Laboratory Exercise No.

1
STADIA INTERVAL FACTOR
Name of Student: Carandang, Abraham Matthew S. Date Performed: Jan. 19, 2016
Group No: 2 Date Submitted: Jan. 26, 2016
Group Leader: Lao, Angel Lisette Grade: _____________

I. DATA AND RESULTS

Stadia Constant: 0.31 (assumed or specified by the instructor)

Distance from the plumb bob (m) a: 10 (+10) b: 25 (+15) c: 30 (+5) d: 50 (+20) e: 65 (+15)

Stadia Intercept Stadia Interval

Station Stadia Hair Readings (m)
(m) Factor, K
Observe
Occupied Upper Lower
d
A 1.323 1.222 0.101 95.941

B 1.245 0.994 0.251 98.367

O C 1.215 0.915 0.300 98.967

D 1.099 0.599 0.500 99.38

E 1.048 0.390 0.658 98.313

Average K = 98.194

Table 1. Data for the stadia hair readings, stadia intercept and the computed interval factor
 II. COMPUTATIONS

A. Analysis on Similar Triangles 1 and 2 in III. Illustration – Formula Derivation

Based on the Figure 4 found in III. Illustration and the data found on the Table 1 in I.
Data and Results, an equation relating the spacing between stadia hairs (i), the focal length
(f) , distance of the focal length to the face of the rod (d) and the stadia intercept (S) was
derived. Triangle 1 and triangle 2 were extracted from the elaborated Figure 4 found in III.
Illustration: D

Triangle 2
A
Triangle 1 B
i S

C
f d E
Figure 1. Two similar triangles formed between the Engineer’s level and stadia rod

By AAA (angle-angle-angle) similarity theorem, triangle 1 and triangle 2 are similar

triangles. Thus, these triangles were used to derive the relationship among the spacing
between stadia hairs (i), the focal length (f), distance of the focal length to the face of the rod
(d) and the stadia intercept (S) which would yield the formula for the stadia interval factor
(K) in terms of distance of the focal length to the face of the rod (d) and the stadia constant
(C). By similar triangle proportionality theorem:

f d
=
i S

( fi ) S=d
Since the value of the spacing between stadia hairs (i) and the focal length (f) are
f
constant throughout the experiment, then i ()
is also constant which is called the stadia

interval factor (K). Thus,

KS=d
 In relation with this, based on the Figure 4 on III. Illustration, the horizontal distance (D)
from the Engineer’s level to the center of the rod is:
D=d+ c+ f

D=KS+C (Equation 1)

B. Stadia Intercept Computation

Based on Table 1 in I. Data and Results, the stadia intercepts (S) were obtained from the
values of the upper and lower stadia hair readings. The following formula was used to
compute for the stadia intercepts (S).
Stadia Intercept ( S )=Upper Stadia Hair Reading−Lower Stadia Hair Reading
(Equation 2)
The values on Table 1 in I. Data and Results were substituted in equation 2 to yield the
stadia intercept (S).

¿ Station O → Station A

Stadia Intercept ( S OA ) =1.323−1.222

Stadia Intercept ( S OA ) =0.101 m

¿ Station O → Station B

Stadia Intercept ( S OB )=1.245−0.994

Stadia Intercept ( S OB )=0.251m

¿ Station O → Station C

Stadia Intercept ( S OC )=1.215−0.915

Stadia Intercept ( S OC )=0.300m

 ¿ Station O → Station D

Stadia Intercept ( S OD ) =1.099−0.599

Stadia Intercept ( S OD ) =0.500 m

¿ Station O → Station E

Stadia Intercept ( S OE )=1.048−0.390

Stadia Intercept ( S OE )=0.658 m

C. Stadia Interval Factor Computation

Based on Table 1 in I. Data and Results and the previous computations on part B of II.
Computations, the stadia interval factors (K) were computed from the values of each
horizontal distance from the Engineer’s level to each stadia rods, the given stadia constant (C
= 0.31) and the computed stadia intercepts. The following formula was derived from
equation 1 and used to compute for the stadia interval factor (K).

D=KS+C (Equation 1)

D−C=KS

D−C
=K (Equation 3)
S

The values on Table 1 in I. Data and Results and the previous computed values for stadia
intercepts were substituted in equation 3 to yield the stadia interval factor (K).
¿ Station O → Station A @ D = 10 m

10−0.31
Stadia Interval Factor ( K OA )=
0.101

Stadia Interval Factor ( K OA )=95.941

¿ Station O → Station B @ D = 25 m
 25−0.31
Stadia Interval Factor ( K OB )=
0.251

