Hack, post: 347303, member: 708 wrote: Nothing like good pipe size talk.
Dave Lindell, post: 347198, member: 55 wrote: So, what's the deepest manhole you've ever encountered?
From a parallel thread...
astrodanco, post: 347297, member: 7558 wrote: I've always wondered why you guys don't appear to have a firm standard on what type of monument to set. Two-inch iron pipe for boundaries, one-inch iron pipe for inside lot corners, for instance. You guys don't really just set whatever inconsistent el-cheapo miscellaneous iron scrap you happen to have laying around at the time, do you?
I suppose that if all of Texas were covered with sandy loam soil to a depth of at least 36 inches, we could think about standardizing monument types. The reality, though is that in the Texas Hill Country and parts of West Texas, the soils are very shallow, often less than 12 inches, and a rock drill is needed to set a stable marker. On the Gulf Coast, the main consideration is probably corrosion resistance, not how deeply a monument can be driven. In highly expansive blackland prairie soils mark stability is a problem.
The point is that any licensed surveyor should be able to choose a monument that is suited to a particular locality for stability and permanance, while, of course, being identifiable. It would take more than twenty different monument designs to cover every possible situation and I'm not seeing that as necessary or desireable.
Kent McMillan, post: 347363, member: 3 wrote: ...It would take more than twenty different monument designs to cover every possible situation and I'm not seeing that as necessary or desirable.
Definitely a consideration. A few years ago, in concert with Mark Deal & Associates, we did a number of Sonic sites in Kansas. I brushed up on Kansas survey standards and noticed rebars were to be a minimum length of 24". I don't have a truck with a 24" rebar galley! I would be hard pressed to find somewhere in Oklahoma you could consistently get a 24" rebar in the ground all the way. Once we got out into the loamy prairie of Kansas, I realized I probably could get 30 or 36 in. lengths in the ground with no trouble.
And as Kent has pointed out, in Texas, with its geographical expanse, one can probably find an endless list of ground conditions. I know for a fact there is some caliche in West Texas where you can't drive a 60d nail in the ground without bending.
There are minimum standards, 5/8" rebar, 24" long with a metal cap, at least 1-1/2" for lot corners, 2" for subdivision boundaries (smaller ones in concrete), and section corners. That's a minimum, generally everyone just sets 2" aluminum or larger caps anymore, sometimes 1 or 1-1/2" in concrete.
I set 3" aluminum or brass caps on section corners.
The idea is for a landowner to be able to see and use your corner after you leave, so curb X's, or tacks, or 3/8" rebar aren't allowed.
Setting monuments that only another surveyor can find is kinda awful IMO, and the board and regulators have agreed.
Some of the Cities and Counties around here have standards for what monuments are to be set. They aren't 100% consistent. So you have to have different monument material depending upon where you're doing the map.
More than a few years ago, a fellow who had spent his entire career in Houston, most of it behind a desk, I suspect, worked on drafting monument standards for what was then called the Texas Surveyors Association. The standard was comedy gold, requiring a minimum length of 24 inches and providing:
"Where rocky or caliche soils prevent specified lengths, the rod should be driven to refusal at such depths where it will remain stable".
If you can envision a 24-inch #4 bar driven eight inches into the topsoil before hitting limestone, leaving 16 inches waving the breeze, you have a pretty good picture of what that specification would produce.
The longest SDS bit I can find for my hammer drill is only 20 inches in length, so even drilled into rock the 24 inch length was, shall we say, a triumph of optimism over reality.
Our Statutes governing monument size refer to 'least dimensions'. By necessity that leads me to identify them by exterior, measured dimension. I'm not a plumber and common size references change...
thebionicman, post: 347406, member: 8136 wrote: Our Statutes governing monument size refer to 'least dimensions'. By necessity that leads me to identify them by exterior, measured dimension. I'm not a plumber and common size references change...
