Question 1

For 12 mm thick cement plaster in proportion 1 : 6 applied over 100 m^2 of new brickwork, estimate the quantity of cement required (express the answer in cubic metres of loose cement, considering standard allowances).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Estimating mortar for plaster involves converting the specified thickness and area into a wet volume, then applying a dry-volume allowance to account for bulking, voids, and handling losses. The cement portion is then extracted from the mix proportion (1 : 6 means 1 part cement to 6 parts sand by volume). Given Data / Assumptions: Area A = 100 m^2, plaster thickness t = 12 mm = 0.012 m. Mix proportion = 1 : 6 (cement : sand) → total parts = 7. Standard allowance: adopt an overall dry-volume factor such that dry volume ≈ 1.4 × wet volume (accounts for bulking and contingencies on new work). Reasonable rounding to typical schedule-of-rates practice. Concept / Approach: Wet mortar volume = Area × Thickness. Dry volume = wet volume × factor (≈ 1.4 for plastering to include bulking and normal wastage). Cement quantity (loose volume) = (1 / total parts) × dry volume. This method aligns with standard building estimation procedures used in practice and textbooks. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Wet volume V_wet = A * t = 100 * 0.012 = 1.20 m^3.2) Dry volume V_dry ≈ 1.4 * V_wet = 1.4 * 1.20 = 1.68 m^3.3) Cement fraction = 1 / (1 + 6) = 1 / 7.4) Cement quantity = V_dry / 7 = 1.68 / 7 ≈ 0.24 m^3 ≈ 0.247 m^3 (rounded to listed option). Verification / Alternative check: Using a slightly different factor (e.g., 1.33) plus a small percentage for waste/unevenness leads to a similar cement volume near 0.24–0.25 m^3, consistent with the selected option. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 0.200 m^3: Too low; would correspond to an unrealistically small dry-volume allowance. 0.274 m^3 and 0.295 m^3: Higher than typical; imply larger-than-standard allowances for this thickness and area. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting to convert thickness from millimetres to metres. Omitting the dry-volume/wastage allowance, which underestimates cement markedly. Final Answer: 0.247 m3.

Question 2

In reinforced concrete (R.C.C.) beam detailing, which statements about bent-up bars near supports are correct with respect to resisting negative bending moment, sharing (shear) force, and the typical bend angle?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Bent-up bars (also called cranked bars) are a classic detailing feature in reinforced concrete beams. Near the supports, beams face high shear and negative bending moments (hogging). Understanding what bent-up bars actually do—and the typical bend angle used—helps students connect structural behavior with practical detailing provisions used on site and in design drawings. Given Data / Assumptions: We are discussing simply supported or continuous R.C.C. beams under typical gravity loads. Options refer to negative bending resistance at supports, shear resistance, and the bend angle (commonly 45°). Standard limit-state design practice and conventional detailing rules apply. Concept / Approach: At supports, the top fiber of a continuous or partially fixed beam is in tension due to negative (hogging) moment. Bent-up bars, originally placed in the tension zone at mid-span, are cranked up toward the support to provide tension steel where needed for negative moment. Additionally, because these bars are inclined, they contribute to shear resistance by providing an inclined tensile tie, working with stirrups to carry diagonal tension (web shear). Traditional detailing often uses a 45° crank (or sometimes 30° to 45° depending on code and bar diameter), which is easy to fabricate and provides an effective vector component toward the support. Step-by-Step Solution: Check statement about negative bending: Bent-up bars at supports place steel in the correct (top) zone to resist hogging tension — correct.Check statement about shear: Inclined bars add to shear capacity by intersecting potential diagonal cracks — correct.Check statement about bend angle: Typical practice uses about 45° (some codes permit 30°–45°) — correct as a general rule.Therefore, the comprehensive choice that captures all truths is “All the above”. Verification / Alternative check: Design texts show that inclined reinforcement contributes to V_resist through its vertical component. Crack patterns near supports align with diagonal tension, so cranked bars plus stirrups form a truss-like mechanism to resist shear and negative moment together. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single statement alone is incomplete; the full behavior involves negative moment resistance, shear contribution, and conventional bend angles. “None of these” contradicts well-established detailing practice. Common Pitfalls: Assuming stirrups alone resist shear; forgetting that support regions need top steel; thinking crank angle has to be exactly one value without code-permitted ranges. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 3

