You are on page 1of 5

To: Prof. Jeffrey A.

Gonzales
From: ABE 70 Y-3L Group 4 (Aurelio, Boncajes, Espejon, Nuez, Tintero)
Exercise: 1b. Pacing
Date: August 16, 2017

Introduction
The accurate determination of the distance between two points on any surface is one of the
basic operations of plane surveying (La Putt, 1985). Pacing in surveying is the method of obtaining
approximate horizontal distances through the means of walking which can be quite useful in some
situations. Regardless of the slope, it will always be in terms of horizontal distances. In pacing, the
normal walking pace of an individual is required in order to get the closest approximate
measurement. It consists of counting the number of steps or paces in a given distance. One footstep
is equal to one pace and two footsteps is equal to one stride. The ratio of measured distance in the
number of paces made by an individual to cover the measured distance is what you call the pace
factor. Pacing is usually determined per 100 feet of distance.

Objectives
a. To determine individual pace factor
b. To measure distance by pacing

Methodology
The following materials were used in the exercise: range poles (2), fiberglass tape
and chaining pins (2). The first part of the exercise is allocated in determining the pace factor. A
straight and level course was selected, measuring about 20 meters and chaining pins were put as
markers on both ends, designated as A and B. About half a meter from each chaining pin, a range
pole was established. The course was walked over at a steady and constant pace, starting with
either heel or toe over pin A and the number of paces were counted until point B was reached. The
motion of the exercise is to walk from A to B and then B to A and so on, until five trials were
completed. The data gathered were recorded in the table.
The second part of the exercise is about measuring the distance by pacing. From
the level course in part one of the exercise, a chaining pin was arbitrarily placed and established
so that the length of the course is unknown and was determined by pacing. These points were
designated as C and D. The same procedure was done until five trials were completed. An actual
taping was done after the 5 trials to determine the taped distance. The data gathered were then
recorded in the table.

Results and Discussion


Pacing furnishes a convenient means of obtaining approximate distances (Breed &
Hosmer, 1916). It is also sufficiently accurate and is the most expeditious of many subordinate
measurements of distance (Rayner, 1937). However, the length of a pace and the rate of speed
varies with different persons. The individual pace factor of each member differs because the

1
number of paces per taped distance of a member differs from the other members. With this, it is
advisable to do the pacing in at least five or more trials to determine the mean number of paces of
each member. Moreover, the uncertainties obtained in measuring the number of paces caused the
differences in each pace factor. Uncertainty is always considered when it comes to measurement.
Thus, it greatly contributed in attaining the differences in pace factors.
Table 1. Pace Factor of members in Group 4.
Member Pace Factors (m/pace)
Aurelio 0.7133
Boncajes 0.6386
Espejon 0.7782
Nuez 0. 6500
Tintero 0.6720
* Taped distance used by all of the members is 20.00m

In the second part of this exercise where the taped distance is to be measured using the
individual pace factors, the number of paces of each member differ from the number of paces they
made in the first part. Hence, the mean number of paces is different. Also, there are differences in
the pace factors of each member as shown in table 1. With these factors, the members had
differences in their paced distance as shown in table 2.
The relative precision of each member is based on their taped distance. The taped distance
was held constant for all members, but the paced distance of each member is different from one
another. Hence, the relative precision of each member is also different. Based on the data, two (2)
individuals were able to achieve a relative precision greater than 1/200, which is the least accepted
precision. There are several factors that affected the relative precision of each member. A major
factor is the manner of walking. It is important to walk naturally when calibrating ones pace
because a slight deviation to the left or right of the line will affect the accuracy of pacing (La Putt,
1985). Another factor is fatigue. Walking is quite tiring especially when it is done multiple times.
This would tend to affect the precision of each pace done by a person. With this, accuracy is of
great importance. These factors have a big contribution for computing the relative precision of
each pacer because a small deviation of the measured pace could lead to a large percent error in
the computed paced distance and a less acceptable relative precision.

