129
369

‘ ”VERTICAL“? ELEVATIONS I
CAMPUS MONUMENTS. .' ‘

Thesis‘foriheDegreé of BS. ' ‘ .
W. H-Van‘Atta w A»E,Ward_
  1937 ~‘.

 

 

 

_ a."

4-—

w an;-

9.,

1%.

 

Vertical Elevations
of

Campus Monumcnts

A Thesis Submitted to

The Facul ty of
MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE
of

GRICULTURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE

. U a ‘ . .l A“;
L' .
X ‘\- l.-

wfvnfi VEfiAtta AL\Et Ward
Candidates for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science

June 1937

THESIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Acknowledgment
II. Introduction
III. Picture
IV. Procedure
V. Errors
VI. Adjustment of Circuits
VII. . Comments
VIII. Results
IX. Conclusion
X. Enclosure — Outline map of campus

showing results

lbte: Field Notes on file in the
office of the Head of the
Civil Engineering Dept.

Note: All figures used in this
paper are in meters except
those under 'Results' which
are in feet. ‘

108325

ACKNOl-KEDGLIEIIT

Ce wish to express thanks to the
faculty of the Civil Engineering Depart-
ment of Michigan State College for the
cooperation we received in this work and
especially to Professor Cede for acting as

technical adviser.

W. H. Van Atta
A. E. Ward

INTRODUCTION

Our purpose in carrying out this project as our
undeigraduete thesis has been two—fold. Firstly, in
finding and recording the elevations of the Campus
lenuments, we have contributed valuable data to the
Civil Engineering Department of the College. The eleva-
tions we have found may he used as a check on the work
done by elementary surveying classes. Secondly, we have
gained practical experience in leveling. Neither of us
had had any previous experience with e precise level
and although our work on this control was only semi-
precise due to the nature of the problem, we used the
precise level on all lines and now feel well acquainted
with it. Consequently, we have written the following
pages describing our methods of field work and compute-
tions and some hints on errors we encountered. We'hope
that our efforts may benefit some reader contemplating
a similar leveling venture.

We have discussed none of the technical points of
this work as taken up in the United States Coast and
Geodetic Manual, but rather would refer the reader to that

publication for further information.

Picture of the party and the equipment used.

 

 

PROCEDURE

At various locations on the hichigan State College
CampuS, the Civil Engineering Department has placed
concrete n nunents, in groups of four, for use in
elementar' surveying classes. In 1935, Aldrich, Alston,
and Samppala, in their undergraduate thesis, accurately
established the horizontal position of each monument.

It shall be the purpose of this thesis to establish with—
in fairly accurate limits the vertical elevation of each
monument.

The enclosed map of the Campus will show the rela-
tive proximity of the groups of monuments and will
indicate to anyone familiar with the topOgraphy of the
Campus the difficulties at once apparent in running a
precise line over such a short distance nith a compara—
tively large number of accurate intermediate elevations
required. In but few instances was more than one set-
up required between any two groups. The abundance of
trees and shrubs on the Campus made it exceedingly
difficult to keep the backsight and foresight distances
equal. Early in the term, we abandoned the orthodox
thethod of procedure as outlined for precise leveling
by the United States Coast and Geodetic Surveying

-4-

Manual, realizing that we had encountered a problem
different from the ordinary and requiring specialized
treatment. Any surveying project should be accomplished
with due regard for the element of time. After
considering several methods of approac-, we decided to
adOpt two lines (MEN - B - C - D - E — F‘— P - G'— H,-

N — A .. nan and 118‘ - z — L - Bren - K - o — N —- A — ran)
and to run each both forward and backward making the
most advantageous set-ups attempting, of course, to keep
the foresight and backsight distances as nearly equal

as could be approximated by eye and, at the same time,
adapting the set—up to the nature of the ground even at
the expense of unequal foresight and backsight distances.
Using this method, we were able to cover a considerable
amount of line in that we considered a reasonable time,
as will be shown by an inspection of our field notes on
file in the office of Professor Allen, Head of Civil
Engineering Department.