In earthwork volume computation, the trapezoidal formula relies on which fundamental assumption(s) about the geometry of the end sections and area variation?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In highway, canal, and railway earthwork, volumes between two measured cross-sections are commonly approximated using either the trapezoidal (average end area) formula or the more accurate prismoidal formula. Knowing the precise assumptions behind each method is crucial to select the right formula and to apply corrections properly. Given Data / Assumptions: We are comparing statements about end-section geometry and how areas vary between stations. Focus is on the basis of the trapezoidal formula, not the prismoidal formula. Understanding of prismoidal correction is relevant but must be correctly stated. Concept / Approach: The trapezoidal (average end area) formula assumes linear variation of area between two parallel end sections, leading to volume V_trap = (L / 2) * (A1 + A2). Its core geometric prerequisite is that the two end sections are comparable and effectively “parallel planes.” The prismoidal formula V_pris = (L / 6) * (A1 + 4 * A_m + A2) is exact for prismoids where area varies quadratically with distance. Typically, the trapezoidal formula underestimates volume when the mid-area exceeds the mean of end areas; a “prismoidal correction” is added to trapezoidal results to approach prismoidal accuracy, not subtracted from an “over-estimated prismoidal volume”. Step-by-Step Solution: Is parallelism of end sections required? Yes — essential for consistent area interpolation in trapezoidal method.Is the “mid-area of a pyramid equals half the average of end areas” a general basis? No — it is a special geometric observation and not the fundamental assumption of trapezoidal volume.Is the statement about “prismoidal being over-estimated” correct? No — prismoidal is the more accurate baseline; trapezoidal is the approximation that may require a positive correction.Therefore, only the first assumption is the correct basis for the trapezoidal formula. Verification / Alternative check: Compute with an example where A_m > (A1 + A2)/2: V_pris > V_trap, so the correction is positive and added to the trapezoidal result, confirming the logic. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B: A niche geometric note; not the general assumption of the trapezoidal method. Option C: Factually incorrect regarding over-estimation by the prismoidal formula. Option D: Bundles incorrect statements alongside a correct one, so it is wrong. Common Pitfalls: Interchanging the roles of “trapezoidal” and “prismoidal”; assuming corrections reduce prismoidal volume; forgetting that trapezoidal is an approximation reliant on linear area variation. Final Answer: Only the assumption that end sections are parallel planes is essential for the trapezoidal formula.

Question 4

Regarding a house sewer intercepting device (master trap) and its fresh-air inlet arrangement, identify the incorrect statement from typical public health engineering practice.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The master trap (intercepting trap) isolates a building’s drainage system from the public sewer, minimizing entry of foul gases while allowing ventilation via a fresh-air inlet (F.A.I.) pipe. Understanding the components and correct features is important for sanitary design and maintenance. Given Data / Assumptions: Master trap installed at the junction of house drain and street sewer. F.A.I. pipe arrangement with protective flap and adequate height. Comparison of water-seal depth with ordinary fixture traps. Concept / Approach: The intercepting trap includes a deeper water seal than ordinary traps (often around 7.5 cm or more), ensuring a reliable barrier against sewer gases. A cleaning eye enables rodding. The fresh-air inlet allows atmospheric air into the system; a flap that opens inwards only prevents outward flow of foul air while permitting inward ventilation. The F.A.I. termination is kept safely above ground (commonly 1.8 m or more; many texts cite approximately 2–3 m) to avoid nuisance and to admit clean air. Step-by-Step Solution: Check position: Between house drain and street sewer — correct.Check cleaning eye: Provided for maintenance — correct.Check F.A.I. height: A height of the order of a couple of meters (up to ~3 m) above ground is acceptable — statement is reasonable.Check flap action: Inward-opening flap admits fresh air and blocks exit of foul gases — correct.Water seal depth: The statement “less than ordinary traps” is wrong — the master trap has a deeper seal than ordinary traps. Verification / Alternative check: Standard sanitary engineering references specify deeper seals for intercepting traps to maintain gas barriers even under pressure fluctuations. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options A–D describe accepted arrangements and functions for intercepting traps and their F.A.I. assemblies. Common Pitfalls: Assuming all traps have the same seal depth; confusing the flow direction of the F.A.I. flap; placing the F.A.I. outlet too low causing odour issues. Final Answer: The water seal depth is less than that of ordinary traps.

