2011

NITTNY SURVEYING CO.

Nawar Moussa Deanna Peiffer Gery Pawelzik Steven Nath Scott Parker

Table of ContentsLetter of transmittal-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 2 Introduction---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pages 3 & 4 Labs Descriptions Tables Pace Traversing-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 11 Deferential Leveling-------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 12 Interior Angle Traversing-------------------------------------------------------------------Page 13 Topographic Radial Travers----------------------------------------------------------------Page 14 Pace Calibration and Traverse Pacing ------------------------------------------------------Page 6 Differential Leveling and Level Circuit Adjustment--------------------------------------Page 7 Traversing Using the Total Station----------------------------------------------------------Page 8 Topographic Map Details Obtained With Total Station----------------------------------Page 9

Conclusion-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pages 15 & 16 CAD Drawings Old Main Pacing Traverse------------------------------------------------------------------Page 17 Old Main Point Referencing----------------------------------------------------------------Page 18 Old Main Travers Of Quad #9--------------------------------------------------------------Page 19 Old Main Topo of Quad #9-----------------------------------------------------------------Page 20

1|Page

December 1, 2011 Mr. Scott Kinney University Park, Pennsylvania

Re: Surveying Service Proposal for Old Main Lawn, University Park, PA.

Dear Mr. Kinney: First and foremost, all of us here at Nittany Surveying Co. will like to thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Inside you will find two (2) copies of our proposal for the topographic survey of Old Main Lawn located at University Park, Pennsylvania. It is understood that the Scope of Services are to be as follows: Provide a topographic survey of Old Main Lawn located at University Park Prepare a topographic map based on assumed elevation datum, existing trees, sidewalks and other structures. Contour interval for the topographic map shall be 0.20 meters We propose to perform the above Scope of Services in accordance with current hourly rates. The fee for these services (including expenses) is estimated at $51.90. The estimated fee shall be billed monthly as the work is progressing. Should any additional surveying services other than those included in the Scope of Services be requested by the Client of the Clients representative, they shall be performed in accordance with the attached hourly rates. If for any reason you are not pleased with the Scope of Services as it is defined here, please feel free to contact me and we will be glad to make the necessary adjustments in order to satisfy your needs.

Sincerely, Steven Nath

APPROVAL Mr. Scott Kinney Steven Nath, P.L.S. _______________________ Surveying Manger, Nittany Surveying Co. Signature_____________________ & Date: December 1, 2011

2|Page

__________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION______________________________________________________________________________ The laboratory exercises that have been completed in order to perform this survey are as follows; Pacing, Differential Leveling, Horizontal Distance & Angular Measurement, and Radial Traverse. Pacing: The purpose of this first lab exercise was to calibrate the average pace length of each group member. The procedure for this lab included each member of the group pacing a measured distance of 30 meters five times each way. The average pace length was then calculated for each member. The lengths of each traverse leg between the assigned points were then calculating via pacing. The azimuth of each traverse leg was also determined by using a compass. Differential Leveling: The purpose of this lab exercise was to determine the adjusted elevation of the stations of a traverse using the mathematical adjustment procedure for a single loop level circuit. The elevations of each station were recorded using an automatic level and level rod and the distance was measured via pacing. The elevations were then adjusted for error by using the calculated level loop misclosure. Horizontal Distance & Angular Measurement: The purpose of this lab exercise was to become familiar with procedure of measuring angles and distances of a traverse using a total station instrument and also to adjust the measured angles using the angular error of closure. The total station instrument was set in the center of all the traverse stations and the angles were measure via the total station. The average angles were then adjusted using the angular error of closure. Radial Traverse: The purpose of this lab exercise was to use the procedure that was implemented in the previous lab to determine the lengths and angles of a complete traverse using the total station instrument. The instrument was positioned at the first point of the traverse and then the angle and distance were measured and recorded before moving onto the next station. This procedure was repeated until the traverse was complete. The average angles were then adjusted using the angular error of closure.3|Page