Stadia Interval Factor ( K OB )=98.367

¿ Station O → Station C @ D = 30 m

30−0.31
Stadia Interval Factor ( K OC ) =
0.300

Stadia Interval Factor ( K OC ) =98.967

¿ Station O → Station D @ D = 50 m

50−0.31
Stadia Interval Factor ( K OD )=
0.500

Stadia Interval Factor ( K OD )=99.380

¿ Station O → Station E @ D = 65 m

65−0.31
Stadia Interval Factor ( K OE )=
0.658

Stadia Interval Factor ( K OE )=98.313

D. Average of the Computed Stadia Interval Factor

Based on the previous computation on part C of II. Computations, the average stadia
interval factor was computed using the following formula:

K OA + K OB + K OC + K OD + K OE
Average Stadia Interval Factor ( K OA )= (Equation
n
4)

The previous computed values of stadia interval factor (K) from part C of II.
Computations as well as n = 5 were substituted to equation 4 to yield the average:
 95.941+98.367+ 98.967+99.38+ 98.313
Average Stadia Interval Factor ( K OA )=
5

490.968
Average Stadia Interval Factor ( K OA )=
5

Average Stadia Interval Factor ( K OA )=98.194

Therefore, the average stadia interval factor (K) or the ratio of the focal length and the
spacing between the stadia hairs is 98.194

E. Comparing the Computed Average Stadia Interval Factor with the Computed
Individual Stadia Interval Factor.

The average stadia interval factor computed on part D of the II. Computations and the
values of the computed individual stadia interval factor on part C of II. Computations were
compared.

¿ Value1−Value2∨ ¿ × 100
(Value 1+ Value2)
2
Percentage Difference=¿

Stadia Interval Factor ( K OA )∧ Average Interval Factor (K )

¿ 95.941−98.194∨ ¿ ×100
(95.941+98.194)
2
Percentage Difference=¿

Percentage Difference=2.32

Stadia Interval Factor ( K OB )∧ Average Interval Factor (K )

¿ 98.367−98.194∨ ¿ ×100
( 98.367+98.194)
2
Percentage Difference=¿

Percentage Difference=0.18

Stadia Interval Factor ( K OC ) ∧ Average Interval Factor ( K)

¿ 98.967−98.194∨ ¿ ×100
( 98.967+98.194)
2
Percentage Difference=¿

Percentage Difference=0.78

Stadia Interval Factor ( K OD )∧ Average Interval Factor ( K )

¿ 99.38 0−98.194∨ ¿ ×100

(99.38 0+ 98.194)
2
Percentage Difference=¿

Percentage Difference=1.2

Stadia Interval Factor ( K OE )∧ Average Interval Factor (K )

¿ 98.313−98.194∨ ¿ × 100
(98.313+ 98.194)
2
Percentage Difference=¿

Percentage Difference=0.12
III. ILLUSTRATIONS
IV. DATA ANALYSIS

Through the given field survey exercise, the upper and lower stadia readings were
obtained to compute for the stadia intercepts. In line with this, several formulas were used
along with various computations to obtain the averaged stadia interval factor. The following
procedures are projected in I. Data and Results and II. Computations. At this point, several
concepts are proven and many theories are supported with the data collected on the previous
parts of the report. The information from I. Data and Results and II. Computations proved
the following concepts:

i. With the use of Engineer’s level that was set-up on a point near Henry Sy gate and
the stadia rod positioned on each interval on the measuring tape laid on the
ground, the values of the upper, lower and middle cross hair rod readings
projected on the stadia rod were obtained. Using the following data, the stadia
intercepts are obtained. All were done because the telescope of the Engineer’s
level is furnished with stadia hairs. Therefore, Engineer’s level is one of the
expedient instrument which can determine its own stadia interval factor given the
proper computations and techniques.

ii. The stadia intercepts on the different positions/locations of stadia rod are
computed by subtracting the lower cross hair reading to the upper cross hair
reading obtained. Also, the formula in finding the horizontal distance from the
center of the plumb bob to the face of the rod (D=KS+C ) was derived by
applying the similar triangle theorem on the schematic diagram of the instrument
and the stadia rod. Furthermore, the formula for the stadia interval factor (
D−C
=K ¿ was derived using basic properties of real numbers. Hence, the
S

basics of geometry and algebraic concepts are important to be mastered as well

for the stadia leveling to work.

iii. Using the stadia interval factor (K), one can have a rapid and indirect method of
measuring horizontal distances between two elements using the stadia leveling
method. Thus, knowing or obtaining the stadia interval factor of the instrument
one is using is an utmost important when one is using stadia leveling method in
measuring the horizontal distances.
iv. The computed stadia intercepts (S) were plotted against the computed stadia
interval factor (K) in a line graph. According to Figure 5 on III. Illustrations, the
stadia interval factors (K) computed are almost the same as the stadia intercepts
changes. The graph formed an almost horizontal line which indicates that the
stadia interval factor is constant throughout the field survey exercise. This graph
supports the definition of the book Higher Surveying to the stadia interval factor.
La Putt (1990) explained that the stadia interval factor (K) is the ratio of the focal
length (f) and the spacing between the cross hairs (i) and for any given
instrument, the value remains constant.

v. It was mentioned that the stadia intercepts on the different positions/locations of

stadia rod are computed by subtracting the lower cross hair reading to the upper
cross hair reading obtained and the averaged stadia interval factors was computed
from this. However, even if the proper techniques in the setting-up the Engineer’s
level were applied, there were still errors encountered on the field survey
conducted. There were still small discrepancies between the values of the
averaged stadia interval factor and the individual computed stadia interval factor.
The values of the rod readings were known to have errors thus it is not 100%
accurate. Even with this, rest assured that our group observed and recorded the
data properly and precisely as much as possible to get the correct results needed.