While on the subject of time, it may be well at this
point to mention the fact that we found a two man party
scarcely adeQuate to handle a level circuit of this type.
A heavy burden is placed upon the instrument man who
must not only handle the instrument but must also keep
the notes and watch carefully for any accidental errors

-5-

fl

in reading which are likely to appear. The Coast and
Geodetis Survey Manual recommends a five or six men
party for precise work. We believe that fair progress
on projects similar to this problem and of the same
general nature can be made with a three man party
consisting of one instrument man, one note keeper, and,
one rodman.

Upon completion of the lines described before, we
examined the data for the errors which we thought
would appear as an expected conseguence of the method
employed. It can truthfully be said that we were not
disappointed in this reapect. Our attempts to correct
and balance the circuits and the problems encountered
‘are discussed later in this report. We will also
include an analysis of our method in regard to its
advantages and disadvantages, its attributes and faults,
and a general discussion of how we think a problem of
this kind should be handled.

It will be noticed that all of our lines were
returned to the point of beginning thus giving us
the actual error present in each circuit and offering
a reliable basis for correction. As insurance against
consistent personal error, the instrument man on the
forward running of a line became rodman on the backward

-e-

I)

running.

Early in the term, we were prevented from doing
much field work by an unusual amount of inclement
weather. The larger part of our work was accomplished
on clear days and in moderate to strong winds. The
advisability of having a sunshade and a windshield
for the instrument became forcedly apparent as we
experienced considerable difficulty in keeping the
bubble in the center of the tube long enough for the
instrument man to take and record the three readings
necessary.

Our results,in conjunction with those obtained
by Aldrich, Alston, and Samppala for the horizontal
location of the Campus Mbnuments, we present on the

outline map of the Campus enclosed in this report.

ERRORS

Both large and small errors occurred during our
work on this project. The only glaring error we found
was that of recording the wrong meter interval, that
is, 3.385 instead of 3.385. This is eSpecially apt to
happen after taking a series of readings in the two meter
interval and then failing to notice a slight drop in
the ground at the next station. The fact that the
instrument man had to keep the notes offered a likely
source for this type of error. Such mistakes are easily
located from the reverse running of the line.

Small errors we found to be far more troublesome.
It is difficult to determine whether such an error occurr—
ed at one point or was accumulated during the run
through some maladjustment of the instrument, or through
some repeated personal error in technique. We believe
these small errors to be due to neglect in accurately
balancing foresight and backsight distances as shown
by the discrepancy in cross-hair intervals, and have
corrected the circuits accordingly. On an area such
as the Campus, it is difficult to run a line according
to accepted methods because of the numerous obstacles
encountered, namely: bushes, trees, buildings, roads,
other surveying parties, and co-eds, all of which are

-9-

II

(I

present in great abundance.

Among the personal errors which may occur is that
due to a very slight amount of parallax that both of us
noticed occasionally. It became manifest only on
medium short sights in which with the cross-hairs clear
and the objective focussed on the rod a slight move—
ment of the eye seemed to move the cross-hairs about
1 mm. along the rod. This could usually be corrected
somewhat by re—focussing the eyepiece but, after our
eyes became tired, any off- focus position of the
hairs to overcome parallax made the cross-hairs fade

and readinr became exceedingly uncertain.

An inexcusable personal error that could easily
result from having too short or too long a bubble is
that of not having the two ends at corresponding
graduations of the tube. When the bubble is of proper
length, the ends of the bubble fall near the marked
graduations of the tube and such an error would be
unlikely to occur. However, should such an error occur
it is mmediately apparent upon swinging the instrument
180 degrees because, if the reversing point of the
bubble had been found, the bubble would then be
markedly off center, a condition thich would at once
indicate the error.

