AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Grid vs Ground TTT

4 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
424 Views
leegreen
(@leegreen)
Posts: 2186
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
 

The state plane requirement on a large pipeline in an earlier thread is most likely needed for Control, Layout and ROW purposes. And not a real concern in calculating to over all length of pipe. Though the over length will be different in grid vs ground, it not much of a factor in construction when considering the other tolerances involved here. The pipe lengths will be computed in ground distances, along the slope distance at center of pipe on the shop drawings from the Engineers plans. This is very common in pipe industry and DEP.

Just wait until you have to recompute 30 miles of alignment and convert from stationing along horizontal distance to stationing along slope distance along the pipe centerline. There is no software for this, that I know of. I had to create my own.

We face a similar issue on Tappan Zee Bridge project also. When talking with the structural engineers it is clear that the grid to ground scale factor is marginal compared to tolerances in joint placement, steel expansions and other variables per section of steel placed.

For example we have 0.92' difference in grid to ground on TPZ in the 3.2 miles of bridge. Brake it down per section of bridge span to be installed. Each span is about 400ft or less , with the main span at 1700'. Over the 3.2 miles, that's just 0.02' per span in the grid to ground scale factor.

Lee Green


 
Posted : July 30, 2014 8:09 am
bill93
(@bill93)
Posts: 9977
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
 

It would make no sense to ignore something that can be used to improve accuracy. Keep the error budget for things you can't control.


 
Posted : July 30, 2014 9:03 am
mathteacher
(@mathteacher)
Posts: 2241
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
 

Another way of saying that systematic errors are cumulative.


 
Posted : July 30, 2014 12:57 pm
paul-in-pa
(@paul-in-pa)
Posts: 6034
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
 

All That 0.92' Error Can Be Psuhed To One Span

Then you do have trouble.

But then again there should be a few 1' expansion joints designed in.

Paul in PA


 
Posted : July 30, 2014 6:37 pm