Errors possibly encountered on data gathering are listed below:

a) Natural Errors: For instance, the wind makes the tape measure on the ground
unaligned linearly. Thus, it might affect the readings of the 65-m horizontal
distance required which might also alter the measured interval of the
supposedly positions of the stadia rod to obtain the rod readings.

b) Instrumental Errors: For instance, similar to the error we have had of the
previous activities last term on LBYCVS1, the clamp of the stadia rod used to
extend it is loosened thus it cannot be locked properly, leading to an unstable
rod which might cause error sin the data to be read.

c) Personal errors: For instance, our group had a little difficulty in reading the
upper and lower cross hair readings projected on the stadia rod across the
Engineer’s level because the lengthy distances between the Engineer’s level
and the stadia rod.

d) External errors: For instance, the non-surveying students were passing by the
field survey exercise. They were stepping on the laid out measuring tape
 which might cause it to be unaligned linearly. Furthermore, the non-surveying
students were also blocking the Engineer’s level as they passed by which
might cause slight errors with the readings obtained.
V. CONCLUSION

This field survey exercise has been fruitful and a great comeback for us surveying students
from LBYCVS1. This week I was able to freshen-up the basic uses of each tools and equipment
again. Because of this field survey exercise, I was able to increase the knowledge I had before
with Engineer’s level. I was able to learn using the Engineer’s level in an actual stadia leveling.
Because of this, my understanding in rod readings is not only bound with the middle cross hair
rod readings but also the on the upper and lower cross hair readings. Moreover, our group was
able to determine the stadia interval factor (K) of the Engineer’s level using the instrument itself
and the stadia intercepts computed from the upper and lower cross hair readings obtained.
Additionally, I was able to be more familiarize with setting-up as well as leveling the Engineer’s
level and reading the measurement of the rod readings projected on the stadia rods linearly
positioned to the Engineer’s level itself compared to what I have known on the previous term. I
could still recall that we have used this surveying instrument before on field survey exercises
involving the azimuths. This field survey exercise did not take long because the procedures was
explained thoroughly before performing the said field survey exercise. Our group accomplished
and obtained the necessary data for the computation of the average stadia interval factor (K)
within 28 minutes only. Our group has maximized the skills and potential of its members that
was why we accomplished the task easily. We were organized and dedicated with what we were
doing. Our group considered this first field survey exercise for this term as an easy one because
we have used this surveying instrument several times already. To be honest, I was amazed with
what stadia leveling could do. I was amazed with the fact that we can actually measure (or
computed) the horizontal distances between elements while actually only knowing the stadia
intercepts (S) and the stadia interval factor (K). Furthermore, our group was able to familiarize
ourselves with the basics of geometry and algebraic concepts to be used in this type of leveling.
To sum it all up, I can say that method of stadia leveling is an essential process in determining
the horizontal distances between certain elements using stadia interval factor and stadia
intercepts obtained as long as an individual knows and masters the proper setting-up of the
Engineer’s level and the proper reading of the data it projects on the Stadia rods.
 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the activity performed by our group in this field exercise, here are my
recommendations:

i. Choose a survey site where there are less non-surveying students passersby and
vehicles blocking the set-up that might cause interference in obtaining an accurate
and precise data. Our group had a moment when we had a hard time obtaining the
rod readings (upper, middle and lower) projected on the stadia rod because the
students passed by in front of our set-up.

ii. Since the stadia constant (C) was assigned to each group, try to compare the
computation when one group has used the stadia constant assigned to the other
group.

iii. Since the intervals where each marking pins are going to be places were also
assigned to each group, try using other intervals and compare it from the previous
results.

iv. Try to use longer total distance of the field setup. Instead of using 65-m range, try
using 100-m as the length of the setup.

v. The groups should strictly assign a role on every member of their group in order
to maximize the time allotted for the field experiment and get the optimum result
needed on each activity.

VII. REFERENCES

[1] J. P. La Putt, Higher Surveying, 2nd ed., Manila, Philippines: 1990.

[2] Nptel.ac.in, 'Stadia Method', 2010. [Online]. Available:

http://nptel.ac.in/courses/105107122/modules/module7/html/116.htm. [Accessed: 22-
Jan- 2016].

[3] De La Salle University Civil Engineering Department, Field Survey Exercise 1:

Stadia Interval Factor: De La Salle University