Most of our difficulty in getting good readings

-0...
U

was the result of unfavorable heather. laturally rain
kept us from doing any work outside and, early in the

term, medium to strong winds prevented our cettir

,n‘ ‘n v
u K.) 8"“‘0

reliable da a. The ten-second bubble on the instru—
ment we here using nearly discouraged us early in the
term by slipping from one end of the tube to the other
with each change in direction or intensity of the wind.
Later in the spring, however, the days were more

nearly calm but we had some trouble with heat waves
during the last few days. In fact, we believe that
there have been only the perfect precise leveling days
for a two man party this term. A perfect day is one
which is cloudy with no vind, such conditions resulting
in no heat Waves, glare on the bubble tube, or shifting
of the instrument. We readily concede the necessity for
an additional two men, one vith a sunshade and one with

a windshield, in a precise leveling party.

OPERATION OF THE INSTRUMENT

The Speed with which precise leveling work is carried
on depends primarily upon the proficiency of the instru-
ment man in setting up the level. One thing we soon
learned was the importance of setting up the tripod in
.a position that made it convenient to adjust the instru-
ment without moving about. The accepted position is with
a line through two of the tripod legs parallel to the
line of sight. Roving about while adjusting the instru-
ment not only slows the work, but, on soft turf, may alter
the position of the legs and throw the base off level.

We adOpted the following procedure in leveling the
instrument:

1. Loosen the base clamp nut and vertical
spindle clamp screw.

2. Lower the telescope on the micrometer
adjustment contact or bearing.

3. Center the circular bubble with the
telescope parallel to one leg of the
base.

4. Center the.teles00pe bubble over each
of the three base legs in order.

5. Level on the line of sight with the
micrometer screw.

-11-

Step 4. brings the instrument very nearly level, the
fine adjustment being completed on the line of sight
by use of the micrometer screw as indicated in step 3.
At first, we encountered difficulty in step 4. because
we had not found the reversing point of the micrometer
screw adjvstment. This was easily done by leveling,
swinging the telescope 190 degrees, and bringing the
bubble back half-way vith the leveling screws and half—
way with the micrometer screw. Three or four repetions
of the above soon located the exact reversing point.

We found it worthwhile to take care that the
bubble he kept as nearly as possible the same length
to facilitate leveling by getting accustomed to seeing
the bubble ends at nearly the same tube graduations.
This was done by clamping the teles00pe before moving
from one set—up to the next and carrying the instrument
with the telescope horizontal so that no air could

escape to or from the vial at the end of the bubble tube.

ADJUSTMENT CF CIRCUITS

Examination of the notes taken on the two lines
selected showed a considerable error of closure in
most cases. lhrther examination showed that where the
foresight distances exceeded the backsight distances
the circuit failed to close because the foresights
exceeded the Lacksi;hts and, conversely, that where
the bacheitht distances exceeded the foresight dis—
tances the circuit failed to close because the back—
sights exceeded the foresights. This condition was
present in every line Which ve ran. This fact seemed

to offer the most reliable basis for correction so we

adopted the method of adjustment des

O

ribed below.
Fi stly, the amount by which the circuit failed
to close was computed. This *elue represented the total
error in the line. Our method of adjustment attempts
the reduction of this error to zero and its uniform
distribution over the circuit in accordance with the
difference in foresight and backsight distances or
stadia intervals. Secondly, the difference in fore-
sight and backsight distances as represented by stadia
intervals was computed. This difference in intervals
was figured from the point of beginning to each station

considered. Thirdly, the sumation of the differences

H

in intervals from the point of beginning to each succes—
sive station for all stations considered in the line was
taken. Ehurthly, a partial correction to be applied at
each station was determined by taking a proportion of
the total error of closure by an amount represented by
the pronortion of the difference in intervals to the
station to the sumation of the differences in intervals.
Fifthly, the total correction to be applied at each
station was determined by taking the scration of the
partial correcticns to and including the station in
question. Sixthly, the corrected difference in eleva~
tion between the point of beginning ( REM for every
circuit ) and the station in question was computed by
applying the total correction with proper sign to the
difference in elevation as figured by taking the differ—
ence in the sumation of the foresights and backsights
to the station.

