FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT

BUILDING LABORATORY PRACTICAL

ATGB3052
Site Surveying

Course: DQS2_04 (Group 1)

Lecturer: Mr. Kuan AK

No. Students name Students ID

1 LAI PEI SAN 16WVD04121

2 LOKE YI AN 16WVD05123

3 LOW XIU LER 16WVD02558

4 LOW ZHENG YONG 16WVD00246

 INTRODUCTION
Drainage is the natural or artificial removal of a surface's water and sub-surface water
from an area. The internal drainage of most agricultural soils is good enough to prevent
severe waterlogging (anaerobic conditions that harm root growth), but many soils need
artificial drainage to improve production or to manage water supplies. Drainage is important
to the successful function of a project site. Drainage helps guide water flow (from rain or
irrigation) in order to remove it from the ground surface. Drainage that is not guided can
begin to infiltrate the soil until it becomes saturated. After soil saturation, the water can pool
at the soils surface.

On 12 July 2017, the students are required to survey and measure the gradients and reduced
levels of a certain drainage sump pit within the University College campus by using Rise and
Fall method and some mathematical equations that involved in calculating the gradient/slope
of the entire length of the drainage. The equipment required are provided by the site
surveying lab: digital automatic level, tripod, two 5-metres high staffs, and two balancing
bubbles.
EQUIPMENT

Figure 1 show the tripod used for supporting the automatic level to measure the height and
distance.

Figure 2 show the bubble used for measuring 90 degrees of the staff.
Figure 3 show the staff used for measuring the upper stadia, horizontal hair and lower stadia.

Figure 4 show the staff which contain the barcode for measuring the height (h) and distance
(d).
 Figure 5 show the automatic level which used to measure the height.

Figure 6 show the measuring tape which used for measuring the distance between staff.
PROCEDURE
1. The levelling instruments (automatic level and tripod) were set up in a position.
2. The staff was placed at the last position of drainage.
3. The measuring tape was used to make sure the staff is 3m away from each other
4. in the straight drainage, and the drainages turning point is 2m away from each other.
5. Staff 1 was held and placed at the SCL1 (TBM), where the reduced level was
indicated earlier which was known as Back Sight (B.S) The reading on Staff 2 taken
from SIL1. This reading was known to be the Intermediate Sight (I.S)
for SIL1.
6. A staff was held and placed at DIL1. The reading on Staff 3 was taken from DIL1 and
this reading was known to be the Intermediate Sight (I.S) for DIL1 as we measured
through point 1 and moving towards our targeted location after this reading.
7. Without altering the position of Point 1, the reading on the staff was taken as DIL2.
This reading was known to be the Intermediate Sight (I.S) for DIL2.
8. By repeating Step 5 until Step 6, the location of levelling instrument and staff moved
and positioned towards targeted place. The levelling instrument at DIL2 was
subsequently being moved to DIL3, DIL4, DIL5 and DIL6 until the DIL11.
9. The station was moved to the Point 2 and the reading of staff was taken from DIL12
to DIL23.
10. The station was moved to the Point 3 and the reading of staff was taken from DIL24
to DIL27, SIL2 and SCL2.
11. The reduced level was calculated with the data recorded.
 RESULTS
Reading obtained
Station Point Reading
Analog Machine
Upper stadia Middle stadia Lower stadia Height Distance
STN 1 SCL 1.550 1.515 1.475 1.512 7.510
SIL 3.082 3.050 3.011 3.049 7.090
DIL (1) 3.011 2.987 2.944 2.988 6.930
DIL (2) 2.996 2.965 2.936 2.968 6.030
DIL (3) 2.990 2.962 2.934 2.964 5.980
DIL (4) 2.978 2.945 2.905 2.941 7.410
DIL (5) 2.940 2.890 2.850 2.887 9.510
DIL (6) 2.935 2.875 2.815 2.875 12.220
DIL (7) 2.940 2.870 2.800 2.868 13.920
DIL (8) 2.930 2.850 2.775 2.853 15.420
DIL (9) 2.915 2.835 2.750 2.833 16.530
DIL (10) 2.925 2.840 2.755 2.838 16.940
DIL (11) 2.900 2.815 2.730 2.815 16.940