Each laboratory exercise was integrated into the next exercise which followed it. For example, Pacing was performed first in order to determine the average pace length of each member, which was needed for calculating the distance of traverse legs when the next experiment, Differential Leveling, was performed. Also, Horizontal Distance & Angular Measurement was performed before the Radial Traverse so that the group was familiar with using the total station instrument for measuring the angles and distances of a traverse as well as adjusting the angles using the angular error of closure. When survey is taken, many measurements and computations involving said measurements depend highly on the surveyor who is observing them. Human skill and judgment and reliable mechanical equipment are required in order to achieve good measurements. Measurements (observations) can never be exact, no matter how careful the observer is. Error is defined as the difference between an observed value for a quantity and its true value. Errors can be categorized as Natural Errors, Instrumental Errors, and Personal Errors. Natural Errors are caused by variations in wind, temperature, gravity, etc. Instrumental Errors are due to the imperfection of instruments used for the observation (these can often be reduced or even eliminated). Personal Errors are due to the imperfections of human senses of sight and touch (these can never be completely eliminated). The true value of an observation is never known and therefore, the exact error is never truly known (Ghilani pg 47). A benchmark is a relatively permanent object, natural or artificial; having a marked point whose elevation above or below a reference datum is known or assumed. Some examples are metal disks set in concrete, large rocks, curbs etc (Ghilani pg 75). To find a benchmark in the real world, you can refer to the National Geodetic Survey (NGS). Each benchmark listed by the NGS database has a permanent identifier (PID) which can be used to find additional data on the respective benchmark.

4|Page

Labs Descriptions______________________________________________________________________________

5|Page

Lab Title: Pace Calibration and Traverse Pacing Purpose: The purpose of this lab is to calculate the average pace length of each group member and find the length of each leg of the assigned traverse using pacing. This lab also familiarizes the group with the traverse they will be working with for the rest of the year. Date: September 8th 2011 and September 15th 2011 Equipment Used: steel tape, range poles Method: This lab procedure was broken into two parts. In the first part, the group collected personal pace calibrations for each member. A tape was set marking a 30m distance between two range poles. Each person paced the set distance ten times, five times in each direction, then an average was taken. Using the pace length calculated, the crew calculated the distances between four assigned travers points on Old Main lawn. Each crew member took a turn pacing a leg of the traverse. Each person paced their leg in each direction once, then amount of paces it took each way were averaged and multiplied by the calculated length of that specific persons pace. During each traverse, the group used a compass to measure the azimuth angle between each traveled leg of the traverse.

Error Statement: The main error in this lab is human error. Each person does not take exactly the same length pace each step. The length of each step also tends to vary depending on whether the person is going uphill and downhill. To minimize this error, each persons average pace length in the calculations and each leg of the traverse was walked in both directions and then averaged to minimize the error due to slope of the ground.

6|Page

Lab Title: Differential Leveling and Level Circuit Adjustment Purpose: The purpose of this lab is to find the adjusted elevation of each disk in the traverse. Also this lab familiarizes the group with adjusting the loop mathematically. Date: September 22nd 2011 Equipment Used: automatic level, tripod, level rod, and rod level Method: The instrument was set up approximately halfway between the crews first traverse point and the benchmark at Old Main. A measurement of the elevation of the benchmark at Old Main was taken and then a measurement of the elevation of the first disk was taken. This procedure was repeated clockwise through the traverse until the last point of the traverse was reached. Lastly, an elevation measurement was taken of the benchmark at Sackett. Error Statement: For this lab, the allowable closure is .007003 meters and the actual closure came out to be .021 meters so this lab is unacceptable. One possible cause of this is the rod being held unlevel or an error in measuring. Another difficulty in this lab is the amount of obstacles between Sackett and the last point of the traverse including trees, poles, chain link fences, and people. It is difficult to find a spot to see both the control point and the rod. A page check is used in this lab.

7|Page

Lab Title: Traversing Using the Total Station Purpose: The purpose of this lab is to accurately measure the lengths and angles of each part of the traverse. Date: October 6th 2011 Equipment Used: Topcon GPT-3005W, total station, two prism poles and two prisms Method: First, the group set the total station up on the first traverse point. A distance was measured from the instrument to the prior point in the traverse then a distance was measured to the next point in the traverse. After that, the total station was moved to the next traverse point and the procedure was repeated until the total station had been set up on every traverse point. The angles were measured as well. During the setup of the instrument, the atmospheric correction was taken into account. Error Statement: The error for this lab is acceptable because the allowable error is 15 and the calculated error is 5. The least count for this lab is 5. This error could be due to the prism poles not being exactly level or rounding errors in the calculations.