We have assumed the error of each circuit to be due
to a difference in foresight and backsight distances,
an assumption which is based upon a study of all the
circuits made which, without exception, substantiate
our contention. The method of adjustment used, however,
assumes a constant difference in foresight and backsight
distances through-out the circuit and assumes further
that the difference will be consistently on either the

-14-

b

foresight or the backsight side. Actually, such was
not the case and it is expected that, following adjust-
ment, some slight error would still remain in the
circuit. We believed, however, that the amount of this
error would be small and would fall within the limits

of accuracy desired.

Station Forward Backward Difference

Elevation Elevation
Bmfh 1.4627 1.4837 .001
Lea .319u .3193 .0006
0—4 .8976 .8973 .0013
N—l .7048 .7047 .0001

A comparison of the elevations computed for the
four stations tabulated above clearly indicates that a
fair degree of accuracy may be obtained from the
method of leveling and adjustment employed. Stations
BM#N, K—B, 0—4, and Nel were selected at random from the
backward and forward running of approximately the same
line. It will be noticed that the greatest difference
in computed elevation is .0013 meter or 1.3 millimeters,
a value which well approximates the closest figure to
which the rod can be read. The backward running of the
line closed within .0001 meter and, the sumation of the
foresight and backsight intervals being approximately

- ~15-

equal, no correction or adjustment was made. The forward
running of the line, however, failed to close by .0044
meter and a considerable difference between backsight
and foresight intervals was noticed. This running was
adjusted by the method previously explained and, as a
result, checked very favorably with the backward running
of the line. 1

This method has as its chief advantage speed of
performance both in the field and in the office. The
inconsistency between theory of adjustment and the
actual case constitutes the principal fault of the
method but, as we have shown, only slight errors re-
sult. We believe that, for the purpose intended, such
a method of leveling may be advantageously employed.

0n the following pages, we present several samples

of data and adjustments made.

—]_ 6..

LILE N0. 2 — 5090590
From To Sumation Sumation Sumation Sumation'
B. S. Intervals F. S. Intervals
ram (1) 2-2 5.6250 .746 5.6520 .921
men (2) L—3 6.6660 929 4.7550 1.006
may (a) BMfiN 7.9497 1.175 8.4887 1.254
ram (4) K92 9.0900 1.294 9.4120 1.545
man (5) 0—4 9.7545 1.465 10.6550 1.594
new .(6) N;1 12.4970 .564 '11.7660 1.676
MBM (7) ran 15.2526 1.960 15.2570 1.955
Difference Difference Partial Total Corrected
Elevation vInterval Correction Corr. Elevation
(1) —- .2270 — .075 + .0006 + .0006 - .2264
(2) +-1.911 —'.07e +-.0006 + .0012 4-1.9122
(a) + 1.4510 - .059 4-.0005 + .0017 4-1.4527
(4) '- .5220 — .049 -+.0004 + .0021 — .5199
(5 — .9007 -.126 1-.0010 + .0051 - .6976
(6) + .7010 -.092 4..0007 +—.0059 + .7046
(7) —-.0044 -.095 4-.0007 + .0045 + .0001

-17...

From To Sumation
9. 5.
1.4911 (1 ) N—l 5 . 245
MEN (2) 0—4 4.25
ran (5) K-2 5.25
ram (4) 9155 9.16
MBM (5) L-1 10.559
999 (6) Z—l 12.9:
new (7) 141 14.220
MBM (9) Men 16.771

Difference Difference
Interval

Elevation
(1)-+ .7047

03

(5)-— .519

()3

(4)+v1.4657
(5)+-2.5957
(6)" .1995
(7) v'.7€7€
(9) + .0001

LINE N0. 2 - BACKWARD

* .135
- .181
“ .097
- .095
“ .137
- .177
.072

~ .010

Sumaticn
Intervals

.214
.380

Partial
Correction

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

-1 8..

