No Benchmarks

What do your state regs say? In NH we are required to show at least 2 benchmarks on a topographic survey.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Very unprofessional and could lead to liability problems for the original site surveyor
and anyone who tries to use the bastardized data.

I don't release anything to machine guidance contractors.

Working mostly in the same area, I complain about the very same thing. Designers really dislike giving us control as we are a design/build(mostly build) firm utilizing machine control...

Just started a new job and couldn't even average out rims and lids for less than a couple tenths, project owner asked design engineer for some points for control, ended up using one for vertical that was a mag. Still seems as though there is half a tenth floating around, but it's only dirt!?

Give me more utility work...less competition with lots of regulation and specifications.

alphasurv, post: 362681, member: 1652 wrote: I don't release anything to machine guidance contractors.

Alpha,

Do you intentionally not show benchmarks on your topo surveys?

If the contract plans were to show enough information, then there would be no need to request anything from the original site surveyor. These contractors are signing liability waivers, and at times they are paying thousand of dollars for this bastardized cad file.

strizzy, post: 362682, member: 7236 wrote: Working mostly in the same area I complain about the very same thing. Designers really dislike giving us control as we are a design/build firm utilizing machine control...

Just started a new job and couldn't even average out rims and lids for less than a couple tenths, project owner asked design engineer for some points for control, ended up using one for vertical that was a mag. Still seems as though there is half a tenth floating around, but it's only dirt!?

Give me more utility work...less competition with lots of regulation and specifications.

Strizzy,

I'm specifically referring to the Rochester and Buffalo area. I setup machine guidance projects all over NY, and across the country. This is the only area where "professionals" put up such a strong front. Everywhere else I've worked, they are more than welcome to provide the information. In fact this area is quickly becoming my fastest growing clientele.

Have never done a topo without leaving a BM or showing that the elevations were from some offsite BM.

Apart from that, an elevation will be noted on some existing structure that appears on the plans.

Without a basis of elevations being traced to a BM, TBM or other reference on or off the plans, you got nothing.....

Reason for this omission is that BMs or CPs on construction sites more often than not are 'moved' during construction phase.
As you know, construction crews don't bother to check a BM with another BM to see if there was any movement before using them.
Had a similar problem in the past but instead of using my BM, they used a concrete nail found near my BM as reference point.
I and the foreman had no idea who established that point on the ground. Needless to say, a lot of finger pointing occurred
after that error.
What I did after that, was to note on the drawing the government BM/CP that was used as reference point to establish the BMs in the survey.
That way, you force the construction manager to either call the surveyor back for a recheck or have his foreman run
a verification survey (with their in-house surveyor) before using any reference point found in the project site.

I do a few topos a year for engineers/architects. I always show at least two vertically stable benches, outside of the area of any potential disturbance and clearly labeled and identified, on every topo. All I won't provide, unless specifically contracted for, are my sideshot points. The transmitted CAD file has line-work, horiz. control (without elevations - use the dammed BMs) & the contours/DTM. The signed & sealed hard copy rules.

That being said, I'm starting to shy away from them - the expected accuracy and the litigious atmosphere around the construction industry is just too stressful for an old dude. When I started surveying topo was transit & stadia, contoured by graduated rubber band, or plane table & level on really flat sites. Very large sites were flown and contoured photogrammetrically (is that a word?) $hit got built anyway. Nowadays, .05' & people go bonkers.

Did a topo for a proposed small apartment complex. Since the buildings were to be connected to the san sewer system, elevations were to be tied to it. As-built records for the two nearest manholes had been provided by the municipal engineer, a very fancy high end outfit - Swell office with eye-candy receptionist & lots of suits & ties. The records indicated the RIM elevations were within a foot of level with each other. Actually there was about 10' feet of difference (pretty obvious to the eye). QC? - we don't need no stinkin' QC.

But, their receptionist IS a major hottie.............

Depending upon where I'm doing a survey, I'll either use a local (city/county) benchmark from their records or I'll find some nearby NGS monuments to use. The BM is always offsite, and we will bring in temporary control points from which we can work (for topography and future staking).

I think my biggest frustration is when I send out a crew with a few datasheets and tell them to use one of those, whichever is easiest to access, then they don't tell me which one they used and I have to dig through the data files to see where their BM shot was and work backwards to figure out with one they used...

But I always put the BM information in my drawings.