STN 2 DIL (10) 2.782 2.700 2.620 2.710 16.400

DIL (11) 2.764 2.695 2.628 2.694 13.970
DIL (12) 2.735 2.670 2.617 2.670 11.680
DIL (13) 2.715 2.670 2.620 2.667 9.780
DIL (14) 2.690 2.643 2.605 2.640 8.580
DIL (15) 2.675 2.629 2.590 2.627 8.300
DIL (16) 2.650 2.600 2.560 2.601 9.109
DIL (17) 2.650 2.595 2.540 2.591 10.660
DIL (18) 2.634 2.570 2.509 2.570 12.750
DIL (19) 2.630 2.552 2.475 2.554 15.170
DIL (20) 2.633 2.540 2.455 2.539 17.830
DIL (21) 2.645 2.543 2.440 2.541 20.420
DIL (22) 2.650 2.540 2.421 2.540 23.230
DIL (23) 2.655 2.525 2.395 2.526 26.030

STN 3 DIL (22) 2.631 2.582 2.531 2.584 10.230

DIL (23) 2.620 2.570 2.531 2.569 8.660
DIL (24) 2.610 2.570 2.530 2.571 8.010
DIL (25) 2.585 2.541 2.500 2.537 8.410
DIL (26) 2.572 2.521 2.477 2.522 9.740
DIL (27) 2.565 2.512 2.460 2.515 10.40
SIL 2.497 2.440 2.388 2.444 11.050
SCL 1.551 1.501 1.452 1.502 10.01
 Rise and fall table
BS (m) IS (m) FS (m) Rise (m) Fall (m) RL (m) Remarks
1.515 - - - - 98.765 SCL 1
- 3.050 - - 1.535 97.230 SIL 1
- 2.987 - 0.063 - 97.293 DIL (1)
- 2.965 - 0.022 - 97.315 DIL (2)
- 2.962 - 0.003 - 97.318 DIL (3)
- 2.945 - 0.017 - 97.335 DIL (4)
- 2.890 - 0.055 - 97.390 DIL (5)
- 2.875 - 0.015 - 97.405 DIL (6)
- 2.870 - 0.005 - 97.410 DIL (7)
- 2.850 - 0.020 - 97.430 DIL (8)
- 2.835 - 0.015 - 97.445 DIL (9)
- 2.840 - - 0.005 97.440 DIL (10)
2.695 - 2.815 0.025 - 97.465 DIL (11)
- 2.670 - 0.025 - 97.490 DIL (12)
- 2.670 - 0.000 - 97.490 DIL (13)
- 2.643 - 0.027 - 97.517 DIL (14)
- 2.629 - 0.014 - 97.531 DIL (15)
- 2.600 - 0.029 - 97.560 DIL (16)
- 2.595 - 0.005 - 97.565 DIL (17)
- 2.570 - 0.025 - 97.590 DIL (18)
- 2.552 - 0.018 - 97.608 DIL (19)
- 2.540 - 0.012 - 97.620 DIL (20)
- 2.543 - - 0.003 97.617 DIL (21)
- 2.540 - 0.003 - 97.620 DIL (22)
2.570 - 2.525 0.015 - 97.635 DIL (23)
- 2.570 - 0.000 - 97.635 DIL (24)
- 2.541 - 0.029 - 97.664 DIL (25)
- 2.521 - 0.020 - 97.684 DIL (26)
- 2.512 - 0.009 - 97.693 DIL (27)
- 2.440 - 0.072 - 97.765 SIL 2
- - 1.501 0.939 - 98.704 SCL 2
6.78 - 6.841 - 1.482 1.543 SUM

Arithmetic Check
1. Sum of BS Sum of FS = 6.78 6.841 = -0.061m
2. Sum of rise Sum of fall = 1.482 1.543 = -0.061m
3. Last RL First RL =98.704 98.765 = -0.061m
Height of plane Collimation table
BS (m) IS (m) FS (m) HPC RL (m) Remarks
1.515 - - 100.280 98.765 SCL 1
- 3.050 - - 97.230 SIL 1
- 2.987 - - 97.293 DIL (1)
- 2.965 - - 97.315 DIL (2)
- 2.962 - - 97.318 DIL (3)
- 2.945 - - 97.335 DIL (4)
- 2.890 - - 97.390 DIL (5)
- 2.875 - - 97.405 DIL (6)
- 2.870 - - 97.410 DIL (7)
- 2.850 - - 97.430 DIL (8)
- 2.835 - - 97.445 DIL (9)
- 2.840 - - 97.440 DIL (10)
2.695 - 2.815 100.160 97.465 DIL (11)
- 2.670 - - 97.490 DIL (12)
- 2.670 - - 97.490 DIL (13)
- 2.643 - - 97.517 DIL (14)
- 2.629 - - 97.531 DIL (15)
- 2.600 - - 97.560 DIL (16)
- 2.595 - - 97.565 DIL (17)
- 2.570 - - 97.590 DIL (18)
- 2.552 - - 97.608 DIL (19)
- 2.540 - - 97.620 DIL (20)
- 2.543 - - 97.617 DIL (21)
- 2.540 - - 97.620 DIL (22)
2.570 - 2.525 100.205 97.635 DIL (23)
- 2.570 - - 97.635 DIL (24)
- 2.541 - - 97.664 DIL (25)
- 2.521 - - 97.684 DIL (26)
- 2.512 - - 97.693 DIL (27)
- 2.440 - - 97.765 SIL 2
- - 1.501 - 98.704 SCL 2
6.780 73.205 6.841 - 3025.229 SUM