Sumation

F. 8.
2.5403
5.1533
5.5513
6.6983
8.164

()3

13.0753
15.0076
16.7709

Total
Corr.

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Sumation
Intervals

.549
.441
.641
.755
1.009
1.226
1.475
1.940

Corrected
Elevation

LINE N0. 1 ~ FORWARD

Sumation

From To Sumation Sumation Sumation
B. S. Intervals F. S. Intervals

rem (1) 9-1 1.9555 .107 1.2405 .155
mam (2) 0.1 4.0955 .571 5.6950 .449
mam (5) 0—1 6.9200 .701 4.1950 .767
“am (4)*Than98.0760 .995 o 1590 .951
ram (5) 5—1 9.6155 1.056 7.41.7 1.195
ran (6) Vir.10.9055 1.556 10.4907 1.595
11934 (7) 51—1 12.5526 1.451 12.2417 1.495
595 (9) P—l 14.2469 1.596 15.9650 1.716
215 (9) 0—1 16.1552 1.701 15.719? 1.925
ram (10) 9—1 19.0625 1.954 19.1977 2.025
595 (11)::55619.1145 2.099 19.9527 2.555
592 (12) Pat 21.2459 2.269 20.4057 2.451
new (l3)Rhea 25.7261 2.556 25.5270 2.599
595 (14) 5-1 25.4261 2.416 24.7597 2.661
595 (15) 1—1 26.2592 2.212 27.4764 2.797
r35 (16) ‘95 79.5 99 2.696 29.5477 2.959

' To relieve the monotony of the situation

we named turning points thusly.

—19-

LINE 130. 1 — FOREI’ARD

Difference Difference Partial Total Corrected

Elevation Interval Correction Corr. Elevation
(1)+ .5950 - .026 + .0002 + .0002 + .5952
(2)+ .4125 -.079 + .0007 +.0009 + .4152
(5) +1.7570 ~.065 + .0006 + .0015 +1.7595
(4)+1.9570 --.069 + .0006 +.0021 +1.9291
(5) +2.5956 —.059 + .0005 +.0024 +2.59%
(6) + .5146 —.057 + .0005 +.0029 + .5175
(7) + .1109 --.062 + .0005 +.0054 + .1145
(9) + .2969 —.150 + .0011 +.0045 + .2914
(9) + .4555 -— .122 + .0010 r .0055 + .4590
(10) - . 552 —- .169 + .0014 +.0069 - .129"
(11) - .9562 —.255 + .0022 +.0091 -— .9291
(12) +.9401 -.192 +.0015 +.0106 +~.9507
(15) +.5991 -.262 + .0022 +.0129 + .4119
(14)+ .6974 -.245 +.0020 +.0149 + .7022
(15)-1.1966 —-.165 +.0016 +.01€~4 -1.1702
(19)—-.0179 -.172 r.0015 +.0179 0.0000

Diff.
Elev.

(1)+ .5930
(2)+ .4125
(3)+1.737O
(4)+1.957o
(5)+2.5955
(6)+-.5146
(7)+-.1109
(8)+-.2869
(9)+.4555
(10)—.1552
(11)-.0582
(12)+.6401
(15)+.5991
(14)+.6674
(15)1.1666
(16)~.0179

LINE N0. 1 - FORWARD

Diff.
Int.

“.026
*.078
”.066
”.068
“.039
“.067
“.062
-.130
’.122
7.169
”.255
“.182
‘.262
“.243
".185
“.178

Change in
Int.

Diff.

Part.
Corr.

.4.002

+.0054
~.0013
+.OOOB
‘.OOSO
+.0019
-+.OOOS
-r.OO7O
*.0008
+.0049
+.OO€O
-.OO76
+ .0084
'7.0020
".0061
—-.0014

Total
Corr.