Table.2 Paced Distance and Relative Precision of members in Group 4


Members Paced Distance (m) Error (m) Relative Precision
Aurelio 24.39 1/369
Boncajes 23.27 1/21
Espejon 24.56 1/244
Nuez
Tintero 24.16 1/81
* Taped distance used by all of the members is 24.46m

2
Summary and Conclusion
Through this exercise, the concepts of pacing were applied in the use of the pace factor
which was determined by counting the number of paces in a given length of a course and getting
the ratio of the same length to the number of paces. Another application of the concept of pacing
is in the determination of an unknown distance using the same pace factor which varies in every
individual by multiplying the pace factor of an individual to the number of paces in a given course.
Pacing is important in measuring a land area even with the absence of instruments by means
of approximation. Though, errors may occur since there exist inconsistencies with the sizes of feet,
steepness or elevation of the course, fatigue, and rate of pacing. To further improve this exercise,
walking in a constant rate as much as possible and a straight-level course must be considered to
minimize the errors.

References
Breed, C. B. & Hosmer, G. L. (1916). The Principles and Practice of Surveying: Elementary
Surveying. Measurement of Distances. Volume I. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p7

La Putt, J. P. (1985). Elementary Surveying 3rd Edition. Baguio Research & Publishing Center.
p54-55

Rayner, W. H. (1937). Elementary Surveying. Pacing. New York, D. Van Nostrand Company,
Inc. 259 Fourth Avenue. p19

3
Appendices
Table 3. Pace factor determination of Aurelio
Trial Line Taped distance (m) No. of paces Mean no. of paces Pace Factor (m/pace)
1 AB 28.0
2 BA 28.0
3 AB 20.00 28.1 28.04 0.7133
4 BA 28.1
5 AB 28.0

Table 4. Pace factor determination of Boncajes


Trial Line Taped distance (m) No. of paces Mean no. of paces Pace Factor (m/pace)
1 AB 32.0
2 BA 31.5
3 AB 20.00 31.0 31.32 0.6386
4 BA 31.7
5 AB 31.4

Table 5. Pace factor determination of Espejon


Trial Line Taped distance (m) No. of paces Mean no. of paces Pace Factor (m/pace)
1 AB 25.8
2 BA 25.5
3 AB 20.00 25.7 25.70 0.7782
4 BA 25.5
5 AB 26.0

Table 6. Pace factor determination of Nuez


Trial Line Taped distance (m) No. of paces Mean no. of paces Pace Factor (m/pace)
1 AB 31.6
2 BA 31.0
3 AB 20.00 30.8 30.78 0.6500
4 BA 29.8
5 AB 30.7

Table 7. Pace factor determination of Tintero


Trial Line Taped distance (m) No. of paces Mean no. of paces Pace Factor (m/pace)
1 AB 30.2
2 BA 29.7
3 AB 20.00 30.0 29.76 0.6720
4 BA 29.5
5 AB 29.4

4
Table 8. Paced Distance and Relative Precision Determination of Aurelio
Trial Line No. of paces Mean no. of paces Paced Distance (m) Tape Distance (m) Error Relative Precision
1 CD 34.5
2 DC 34.5
3 CD 34.0 34.20 24.39 24.46 0.07 1/369
4 DC 34.0
5 CD 34.0

Table 9. Paced Distance and Relative Precision Determination of Boncajes


Trial Line No. of paces Mean no. of paces Paced Distance (m) Tape Distance (m) Error Relative Precision
1 CD 37.8
2 DC 36.0
3 CD 35.7 36.48 23.27 24.46 1.19 1/21
4 DC 37.5
5 CD 35.4

Table 10. Paced Distance and Relative Precision Determination of Espejon


Trial Line No. of paces Mean no. of paces Paced Distance (m) Tape Distance (m) Error Relative Precision
1 CD 31.2
2 DC 31.2
3 CD 31.8 31.56 24.56 24.46 0.10 1/244
4 DC 31.8
5 CD 31.8

Table 11. Paced Distance and Relative Precision Determination of Nuez


Trial Line No. of paces Mean no. of paces Paced Distance (m) Tape Distance (m) Error Relative Precision
1 CD 36.0
2 DC 35.6
3 CD 34.8 35.62 23.15 24.46 1.31 1/18
4 DC 36.0
5 CD 35.7

Table 12. Paced Distance and Relative Precision Determination of Tintero


Trial Line No. of paces Mean no. of paces Paced Distance (m) Tape Distance (m) Error Relative Precision
1 CD 35.5
2 DC 35.9
3 CD 36.5 35.96 24.16 24.46 0.3 1/81
4 DC 35.7
5 CD 36.2