Berlin, 1903.)Google Scholar
  46. Wiener N (1958) Nonlinear problems in random theory. Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  47. Willmott CJ (1981) On the validation of models. Phys Geogr 2:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yaprak S, Arslan E (2008) Searching the use of kriging method on geoid surface modeling. Itudergisi/d Muhendislik 7:51–62Google Scholar
  49. Yilmaz M (2013) The effect of point heights on geoid height estimated by fuzzy logic. Electron J Map Technol 5:61–67Google Scholar
  50. Yilmaz M, Arslan E (2006) Geoid research in Istanbul metropolitan area. Itudergisi/d Muhendislik 5:107–114Google Scholar
  51. Yilmaz M, Turgut B, Gullu M, Yilmaz I (2016) Evaluation of recent global geopotential models by GNSS/levelling data: internal Aegean region. Int J Eng Geosci 1:15–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geomatics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Natural SciencesKonya Technical UniversityKonyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Soil Science, Faculty of AgricultureIgdir UniversityIgdirTurkey

Personalised recommendations