Corr.
Elev.

+.0027.-.5957
+.0091*—.4204~
+.0068+1.7438
+.0070+1.9440
+.0040+2.5996
+.0059 4.5505
+.OO€44¥.1173

+.0873 +.4284
+.0253 +.7127
9.0192-1.1654
P.0178 -.OOOl

It will be noticed that Line no. 1 - Forward has
a considerable error of closure. On page 80 is the ed-
justment of this circuit according to the method pre—
viously explained. The elevations obtained did not
check with those derived from the backward running of
the line, a line in which no large error was present.
It is more than likely that a blunder was made somewhere
in the forward running which would account for the error
but, as an experiment, we tried a second method of ad—
justment, the figures for which are given on page 21.
This method is similar to the first exceptfthat the
correction was applied not on the basis of a difference
in intervals, but rather on the basis of the change in
the difference in intervals from one station to the
next. The results of the second correction failed to
check with the backward running but came much closer
than did those of the first correction. We enclose this
information to illustrate a possible method of adjust-
ment which, although we did not use it, is more nearly
theoretically correct than the first method.

Following is the backward running of approximately

the same line.

LINE K0. 1 - BACKRARD

From To Sumation Sumation Sumaticn Funation
B. S. Interval F. S. Interval
222 (1) TP 1 2.159 .254 1.204 .250
HEM (8) H—l 8.4277 .452 3.5553 ..405
591 (5) 0—1 5.9097 .664 5.4556 .544

295 (4) 2.1 7.5907 .756 7
man (5) 5L1 9.0764 .976 6.9559 .950
r95 (6) E—l 11.5717 1.256 9.1699 1.166
MBM (7) TP 2 12.2547 1.545 10.6679 1.455
59: (e) 95 9 14.5490 1.624 15.5565 1.709
(9) 0.2 15.7177 1.950 15.2595 1.601
222 (10)5—1 16.4500 2.251 17.6526 2.104
295 (11)565 19.6175 2.565 19.6125 2.212

-83....

Difference Difference
Elevation

(1) + .5540

(E!) —01276

(7)1'2.1488
(6) +1.0124
(9) + .4764
(10)+ .5974
(11)+ .0050

LINE 150. l - BACKI’J’ARD

Interval

+-.004
-+.047
+.lZO
+.081
+.148
+.O7O

Partial

Tbtal Corrected

Correction Corr. Elevation

”0.0
-—.0003

”.0005

.0004
-.0007
-.0003
~ .0004
-.0005
‘-.0007
-*.0006

-.0007

"1
"(1 ."

0.0

‘.0002 -.1278
-.0007 + .4454
~.OOll + .2967
—.0018 + .1807

-.0021 +8.37%?

.0025
-.0030

”.0037 + .4747

The preceding pages of computations indicate the
method by which our results were obtained. Needless to
say, we have included only a sample of the work done.
We have previously explained the factors causing us to
vary from the accepted standards of leveling practice.
We have presented the theory of our adjustment. There
now remain but few words to be written and, therefore,
we have reserved this section for comment upon our own
work and upon leveling practice in general.

For short lines of levels, we believe the method
presented in this paper thoroughly practical and
sufficiently accurate for work requiring considerable
refinement. For long lines, there can be no question
but that the accepted procedure of precise leveling
as defined by the United States Coast and Geodetic
Surveying hanual is, at the present time, the best.

When running our lines, we, at every opportunity,
tied our circuit in on the old set of campus monuments,
the elevations of which are stamped on the monument to
the nearest ten—thousandth of a foot. All of our
circuits started and ended at MBM in front of Olds Hall.
The elevation of this bench mark we carried from station
STATE. In checking over the circuits, we found the old

-25-

set of monuments to be in error in excess of .5 foot.
From a practical point of view, it is difficult to
understand how an elevation deemed sufficiently accurate
to be given to such fine limits could possibly be in

error by such a large amount. This condition would ”1.1““?

seem to indicate that such elevations carried over a CIV",
' . 7.7.1:
long distance could not properly be given to much less a ?”,7
. I'

than the nearest foot. For this reason, we have list-
ed our results not only as elevations above what we
must assume to be sea-level but have also referred

them to HEM taken as a datum of elevation 100.00 feet.

