AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Degree of curvature arc definition

6 Posts
6 Users
0 Reactions
577 Views
Sean R-M
(@sean-r-m)
Posts: 64
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

We have a review comment on a survey that the radius used to calc a curve was wrong. The curve information was given as Darc=12 00 R=477.5 so I had calc'd the curve with a 477.50 radius. Now the reviewer is saying that the radius used should have been 5729.65/12 or 477.47' . I see that 5730/12 = 477.5 which is where I think the 477.5 comes from (this is from a 1949 highway map). Which radius is the correct one? I'm willing to concede that 477.47' might be technically correct but how many surveyors would bother to calc the radius vs just use the printed number?


 
Posted : August 20, 2014 12:12 am
Doug Crawford
(@doug-crawford)
Posts: 681
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Check this [msg=54075]Thread[/msg].


 
Posted : August 20, 2014 3:20 am
Crashbox
(@crashbox)
Posts: 545
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

In the days of slide rules and trig/log tables, 477.5' was most likely the value used for the radius; in this day and age with super-whiz-bang calculators and computers, 477.464829276' would probably be used.

In my opinion, I believe you are using historically correct data in your calc's and should hold. Just my opinion.


The only superior evidence is that which you haven't yet found.

 
Posted : August 20, 2014 7:07 am
Mark Chain
(@mark-chain)
Posts: 512
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

They would have rounded to the nearest tenth back in the day anyway. This guy is arguing exact calculations on a road right-of-way that wasn't staked out to that precision. (by the way, the chord-distance you would pull for every 100' of arc would be the same number to the nearest hundredth using either radius value. (99.82 I get)

I might use my calculated radius, or maybe just what is "given". The fact is we are arguing minutia over something ran 65 years ago.


 
Posted : August 20, 2014 7:30 am
vern
 vern
(@vern)
Posts: 1514
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Thanks to Mike Bend. That is an excellent thread. Thank you Doug for linking it.


 
Posted : August 20, 2014 7:45 am

rankin_file
(@rankin_file)
Posts: 4078
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

for starters- the proper constant is 5729.58 -> (5729.578) -> (180/pi*100), not 5729.65-
otherwise- see the thread-


 
Posted : August 20, 2014 8:04 am