I'm with you. When I encounter an aged flagging collared pinched pipe that is called for on a previous survey as "found pinched 3/4" gas pipe" , I don't attempt to reconcile the actual American Pipe Standards with any ID or OD measurements, other than probably holding a tape up next to it. What is "really" a nominal 1/2" pipe is reeeeeaallllly really close to 3/4" OD. Neither I nor the previous surveyor, or possibly even the surveyor that set it were trying to get right with any sort of pipe gauge I would bet.
Call me a hick, or unprofessional...but my description is probably going to be based initially on a prima fascia observation. The rest of the process in accepting the pipe as not only the one called for in a previous survey, but probably a boundary corner would be based on its location and harmony with the rest of the found evidence. I have trained my guys to call 'em like they see 'em. And that probably means throw a Lufkin up agin' it.
What's funny is I have two PC that will state the size of rebar in their notes by judging the size of a plastic cap...without actually exposing the shaft of the pin. And they consistently have been noted as calling the same pin different sizes. After much work with them and a tirade or two, I think we've got it ironed out.
I picked up a piece of #5 rebar on a job and took it back to the office the other day. I asked my PCs how big it was by just holding it out in my hand. One said 1/2", the other said 3/4". They were both wrong. I let them measure it and then our conversation got serious.
So, what the hardware store sells as 1/2-inch pipe, the manufacturer sold as a 1/2-inch pipe is to now be a 1.05-inch pipe? I'm all for accurate description, but having to put a micrometer on a pipe in a hole in the ground would get old real fast. Identifying a type of pipe by measuring the inside diameter seems so much more practical. In my case, I just didn't fully recognize the difference between Schedule 40 and Schedule 80 1/2-inch piple.
Kent McMillan, post: 347431, member: 3 wrote: So, what the hardware store sells as 1/2-inch pipe, the manufacturer sold as a 1/2-inch pipe is to now be a 1.05-inch pipe? I'm all for accurate description, but having to put a micrometer on a pipe in a hole in the ground would get old real fast. Identifying a type of pipe by measuring the inside diameter seems so much more practical. In my case, I just didn't fully recognize the difference between Schedule 40 and Schedule 80 1/2-inch piple.
Well Kent, I agree with you to a point. Most "pipes" I have encountered suffer a good amount of hammer 'moosh' and an accurate determination of their ID with the available tools could be difficult. I'm just saying that around here a good (+/- 1/8") determination of the OD is probably better than anything else to jot down in the notes. You've got to remember, I may have employees that get confused over which is ID and which is OD....:pinch:
I'm reminded of the when we tried to go metric at the Highway Dept. We couldn't call an 18" culvert pipe such, we were told to record the pipe size in meters. The results were less than desirable. Depending on where you measure, an 18" CMP might be .400 to .495...or even bigger. If the ends were damaged or misshaped it could get crazy. We eventually called pipe by it's opening size and let the engineering boys figure it out. Overthinking it made a mess of our field procedures.
paden cash, post: 347433, member: 20 wrote: Most "pipes" I have encountered suffer a good amount of hammer 'moosh' and an accurate determination of their ID with the available tools could be difficult.
I think I'd still rather identify a pipe as a 1/2-inch steel pipe than as a "1.05-inch outside diameter steel pipe or tube". Isn't the real purpose of the description of found monuments to be able to sort them into different classes when it helps to identify which were the work of the same survey? In that sense, particularly considering that there is no commercially-available size between 1/2-inch and 3/4-inch pipe (as I now know), 1/2 in. steel pipe seems more than adequately descriptive as an identifier.
I suppose that since Schedule 40 and Schedule 80 pipes have the same nominal o.d., the inside diameter is the better distinguishing measurement if you're dealing with a bunch of unidentified pipe that may not all have been the work of the same surveyor, i.e. you're trying to sort them out by responsible surveyor.
Kent McMillan, post: 347436, member: 3 wrote: ... Isn't the real purpose of the description of found monuments to be able to sort them into different classes when it helps to identify which were the work of the same survey? ...
That can be a factor. In a practical (common) setting, around here the "descriptor" of an existing monument might possibly be the worst data you've got on a survey. Rebars are commonly mistaken and misrecorded, and pipes, well...