Arithmetic Check
1. Sum of BS Sum of FS = Last RL First RL
6.78 6.841 = 98.704 98.765
-0.061m = -0.061m

2. (Sum of each HPC x no.of IS and FS) (Sum of IS+Sum of = Sum of RLs except first
FS) = 3025.229 98.765
(100.28 x 12) + (100.16 x 12) + (100.205 x 6) = 2926.464
(73.205+6.841)
2926.464
GRADIENT TABLE
BS (m) IS (m) FS (m) RL (m) Gradient Chainage Remarks
1.515 - - 98.765 - - SCL 1
- 3.050 - 97.230 - - SIL 1
- 2.987 - 97.293 0.000 DIL (1)
- 2.965 - 97.315 3.000 DIL (2)
1 in 214
- 2.962 - 97.318 6.000 DIL (3)
- 2.945 - 97.335 9.000 DIL (4)
- 2.890 - 97.390 12.000 DIL (5)
1 in 107
- 2.875 - 97.405 15.000 DIL (6)
- 2.870 - 97.410 17.000 DIL (7)
- 2.850 - 97.430 19.000 DIL (8)
- 2.835 - 97.445 1 in 164 21.000 DIL (9)
- 2.840 - 97.440 23.000 DIL (10)
2.695 - 2.815 97.465 26.000 DIL (11)
- 2.670 - 97.490 29.000 DIL (12)
1 in 173
- 2.670 - 97.490 32.000 DIL (13)
- 2.643 - 97.517 35.000 DIL (14)
- 2.629 - 97.531 38.000 DIL (15)
1 in 188
- 2.600 - 97.560 41.000 DIL (16)
- 2.595 - 97.565 44.000 DIL (17)
- 2.570 - 97.590 47.000 DIL (18)
1 in 164
- 2.552 - 97.608 50.000 DIL (19)
- 2.540 - 97.620 53.000 DIL (20)
- 2.543 - 97.617 56.000 DIL (21)
1 in 599
- 2.540 - 97.620 59.000 DIL (22)
2.570 - 97.635 62.000 DIL (23)
- 2.570 - 97.635 65.000 DIL (24)
- 2.541 - 97.664 1 in 155 68.000 DIL (25)
- 2.521 - 97.684 71.000 DIL (26)
- 2.512 - 97.693 72.100 DIL (27)
- 2.440 - 97.765 - - SIL 2
- - 1.501 98.704 - - SCL 2
Gradient calculation

Fall
Gradient =
Distance

1. CH 0.000 to CH 9.000 2. CH 9.000 to CH 17.000

97.335 97.293 97.410 97.335

Gradient = Gradient =
9.000 0.000 17.000 9.000
0.042 0.075
Gradient = Gradient =
9.000 8.000

Gradient = 0.00467 Gradient = 0.00938

1 1
Gradient = Gradient =
0.00467 0.00938

Gradient = 1 in 214 Gradient = 1 in 107

3. CH 17.000 to CH 26.000 4. CH 26.000 to CH 35.000

97.465 97.410 97.517 97.465

Gradient = Gradient =
26.000 17.000 26.000 35.000

0.055 0.052
Gradient = Gradient =
9.000 9.000

Gradient = 0.00611 Gradient = 0.00578

1 1
Gradient = Gradient =
0.00611 0.00578

Gradient = 1 in 164 Gradient = 1 in 173

5. CH 35.000 to CH 44.000 6. CH 44.000 to CH 53.000

97.565 97.517 97.620 97.565

Gradient = Gradient =
44.000 35.000 53.000 44.000
0.048 0.055
Gradient = Gradient =
9.000 9.000