8|Page

Lab Title: Topographic Map Details Obtained With Total Station Purpose: The purpose of this lab is to create a topographic survey of Old Main Lawn using the Total Station and Pocket PC. The data obtained is used to develop a topographic map using AutoCAD. Date: October 20, 2011 Equipment Used: Sokkia SET5A total station, tripod, (1) prism pole with reflector, and 8 m pocket tape. Method: The crew began by setting up the Total Station above Station #41 and calculating distances and angles to the other PSU aluminum disks, where an area was created. The group then began selecting various points inside and outside of the area on items such as sidewalks, trees, flagpoles, and lamp posts. It was vital to consider the rule of centers on items such as trees, so that an accurate measurement to the center of the object was taken. In total, the crew collected 26 points using the Total Station. These points were later used to develop a topographic map on AutoCAD. Error Statement: There is no error analysis for this lab to determine if the survey is acceptable because the only instrument used in data collection is the Total Station and Pocket PC. However, one possible source of error could come from the movement of the prism pole after the backsight is obtained. Another source of error could be from movement of the prism as a member is holding it. However, these small errors are nearly negligible for the fact that a topographic map gives the viewer the general layout of the land.

9|Page

Tables______________________________________________________________________________

10 | P a g e

PACE TRAVERSING

Pacer

STA# FROM

Pace Traversing STA# TO # of Paces

Dist.. Paced (m) 72.26 70.96 143.22 71.61 60.39 58.41 118.8 59.4 60.8 62.29 123.09 61.545 61.64 61.96 123.6 61.8 69.79 68.67 138.46 69.23

Magnitude Azimuth Angle

Scott (0.924m)

41 21

21 41

78.2 76.8 sum average 69.9 67.6 sum average 81.5 83.5 sum average 98 98.5 sum average 105.9 104.2 sum average

324.1 144.1 288.2 144.1 236.3 64.4 120.7 60.35 135.9 315.9 271.8 135.9 249.9 70.1 140 70 5.9 188.5 14.4 7.2

Nawar (0.864m)

21 81

81 21

Gery (0.746m)

81 61

61 81

Deanna (0.629m)

61 41

41 61

Steve (0.659m)

61 21

21 61

Table 1: Pace Traversing

11 | P a g e

______________________________________________________________________________ DIFFERENTIAL LEVELING

Station #

Backsight (+) (m)

H.I. (m)

Foresight () (m)

Elevation (m)

Distance (m)

Elevation Adjustment (m)

Rounded Adjustment to nearest 5 mm

Adjusted Elevation (m)

Benchmark (Old Main) 0.63 81 1.585 21 0.615 41 2.75 61 1.085 Benchmark (Sackett) sum 6.665 354.08 354.075 1.08 354.675 3.35 356.485 2.425 356.751 1.855

356.121 34.819 354.896 17.108 31.07 354.056 28.93 29.89 351.321 39.57 39.08 352.991 38.36 31.45 -0.012920184 -0.015 352.9780798 -0.009054517 -0.010 351.3119455 -0.005587197 -0.005 354.0504128 -0.002592104 -0.005 354.8934079

0.51 9.22

353.566

50.28 340.557

Table 2: Differential Leveling Differential Leveling Calculations:

.

: 12

C12 | P a g e

.