Lets just say if I find a #5 rebar, with an in situ appearance of being approximately the correct age AND occupying a reasonable location harmonious to the plat; a historic reference of a "1/2" IP" doesn't even raise an eyebrow with me. Surveyors have been calling pins and pipes the wrong thing for years. Running into a descriptive error is common.
Although I agree with you; and my guys and I make every effort to describe what we find as accurately as possible; a bad call on the size of a pin or pipe really doesn't throw a shadow of error or mistrust on the corner. If it fits everything else, one of two things have happened; it's either been replaced, or was improperly recorded to begin with (most likely). I make notes all the time on my surveys that state: "found uncapped 3/8" rebar - 1985 survey by LS 65 indicated a 1/2" pin at this location" ...and move on. All I can do is call out what I've found and note any discrepancies.
paden cash, post: 347438, member: 20 wrote: That can be a factor. In a practical (common) setting, around here the "descriptor" of an existing monument might possibly be the worst data you've got on a survey. Rebars are commonly mistaken and misrecorded, and pipes, well.
I realize that you are speaking of Okie practices, and I'll admit that at one time in Texas a long time ago the term "iron stake" pretty much covered the the entire universe of ferrous objects that a surveyor might use as boundary markers. Going forward in that ideal universe we can imagine but only briefly inhabit, don't we want to leave some record of as full a view as possible of what led us to conclude that a particular unidentified "iron stake" was most likely the same one set by good ole Doak Criketey in the before times? Sometimes, the fact that a marker appears in EXACTLY the position one would expect ole Doak's to be is simply reason to get the shovel and metal detector out again to find what Doak really set.
Kent McMillan, post: 347431, member: 3 wrote: So, what the hardware store sells as 1/2-inch pipe, the manufacturer sold as a 1/2-inch pipe is to now be a 1.05-inch pipe? I'm all for accurate description, but having to put a micrometer on a pipe in a hole in the ground would get old real fast. Identifying a type of pipe by measuring the inside diameter seems so much more practical. In my case, I just didn't fully recognize the difference between Schedule 40 and Schedule 80 1/2-inch piple.
Common size references are nominal. Over time they change. It's the same with most construction materials. I describe what I found in a manner that it can be identified with reasonable certainty, not so a plumber can affix a hose bib to a boundary corner.
I don't actually get the idea that the dimensions of 1/2, 3/4, and 1-inch plumbing pipe have changed over the last 70 years, though. Before about 1930, there may well have been a greater variation in wall thickness and other pipe dimensions, but after standardization, I'm thinking not.
So, unlike dimension lumber where a nominal 2 x 4 changed actual dimensions from 1940 to present, a pipe sold as Schedule 40 or Schedule 80 1/2-inch pipe should not have.
Kent McMillan, post: 347440, member: 3 wrote: ...I realize that you are speaking of Okie practices, and I'll admit that at one time in Texas a long time ago the term "iron stake" pretty much covered the the entire universe of ferrous objects that a surveyor might use as boundary markers....
Oh, there you go again...actin' like one can, by smell, tell the difference between a pile from a Texas surveyor and an Okie surveyor. Both States have their fill of sub-standard surveyors...and I might venture to guess, relying upon available numbers, Texas actually has more numb-nutted surveyors than Oklahoma. You'll note in a previous post the firm getting busted for not properly identifying the found pin was not an Oklahoma firm...;-)
Anyway, I enjoy your ability to stand opinionated ground. We all have to believe in something. I believe you're on my Christmas list now.
Amazon.com says delivery should be around December 15th. to the 18th. I hope you use it wisely!
Merry Christmas to all the McMillan clan and pat your dogs on the head for me.
paden cash, post: 347491, member: 20 wrote: Oh, there you go again...actin' like one can, by smell, tell the difference between a pile from a Texas surveyor and an Okie surveyor. Both States have their fill of sub-standard surveyors...and I might venture to guess, relying upon available numbers, Texas actually has more numb-nutted surveyors than Oklahoma.
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.
The outside diameter hasn't changed. It remains constant.
Only the wall thickness, and therefore the inside diameter, has.
