Realisation of a Geodetic Datum Using a Gridded Absolute Deformation Model (ADM)

  • R. StanawayEmail author
  • C. Roberts
  • G. Blick
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 139)


This paper describes a schema for a gridded absolute deformation model (ADM) and non-linear deformation patch model that can be used to transform point positions captured in the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF), or other closely aligned reference frame, to a reference epoch consistently over time for practical applications. The schema described utilises existing models of rigid plate motion, plate boundary deformation and non-linear deformation (e.g. coseismic and postseismic effects or subsidence). Application of an ADM and patch model can enable consistent Precise Point Positioning (PPP) over time and seamless integration of Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) networks within deforming zones. The strategy described can also ensure consistency of time-tagged spatial datasets (e.g. laser scanned point clouds and digital cadastral databases) and GIS within a kinematic environment. An ADM can also be used as the basis for static epoch projections of a national or regional kinematic datum. A case study from New Zealand is described.


Semi-kinematic datum Dynamic datum PPP Reference frame Deformation Model 



Chris Crook of LINZ has devoted some time to reviewing this paper and has provided some insights into how deformation modelling is being implemented in New Zealand with NZGD2000. The authors would also like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers who provided detailed and valuable feedback.


  1. Altamimi Z, Collilieux X, Métivier L (2011) ITRF2008: an improved solution of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame. J Geod 85(8):457–473. doi: 10.1007/s00190-011-0444-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altamimi Z, Métivier L, Collilieux X (2012) ITRF2008 plate motion model. J Geophys Res 117:B07402. doi: 10.1029/2011JB008930 Google Scholar
  3. Argus D, Gordon R, DeMets C (2011) Geologically current motion of 56 plates relative to the no-net-rotation reference frame. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 12:Q11001. doi: 10.1029/2011GC003751 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird P (2003) An updated digital model of plate boundaries. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 4(3):1027. doi: 10.1029/2001GC000252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blick G, Crook C, Grant D, Beavan J (2006) Implementation of a Semi-Dynamic Datum for New Zealand. A window on the future of geodesy, international association of geodesy symposia, 2005, vol 128, pp 38–43. IUGG General Assembly, Sapporo, 30 June–11 July 2003Google Scholar
  6. Blick G, Donnelly N, Jordan A (2009) The practical implications and limitations of the introduction of a semi-dynamic datum - A New Zealand case study. Geodetic Reference Frames. In: Drewes H (ed) IAG symposia, vol 134. Springer, Berlin, pp 115–120Google Scholar
  7. Dawson J, Woods A (2010) ITRF to GDA94 coordinate transformations. J Appl Geod 4(4):189–199Google Scholar
  8. DeMets C, Gordon R, Argus D (2010) Geologically current plate motions. Geophys J Int 181:1–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drewes H (2009) The actual plate kinematic and crustal deformation model APKIM2005 as a basis for a non-rotating ITRF, Geodetic Reference Frames. In: Drewes H (ed) IAG symposium, Munich, 9–14 October 2006Google Scholar
  10. Henton J, Craymer M, Ferland R, Dragert H, Mazzotti S, Forbes D (2006) Crustal motion and deformation monitoring of the Canadian landmass. Geomatica 60(2):173–191Google Scholar
  11. Kreemer C, Holt W, Haines J (2003) An integrated global model of present-day plate motions and plate boundary deformation. Geophys J Int 154:8–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. NRCan; Natural Resources Canada (2012) On-line precise point positioning. Accessed 9 Oct 2012
  13. OmniSTAR (2012) Accessed 9 Oct 2012
  14. Pearson C, McCaffrey R, Elliott J, Snay R (2010) HTDP 3.0: software for coping with the coordinate changes associated with crustal motion. J Surv Eng 136:80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Plag H-P, Pearlman M (eds) (2009) Global Geodetic Observing System. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Roberts C (2011) How will all the new GNSS signals help RTK Surveyors? In: Proceedings of SSSC 2011 Biennial conference of the Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute, Wellington, 21–25 November 2011Google Scholar
  17. Snay R (1999) Using the HTDP software to transform spatial coordinates across time and between reference frames. Surv Land Inform Syst 59(1):15–25Google Scholar
  18. Stanaway R (2004) Implementation of a dynamic geodetic datum in Papua New Guinea: a case study. MPhil Thesis, The Australian National UniversityGoogle Scholar
  19. Stanaway R, Roberts CA (2009) A simplified parameter transformation model from ITRF2005 to any static geocentric datum (e.g. GDA94). In: Proceedings from IGNSS symposium 2009, Surfers Paradise, 1–3 December 2009Google Scholar
  20. Stanaway R, Roberts CA (2010) CORS network and datum harmonisation in the Asia-Pacific region. In: FIG congress 2010, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  21. Tanaka Y, Saita H, Sugawara J, Iwata K, Toyoda T, Hirai H, Kawaguchi T, Matsuzaka S, Hatanaka Y, Tobita M, Kuroishi Y, Imakiire T (2007) Efficient maintenance of the Japanese Geodetic Datum 2000 using crustal deformation models - PatchJGD & Semi-Dynamic Datum. Bul Geog Surv Inst 54Google Scholar
  22. Winefield R, Crook C, Beavan J (2010) The application of a localised deformation model after an earthquake. In: FIG congress 2010, SydneyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Land Information New ZealandWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations