All your videos are clear and concise and extremely helpful! You don't skip steps that most others do as they assume we already know it and you fully explain why you do things in the order that you do. Your approach is wonderful for those of us who are trying to learn more (or just the basics!) about the processes and the art that is surveying. Keep up the good work, it is much appreciated! You truly are a God!
Is it always necessary to use a penetration to accomplish this? (and what method do you use to ensure your penetration will be directly above your lower floor bench mark?)
@@bwhog That feature also needs a video. A PLS or similar vertical laser from mark on the floor below projected onto the deck of the next floor, then drive a screw partially through the deck. Then a PVC sleeve cut to the correct deck thickness is taped or wired into place where the nail pokes through and the opening is covered with duct tape. After the pour, you just poke the tape out and you can project that as many floors as needed. You could also perform this work when only half the deck was poured and avoid penetrations at all. Just putting this idea out there as an option since many folks are pulling from a 4’ above FF chalk line that no one knows how it was set or god knows who’s crows foot mark with an elevation written next to it in a door jam.
Pulling a steel tape floor to floor and over all bottom floor to top floor and doing tape corrections will be far more accurate than using a 25 foot stadia rod .
I do mention that method, but it also depends on what you’re trying to create. Are you just transferring a chalk line floor to floor, are you setting one vertical series of targets along a crane tower, or are you setting yourself up to create multiple benchmarks on each floor, multiple vertical targets and take as-built observations. The end product often drives the methodology. Having a level setup on each floor facilitates control and QC work, and from a lean perspective.. if the level is set up, why switch to different methods of leveling which create their own time and equipment constraints.. there is a lot to be said for one piece flow. Whatever the methodology, driving home the importance of starting from a benchmark versus pulling a tape from an as-built finish surface is key.
My perspective as a 4 decade Chief of party is to do the work to the highest degree of accuracy possible, whether it be laying out grid on a high rise in Boston or transferring grades from floor to floor so that all of the subsequent trades are working from the same datum . There is too much liability involved to not do it correctly , 25 foot stadia rods are notoriously inaccurate especially when fully extended. I use a Leica LS10 .3mm digital level to set benchmarks for trades , a fiberglass rod is good for topo in the woods and measuring drainage inverts IMHO .
@@1972GT160 I love the perspective. A lot of important points made there than SHOULD be acknowledged by all. 1) grade rods are notoriously inaccurate- and so proper leveling technique should be used at all times to ensure rod plumb, when button snaps show any wiggle room whatsoever the rod should be replaced, and a closed and adjusted level loop should be run at all times. You used the term ‘done correctly’.. closed and adjusted loops or running a tape back and forth and performing adjustments are what ‘correctly’ means. I wouldn’t focus on any one methodology as being correct so much as the inclusion of forms of adjustment forcing all work containing human error to to yield a perfected product. Another point I feel it important to make is that steel does undergo significant expansion and contraction- especially in areas with drastic temperatures or drastic temperature swings. Those using crane towers may experience this, in fact the tower may flex daily while its under load. The timing of using or setting targets should be considered as such changes may dramatically effect your subsequent results. Those in the industry working as field engineers will very rarely have access to a digital level, the cost model of a builders level usually fits the budget more appropriately- but don’t sweat it. It’s not the cost of the tool, its the acknowledgement of intelligent correction methods in every activity that will ultimately count. Mr. Party Chief, I appreciate your well thought out feedback and comments! I love the consideration and intentionality you pour into your personal practices!
Starting from any site benchmark that has already been a part of a closed level loop that is tied to the project or site benchmark. Finished floor should never be used as a benchmark as its construction often contains too many variations to be held. I’ll typically set benchmarks on all 4 corners of a floor as soon as the concrete is dry.
If you mean vertical benchmarks, using the floor to floor method shown in this video. If you mean horizontal marks for base line- a spinning vertical laser to set two base line points and then turning angles from those two points is a solid method.
I drafted it in AutoCAD and exported a PDF. You can find any fieldbook image on the internet and then assign the PDF or image as a template. I love GoodNotes.
There are lots of ways to perform the process of transferring elevations, but the most important takeaway is to always close your loop and adjust your results to reflect your averages for true accuracy!
I always discourage leaning over all day, cranking your neck over and over, and especially leaning forward and letting your hands rest on the tripod which will throw the level off. I also make sure to keep my body positioned in a way where my tools (such as a hammer) don’t swing and hit the tripod legs which could knock me out of level. Thanks for asking, there’s definitely a reason.