”J ,0er ((7, '3,
5"" f
F " f as"
fi/l/ ‘1‘» l . ..-'
j.’ ' .N'
“2:1": [.5 9 4/1”"! 2"” a
{/7“' ’1 7 3 2' K
K'- I ' I”:
. 13‘ 4? at)
.15 I i r
c ..«"' ‘

Station

A91

C—1

ELEVATIONS 0F CAMPUS NCNUEENTS

Elevation
NEE-100.000

(0

H

66

6.

(\3
q

0

U)
0)

A

m
0)

U1

. 85
96.707
101.946
101.878
101.760
101.720
101.362
101.557
101.686
101.622
105.757
106.119

106.293

I

10
0

H)

C

5.:
x)

.90

()3

107.807
107.600
107.370
100.396
100.470

-37-

Elevation
Sea—level

V
640.051
840.4%0
.229
240.995

1
646.150
946.122
419.664
645.9§4
645.5'6

gAl7deL9L

01 fa".t
. , H-
g.
6" g.

Station Elevation Elevation

hBM-100.000 Sea-level
2L5 100.569 844.’&IE
5-4 100.712 644.956
0-1 101.461 645,935
0.2 101.755 845.9! 7
0-5 101.997 646.2 2$1
0_4 102.590 465g4
5—1 99.520 :45.6fi4
2-2 99.616 843.ێ2
2—5 99.706 645.9.0
2-4 100.212 244.4 4
2.1 99.624 244.0 6
5-2 96.951 645.r¢5
5-5 96.464 642,309
5—4 96.526 942.6'0
L-l 107. 655 652.0,7
L-2 107.40 951.664
1—5 106.274 650. 6
L—4 105 520 649.324
"1 97.416 641.660
42
x C47.459 641." 5
“-5 97.426 841.6fl0
1-4 97.264 6411336

—28-

Station

17—1
11-2
11—5
11-4
0-1

Elevation
NEE-100.000

102.512
102.759
105.155

103.651

87.057
100.973
101.172
101.077
101.074
105.528

98.385

89.257

Elevation
See—level

847.895
840.189

841.301
845.201
845.418
845.321
845.318
849.772
843.629
843.501

COHCLUSICN

In this thesis, we have attempted to solve the
problem undertaken and, at the same time, to eXperiment
with something new and different in leveling practice.
Future surveys will show whether or not our results are
accurate but, accurate or not, we feel that this project
has been of great value to us in experience. We found
the work enjoyable and interesting. All through the
term we acted ee much as possible on our own,feeling
that, in our final term, we should plece to test the
judgement and knOWIedge acquired during our careers as
students at this institution. We submit this paper
not as a statement of fact and mathematical results
but as a narrative of our exneriences in carrying out

this work.

TEE RFD

'7
“‘1.-

 

Rug ‘2' '3 9

5

1‘9“ "'

Q3
90

\ \

cm} a.

\V.
\mJnV. xv.

\. I.»

\n.) a .14

. In! \
“13. n5...

 

 

 

 

 

$4638" .w
E
9|

0%. ‘ilflu unkn- o. p \ .Jb . *
‘1‘* W . . . .

r.
Jul..l'vl'.| '
. .FwalI-I . «Y.

 

 

 

 

A.

6: CO.
LAfigLu-

"DIP"-

WAGENVOOPF'
mmuoar

 

 

{$151.51}er‘Jf‘HE’ERS'Vl

III III llwl IN
129

3 3 03177

 
  

L IP *7 ‘— L" ' 1‘ ‘
9 0 '

3'0