Construction Layout Tolerances

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby LS_8750 » Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:02 am

Apologies to the boundary specialists.

Besides the CALTRANS Surveys Manual on Construction Surveys, is there any other references folks use for staking tolerances in California?

Curious.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Clark E. Stoner, PE, PLS
Bear Flag Engineering, Inc.
Sonoma County
Santa Cruz County
tel. 707.996.8449 (Sonoma) or 831.477.9215 (Santa Cruz)
clark@bearflagcivil.com

User avatar
SPMPLS
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:38 am
Location: Sierra foothills

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby SPMPLS » Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:55 am

Didn't dig into this because I don't have time, but perhaps here?

https://www.oregon.gov/odot/ETA/Documents_Geometronics/Construction-Survey-Manual-Contractors.pdf

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby mpallamary » Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:08 pm

I believe the engineer's union had one. For me that was in the late 1970's. I think they may have had a manual. it has been too long for me to recall precisely.

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby LS_8750 » Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:03 am

Same here. Anybody have a link to the Operating Engineers guidelines?

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby Peter Ehlert » Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:40 am

I was a OE3 member ages ago, there were none in my day.
It would be interesting to see it if there ever was a manual... but who would it control/influence?
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
RAM
Posts: 739
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Central Cal Mountains

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby RAM » Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:09 pm

depends on the project, and need, can vary from rough grading to curbs with a 1% grade. that is a part of being a PLS, being able to determine the scope of the project.

User avatar
Jay Wright
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:39 am

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby Jay Wright » Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:26 pm

Construction Staking was 6th period in the OE3 (apprentice) manuals. I didn't see any tolerances mentioned but it could have been under all the dust. My notebooks are from the 90's so it could have changed. I don't have a digital edition.

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby DWoolley » Mon Jun 28, 2021 4:37 pm

Operating Engineers view their “land surveyor” members as mental dolts (Operating Engineers’ description of their members i.e. being “not mental”, not my experience) incapable of professional hallmarks (i.e., independent judgment).

Additionally, Operating Engineers incorrectly create a distinction between an “office surveyor” and a “field surveyor” that does not exist either in practice or in the law. A professional land surveyor licensee is required to have experience in both the office and the field to test for minimum competence. Caltrans, the largest employer of land surveyors, requires a professional land surveying license to be a party chief (lead person on a field crew). Caltrans has standards in place and folks internal to their organization that check that the specifications have been followed.

Operating Engineers’ view of their members is even more evident by the following statement contained in IUOE’s letter which states:

No Judgment or Discretion in Executing Directions of Office Surveyor

In performing their work, the survey crew uses predetermined locations and directions drawn up by the office surveyor. If errors in calculations are discovered by the field surveyor when he or she places laths and hubs in the field, the field surveyor notifies the project manager, registered engineer, or licensed office surveyor. One of these professionals corrects the problem and provides the field surveyor with the corrected information
.”

Clearly, I believe land surveyors are likely to find their description of their members, our valued coworkers, offensive and inaccurate. In fairness, disagreeing with Operating Engineers description of their land surveying members is purely anecdotal, most professionals, including myself, only know a handful of their members. It seems unlikely the OE members, based on OE's own written member descriptions, have the capacity to understand tolerances.

DWoolley

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby mpallamary » Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:59 pm

How about the attached?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby LS_8750 » Tue Jun 29, 2021 9:08 am

Thanks all!
I'm aghast at the NSPS rough grade accuracy guidance. But anyway..

I value all input, and RAM hit the spike on the head. It's ultimately a judgement call, and any so called allowable tolerances are minimums.

I value Mr. Woolley's input as well. Seems the OE mentality he described (and witnessed in the past through my eyes) is that the field crews, office support, and project PLS don't exactly communicate effectively, and God forbid anybody talk to the engineer across the hall. Like a chaotic set of keys, each ring doesn't know what keys exist on the other.

The project specs, when supplied, will lay out the surveyor's responsibilities. Not sure many folks look into that. Be a lot cooler if they did...

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby DWoolley » Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:22 am

LS_8750:

I have served as an expert on a few cases involving professional negligence of a land surveyor. One of the very best things a professional can do to protect from a negligence allegation is to adopt a standard in the contract and survey to that standard with the appropriate documentation. This should be done with every contract, but I tend to be more consistent on applying standards on the high liability work. For example, when hired for boundary litigation - which tends to be based on small numbers e.g. the parties are less likely to litigate over feet - I used selected sections from the NSPS/ALTA standards, particularly the accuracy standards.

Adopting a written (national, state, local) standard and perform with documentation to the that standard and it is nearly impossible to prove negligence. Practice tip, if you adopt a standard and do not meet the standard, well, you are dead in the water. In my role as an expert I work the other direction. In the absence of a applied standard I can demonstrate many standards and prove the work did not meet any of the standards. Generally, ideally, standard of care is less opinion and more demonstrating the standard of care based on written standards and specifications.

Last thought, another common professional error - a lung shot to most work product - is adding "disclaimers" to the work product. Most disclaimers are admissions to a failure to perform to a minimum standard of care and/or failure to follow the statutory provisions. The note works as proof the professional understands their obligations ex. failure to file a record of survey. The scofflaws do better to have me prove their failures than to have an open admission on their signed work product. Also, 99.9% of the faux disclaimers fail to meet the standard needed for "informed consent" and are worthless donkey droppings.

DWoolley

User avatar
TTaylor
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:17 pm

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby TTaylor » Wed Jun 30, 2021 11:32 am

I know the OP was looking for other "guidelines" for construction staking tolerances besides the CT ones. However, just in the interest of sharing info I'll make a few comments about the CT tolerances:

1. I wrote the revision to the "Standard Specifications" that is mandated to be part of every construction project let by Caltrans that made Chapter 12, Construction Surveys a part of every project. Chapter 12 is where the construction staking tolerances reside.
2. IMO, Chapter 12, like all other specs/guidelines is a minimum standard and it is the judgement of the Land Surveyor working with the contractor to determine what is actually needed for a particular project.
3. For example, the staking spacing and tolerances for finished grade are clearly stated. The problem? Paving PCC in the mountains is a different animal than staking finished grade for AC. The tolerances are much tighter and need closer spacing of stakes.
4. So, working with the contractor to get "reasonable" staking without breaking the bank is always a good idea.

2€

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby LS_8750 » Thu Jul 01, 2021 9:53 am

Much appreciated.

Brad L
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:33 am

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby Brad L » Fri Jul 02, 2021 12:20 pm

I like to look at the acceptance criteria in the construction specs to determine the level of acceptable error in construction staking. If the contract calls out finish grade +/- 1/2" vertical and 1" horizontal, I know everything I lay out must have half of that error.
Brad Luken

User avatar
marchenko
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:24 pm

Re: Construction Layout Tolerances

Postby marchenko » Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:00 pm

The NSPS has standards. If you cite them , I think that the first question the attorney will ask you is - are you a member...

George Marchenko


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests