-
The Iron Pipe Size that Never Was
-
Kent McMillan, post: 347502, member: 3 wrote: I might have thought that at one time, but that was before I learned that Oklahoma City is dispatching substandard surveyors to Texas to meet demand for maps that say “ALTA” on them.
It’s better Mick and his merry band of Pirates are down in Austin than up here! Kinda makes me wonder about the exam one has to take to work in Texas….o.O…
(don’t flame me boys, it’s all in good jest…)
-
I’ve been wondering for some time whether there is actually a test being administered to new licensees in Texas. So many of these wham-bam-survey-ma’m shops seem to be run so far outside any known standard that some alternate explanation aside from having actually qualified to practice land surveying as a profession seems so much more likely.
-
Selecting the dimension that is most stable over time does not counter my statement. I’ve owned 3 homes and manage rentals. I can say with certainty that pipe dimensions have changed over time. It’s not even an argument as the changes are an observed truth.
The outside dimension relates best to our statutes, is the most consistent and is easiest to observe in most cases. Try measuring i.d. with a cap in place.
Our Professional is chock full of judgement calls and decisons. Sometimes there is an easy best answer, sometimes not. This seems like an easy one to me… -
Interestingly, though, one thing that I’ve learned from this is that pipes of the same outside diameter can have different inside diameters, depending. So, if a surveyor wanted to mention the fact that he or she had found or set a pipe with an o.d. of 1.05 inches, good practice would require mentioning the inside diameter as well. Otherwise, what are nominally 1/2-inch iron pipes set by different surveyors at different times would all be possibly identically described.
In fact, I ran into just that situation yesterday, finding two old 1/2-inch iron pipes that were 0.14 ft. apart. My guess would be that both were set before 1940, but probably only one of them connects with other old 1/2-inch iron pipes marking other nearby lot corners in a 1910-vintage addition. I’ll have to measure them to see if their dimensions alone associate them with the others.
-
1892.
-
Ah, yes, the good (?) old days of lead plumbing pipe.
-
Actually, the 1.05-inch outside diameter is for a 3/4-inch pipe, not a 1/2. Sorry for any confusion.
-
Actually, the 1/2-inch pipe is now to be a 0.84-inch pipe if o.d. is the only distinguishing dimensional characteristic.
-
If I were ever in doubt, in the field, “hmmm .. that’s an awful skinny 1/2″ IP“, I would put a scale to it and subtract any bur or deformation by eye and call it what it measures. I don’t know they had never made a 3/8″ or 5/8” IP.
-
R.J. Schneider, post: 347558, member: 409 wrote: If I were ever in doubt, in the field, “hmmm .. that’s an awful skinny 1/2″ IP“, I would put a scale to it and subtract any bur or deformation by eye and call it what it measures. I don’t know they had never made a 3/8″ or 5/8” IP.
Actually, 3/8-inch steel pipe is still being made. Here’s a link to a chart of standard Schedule 40 pipe sizes
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ansi-steel-pipes-d_305.html
And here are the Schedule 80 steel pipe sizes:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ansi-steel-pipes-d_306.html
Note that both Schedules 40 and 80 have the same outside diameters. While the i.d. of the Schedule 80 pipe matches the nominal pipe size well, the Schedule 40 has thinner walls resulting in a larger-than-nominal inside diameter.
-
We have this new tool called a hacksaw
-
Isn’t 0.84 – .109 = .731?? I don’t have a problem with a guy measuring the i.d. and the o.d., and figuring out what it probably used to be @ one time, then figuring out the ‘nominal’ pipe size (used to be) if that is what they want to do, but I would highly encourage for you notes to first say what it is you found and measured. That is your evidence.
Our prime concern is describing what in the heck we found for surveyors following in our footsteps. We aren’t really concerned about what volume and pressure of gas it could handle back in the day or how much water it was designed to flow.
I do agree that if we want to discern that we are using the same called-for ‘schedule-40’ pipe that some says they set, or if we want to figure out if the original surveyor figured out the “nominal size” when he described his monument, that is something else worth including.
Do you guys suppose that when you see a description calling for a å?” iron pipe, they are reading the pipe size and/or calculating the “nominal” pipe size? I think most guys are calling out what they measured. (but I may be wrong).
-
Every time some State Board tries to regulate exactly what monument size and type is to be set (from my experience) you run in to circumstances that doesn’t meet their standard. They will try to then cover all possible circumstances for every soil type or if you are hitting a huge boulder or the side of a building, but it never seems to cover everything you run across.
Hopefully, eventually, those writing laws or board rules and regulations can eventually realize that they are licensing “Professionals” that should be able to figure out the best monument to set for the particular circumstances they are running across. If we were laborers for the “State Surveyor” I guess that guy could start making up rules.
Historically, there have been different sets of standard practice. For instance during the second world war that was a huge shortage of metals, and many surveyors did exactly what you are saying we do today. They would find some old axel, or some scrap iron around and set that. Different times call for different standards.
-
Haha…..I guess this “nominal size” issue forcing guys to state that their pipe measures smaller than it really is, is getting to a lot of guy’s egos.
-
MightyMoe, post: 347562, member: 700 wrote: We have this new tool called a hacksaw
If the specification calls for monuments a minimum length of 24 inches, though, cutting them to shorter lengths doesn’t meet the spec. In a setting where fewer than 5% of bars 24 inches in length can be driven without a rock drill to make a hole, it’s mostly a waste of time to specify a 24-inch length just because it might be feasible elsewhere.
-
Same here….and I don’t attempt to call out the rebar “number” either. I just pull out my tape, and measure the fractional inches, and record it. I guess if I dug down and say the number “4” on the rebar I would record that, too. But it’s just a å?” rebar to me.
-
I’d say that the test is what actually identifies the monument set or found in a way that some other surveyor could testify that he or she found the identical thing based upon your description.
As the thing gets less and less recognizable and the evidence for its identity thins, obviously at some point one can only describe what remains and state what he or she took it for evidence of. Bearing trees are good examples of that, beginning life as particular species and calipers with identifiable marks and ending up as decayed stumps or merely stump holes.
-
“I realize you are speaking of okie practices….” There’s the old Kent personna. now I know you’re fully back.
-
My God….It should be the Texas substandard surveyor getting those ALTA jobs. What’s the matter, can’t the Texas lowballers out-lowball the Okies?
-
Tom Adams, post: 347564, member: 7285 wrote: Isn’t 0.84 – .109 = .731??
Yes, but 0.84 – (2 x 0.109) = 0.62 inches.
Log in to reply.