______________________________________________________________________________ INTERIOR ANGLE TRAVERSING

STA # 41-21 41-21 21-41 21-81

DIR azimuth 00 00' 00" 7111'35" 00 00' 00" 9758'15"

INTERIOR ANGLE TRAVERSING REV MEAN H DIST azimuth azimuth (m) 71.758 78.477 78.484 71.688

MEAN HD (m)

7111'20"

7111'28"

75.117

9758'20"

9758'18"

75.086

81-21 81-61 61-81 61-41

00 00' 00" 7918' 45" 00 00' 00" 111 31' 25"

7918' 33"

7918' 39"

71.683 65.363 65.373 71.743

68.523

111 31' 36" 111 31' 30" Sum = 359 59' 55"

68.558

Table 3: Interior Angle Traversing Interior Angle Traversing Calculations:

=

5 C 15

5 55

13 | P a g e

_____________________________________________________________________________________

TOPOGRAPHIC RADIAL TRAVERSE

POINT #

S DIST (m)

TOPOGRAPHIC RADIAL TRAVERSE ZA HAR Hi azimuth azimuth (m)

H ROD DESCRIPTION (m) (NOTE) STA #41 PSU ALUM DISK STA #61 (BS) STA #81 STA #21 SIDEWALK 1 SIDEWALK 2 SIDEWALK 3 SIDEWALK 4 SIDEWALK 5 SIDEWALK 6 SIDEWALK 7 SIDEWALK 8 SIDEWALK 9 SIDEWALK 10 SIDEWALK 11 SIDEWALK 12 FLAGPOLE 1 FLAGPOLE 2 SUNDIAL (P1) TREE 1 TREE 2 TREE 3 TREE 4 TREE 5 LAMP POST 1 COM 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

71.78 113.483 78.548 90.535 91.494 34.297 20.192 18.095 66.011 85.335 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

27129'45" 27204'05" 27222'30" 27230'20" 27228'55" 27155'40" 27248'40" 27254'40" 27127'20" 27111'38" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

000'00" 27127'40" 31013'35" 30128'20" 30316'05" 33516'05" 33543'45" 33927'25" 23329'25" 23145'40" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

1.79 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08

Table 4: Topographic Radial Traverse

14 | P a g e

________________________________________________________________ CONCLUSION __________________________________________________________________When working in a classroom or on a computer with theoretical data, it is easy to ignore error and to solve problems straight forward without any harm done to the integrity of the work. When our crew moved out to the field to get real life experience with the calculations that were once only theoretical, we had to accept error and understand how it was going to affect us. During our pace calibration and traverse, error was unavoidable. Its just not possible to believe a human can control themselves to make uniform paces step in and step out. With each step taken, error is increased. During the lab, we measured distances with the average pace count totaling 86.4 paces. Using a compass during the azimuth measurement also created error during this lab. The compass is accurate but left us to hold the compass level and steady as we read the angle to our estimated units. During our differential leveling lab, we once again fought against human error as we used an automatic level as well as fiberglass rods to determine the elevation or each point in our traverse. The equipment allowed us to keep the instruments as level as possible but there is no way to assume perfect measurements throughout the entire course. We ended up calculated an allowable closure which was 0.01 m greater than the allowable closure. Though we were very precise during our measurements, our use of the instruments ended us with an overall unacceptable measurement. Our first lab using the GPT-3005W total station allowed us to calculate our most accurate measurements of Old Main lawn thus far into our study. Understanding that the perfect station gave us very minimal error compared to the measurements we took during our pace traverse, we could analyze the error in our first lab. Comparing the results from both, we see that in almost all cases, our pace calibrations were very close to the measurements given to us by the perfect station. The angles were not quite as good as the pacing but as least we have a better understanding of how accurate our pace calibration was and that our calculated m/pace are acceptable. Reflecting on how accurate our measurements were with the total station during our distance and angle measurements, we were able to understand the reason for error and adjust our method to minimize error in our calculations while using the perfect station for the topographic survey. It was very important to level the device very carefully as we took all of our measurements from the same point. The prisms on the top of the rods also helped erase error as the perfect station calculated distances between each point. These factors would make the topographic survey our most accurate of all of our field labs. Human error was barely present as the instruments did almost all of the work. Overall, the complete analysis of Old Main lawn was very successful for our crew. Moving forward, we understand how error affects surveying in the real world and we all have a much better understanding of how to use the instruments to result in a more accurate and more15 | P a g e

professional survey. Being that this is the first time most of us have had hands on experience with these instruments, we are confident that given another chance, the overall survey of Old Main lawn would be much more accurate and would have at least half the error we encountered during or measurements. This experience was very interesting and was a great introduction to the world of field surveying.

16 | P a g e