FrancisH, post: 362723, member: 10211 wrote: Reason for this omission is that BMs or CPs on construction sites more often than not are 'moved' during construction phase.
As you know, construction crews don't bother to check a BM with another BM to see if there was any movement before using them.
Had a similar problem in the past but instead of using my BM, they used a concrete nail found near my BM as reference point.
I and the foreman had no idea who established that point on the ground. Needless to say, a lot of finger pointing occurred
after that error.
What I did after that, was to note on the drawing the government BM/CP that was used as reference point to establish the BMs in the survey.
That way, you force the construction manager to either call the surveyor back for a recheck or have his foreman run
a verification survey (with their in-house surveyor) before using any reference point found in the project site.

"As you know, construction crews don't bother to check a BM with another BM to see if there was any movement before using them."

That is a criminal offense in my mind... And I do mean criminal.

It should bug, it bugs me too,,,,,,,,,,,
Surveying 101, leave at least 3 (that would be a bare minimum) bench marks for any site.
If it's real construction, buildings, sewer, curb and gutter, ect.; then LEVEL through them.

Not putting critical information like the benchmark, renders the map useless and is totally unprofessional and not worthy of the paper or pixels that represent its image. I may be old school, and likely will take flack for this statement. I mean, why put your contact information or seal on it if you are willing to open yourself up to scrutiny or liability for the lack of data.

Several issues I think contribute to the lack of Benchmarks on a plan. Design engineers with no practical experience on what a BM is used for. Plans only produced for municipality approval.
Constructability takes a backseat to numerous plan checker wants. I have had apartment complex plans with no dimensions between buildings and/or the boundary and only dims to the setback lines. Also, the designer wants a "clean" drawing, existing topo and planimetrics is turned off in favor of drainage plans, lighting plans, landscape plans, etc. You may get an existing conditions page but it is bare minimum- probably copied from a previous surveyors work done years prior.

For our own work(work that we survey, design and stake) I never show benchmarks or control. Survey monuments are required to be shown, and are. We already know where the control is so there is no need, or requirement, to clutter up the plans with this data. If a contractor needs a BM for his own internal QA/QC on our projects we will gladly supply him our main control points including main NGS benchmark.

I prefer to set control for staking after the project is designed and after the contractor's staging/main work area is determined. We have been burned several times by setting control before construction only to find out half of it will be wiped out day 1 due to any number of factors outside of my control. After this scenario repeated itself several times we started establishing control much later in the process and it's worked great.

If we are providing a topographic survey to others who will then design and presumably stake it I will provide our main control points and pertinent information. All of my work is tied to NGS monuments. This is noted on all of our plans as the Vertical Benchmark with notes to confirm accuracy of onsite control to the NGS benchmark prior to use. I can't tell you how many times a project like this was sent out, lets say in 2008, and wasn't built until 2012. After 4 years of frost upheval our control may not be too accurate.

For DOT work we will definitely set concreted control points 1/2 mile of more outside of the project limits with little to no main onsite control. If you can't use the main control then you can't bid those projects.

alphasurv, post: 362681, member: 1652 wrote: I don't release anything to machine guidance contractors.

We don't either unless it is specifically identified in our contract with the owner. And if it is specified, our cost goes wayyyy up.

Mark Indzeris, post: 362840, member: 1019 wrote: Several issues I think contribute to the lack of Benchmarks on a plan. Design engineers with no practical experience on what a BM is used for. Plans only produced for municipality approval.
Constructability takes a backseat to numerous plan checker wants. I have had apartment complex plans with no dimensions between buildings and/or the boundary and only dims to the setback lines. Also, the designer wants a "clean" drawing, existing topo and planimetrics is turned off in favor of drainage plans, lighting plans, landscape plans, etc. You may get an existing conditions page but it is bare minimum- probably copied from a previous surveyors work done years prior.

This is the situation I run into most often. We'll bid on and win a staking contract. We get sent paper plans. Those plans have no control data or benchmarks shown. We ask for this information. The firm that prepared the plans says, "We don't have that. Ask the original surveyor." The original surveyor states that "providing the control is not part of their contract." And without dimensions to boundaries or other "hard" features, we have no way of establishing either horizontal OR vertical control to stake the project.

I can't think of any municipality or governmental agency here that will approve engineering construction/improvements plans that don't include an existing conditions plan that shows both horizontal & vertical site control.

skwyd, post: 362854, member: 6874 wrote: This is the situation I run into most often. We'll bid on and win a staking contract. We get sent paper plans. Those plans have no control data or benchmarks shown. We ask for this information. The firm that prepared the plans says, "We don't have that. Ask the original surveyor." The original surveyor states that "providing the control is not part of their contract." And without dimensions to boundaries or other "hard" features, we have no way of establishing either horizontal OR vertical control to stake the project.

"Ask the original surveyor." The original surveyor states that "providing the control is not part of their contract."

If a Reistrant told me that they would be in front of the Board before they knew what hit them!