Gradient = 0.00533 Gradient = 0.00611

1 1
Gradient = Gradient =
0.00533 0.00611

Gradient = 1 in 188 Gradient = 1 in 164

7. CH 53.000 to CH 62.000 8. CH 62.000 to CH 72.100

97.635 97.620 97.693 97.635

Gradient = Gradient =
62.000 53.000 62.000 72.100
0.015 0.058
Gradient = Gradient =
9.000 9.000

Gradient = 0.00167 Gradient = 0.00644

1 1
Gradient = Gradient =
0.00167 0.00644

Gradient = 1 in 599 Gradient = 1 in 155

DISCUSSION
Gradients from 1 in 40 to 1 in 110 will normally give adequate flow velocities
(Council, 2017). From our results, the average gradient along the drainage is around 1 in
180. The gradient design of the drainage is adequate. However, the results calculated by our
group may not be accurate.

INACCURATE RESULTS: -

When we transferred the data recorded into the drawing, we found out that our
recorded data is not applicable. The distance as detected by the machine cannot be applied
into the drawing. For example, we have recorded the distance between Station 1 and SCl until
the distance between Station 1 and DIL (10). Principally, the exact location of the station can
be identified on the drawing based on all the distances recorded. Unfortunately, we could not
find any intersection point on the drawing based on our data recorded. Therefore, there must
be some mistakes when we carried out the works.

Based on our results (rise and fall table), we found out that some DIL is a rise and
some DIL is a fall. Typically, a drain has a slope along it and it should not have both rise and
fall along the drain.

A drain should have a consistent slope. However, we get inconsistent gradient along
the drain based on data collected. We calculate the gradient at every 9m interval averagely.
The gradient is around 1 in 100 to 1 in 200. However, CH53.000 to CH 62.000 has
uncommon gradient with another interval, which is 1 in 599. Mistakes are probably caused by
inaccurate data recorded by our group.

This is because the reading taken by our group may not be accurate due to some
factors as discussed below:

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: -

During the practical, around six groups of students were doing the levelling together.
Every group shared the same location of staff. Therefore, it is possible that one group blocked
another groups vision when they tried to take the staff reading. This phenomenon often
slower the speed of the levelling works.
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED (CONT): -

Besides, due to the different location of station set by different group, the staff may
not face parallel to our automatic level as other group in different direction need to take the
same staff reading as well. As a result, the reading taken may not reach 100% accuracy.

Next, the staff usually not placed stably due to the wind blow or the staff holder did not
concentrate in holding the staff properly. Therefore, it has become a challenge in taking the
reading and the accuracy of the results has been affected.

Furthermore, the distance is set theoretically at 3m and 2m interval. As different

group set the station at different location, the face of the staff was turned accordingly. Thus,
the location of the staff may not be placed exactly at the distance which has set theoretically.
For example, the staff should be placed at 3m but the person who holding the staff may place
the staff at the distance of 3.2m. The gradient of each interval may not be calculated
accurately.

Besides, it was a challenge to get an accurate reading on the staff. The reading was
taken at 3 decimal points but the scale given on the staff only shows up to 2 decimal points. It
was common that different people may read different reading. As a result, the reading taken
by us may not be accurate.

Next, bubble was used to ensure the staff and automatic level placed in place.
However, when we take the reading on the staff, it has become a challenge in making sure
that the bubble is always at the centre. For example, the bubble may run away due to some
disturbance.

In overall, it was believed that our group member has done some mistake on reading
the staff and it causes some inaccurate readings
 CONCLUSION

After thorough studies and understandings from our practical experiences on measuring a
certain terrain in the campus by applying our practical knowledge and judgements, we came
to a few conclusions that explain the uncertainties and problems occurred during the practical
tasks.

The method of calculating the data obtained does not affect much on the final results.
However, unforeseen obstacles had troubled us during the process of obtaining necessary
data. For instance, as there are many groups involved conducting the same practical task,
problems such as views obstruction and inaccuracy of manual readings are likely to happen
that will inevitably affect the efficiency of practical task. Other than that, natural factor such
as air current/wind could cause slight movement to the staff which obviously will slightly
affect the readings from the automatic level. All in all, the above discussed factors had caused
troubles on concluding the results and data.

References
1. Council, W. (2017). Basic guide to calculating falls and gradients for drainage | Basic guide to
calculating falls and gradients for drainage | Wyre Council, viewed 18 July 2017,
http://www.wyre.gov.uk/info/200316/building_control/166/basic_guide_to_calculating_fall
s_and_gradients_for_drainage