Question 5

In earthwork estimation using the mid-section (mean-section) method, which of the following statements correctly describe how areas and volumes are determined between two consecutive sections?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: For routine roadway and canal projects, earthwork volumes between stations can be computed by simple approximate methods when the cross-section shape is consistent. The mid-section (mean-section) method is one such technique, lying conceptually between the average-end-area and prismoidal approaches. Given Data / Assumptions: Two consecutive sections at a known spacing L. Sectional geometry (e.g., formation width and side slopes) remains the same, while depths vary. Mean depth is representative for computing a mid-section area. Concept / Approach: The method first computes a representative depth as the simple average of depths at the two stations. Using that mean depth and the section geometry, one evaluates the “mid-section area.” The earthwork volume over the interval is then approximated as this mid-section area multiplied by the spacing L between the same two sections. Step-by-Step Solution: Compute mean depth: d_mean = (d1 + d2) / 2.Compute mid-section area A_m using d_mean in the standard area formula (e.g., for a trapezoidal cutting).Compute volume: V ≈ A_m * L, where L is the distance between the two consecutive sections under consideration.Recognize that the “original sections” phrase in option (d) is a distractor; the spacing used is the same pair’s spacing. Verification / Alternative check: For small differences between d1 and d2, the mid-section result approaches the prismoidal value; for larger differences, the prismoidal formula gives improved accuracy over this approximation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option (d) is incorrect because volume must refer to the distance between the same two sections whose depths were averaged. Common Pitfalls: Using inconsistent geometry when forming A_m; confusing section spacing; applying the method where section shape changes significantly. Final Answer: (a), (b) and (c) of the above.

Question 6

In building measurements and billing, which of the following steelwork items are typically measured in square metres (sq.m)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Quantity surveying requires selecting the correct unit of measurement for each work item to ensure consistent estimation, tendering, and billing. Many fabricated sheeted or framed openings are measured by area (sq.m) rather than by weight or running length. Given Data / Assumptions: The items listed are common in architectural and structural steelwork for buildings. Standard measurement practices (PWD/CPWD-type conventions) are assumed. We are to identify which of the items are measured in sq.m. Concept / Approach: Items covering openings—such as collapsible gates, rolling shutters, steel doors, and ventilators/glazing—are priced per unit area because their cost scales with size in two dimensions, accounting for framing, panels, sheeting, and hardware within standard specifications. Step-by-Step Solution: Collapsible gates: measured in sq.m of clear opening covered — yes.Rolling shutters: quoted per sq.m including curtain, guides, and accessories — yes.Steel doors: area measurement is standard, including frame and shutter as specified — yes.Ventilators and glazing: glassed area or framed ventilator area is measured in sq.m — yes.Therefore, “All the above” is correct. Verification / Alternative check: Standard schedule of rates commonly lists these items with area-based descriptions, with separate items for hardware or special finishes as applicable. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single option alone is incomplete, since all listed items use area units in typical practice. Common Pitfalls: Measuring shutters or doors by running metre or by weight; omitting allowances for grills, glazing thickness, or specified frame sections. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 7

In earthwork/payment classification, which excavation items are measured in square metres (sq.m) rather than cubic metres (cu.m)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Correct units are crucial for estimating and paying for earthwork. Shallow, spread-out operations are commonly measured by surface area, while bulk diggings are measured by volume. Recognising which items fall into each category prevents contractual disputes. Given Data / Assumptions: “Surface dressing” is a shallow operation, typically limited to about 15 cm depth. “Surface excavation” is slightly deeper but still shallow (up to about 30 cm). “Ordinary cutting” refers to deeper excavation, e.g., up to 1 m depth or more. Concept / Approach: Area measurement (sq.m) is appropriate when depth is standardized and small, so cost primarily scales with the plan area treated. Deeper excavation with significant variable depths is measured by volume (cu.m) because removed material depends on both area and depth. Step-by-Step Solution: Surface dressing up to 15 cm: paid in sq.m — yes.Surface excavation up to 30 cm: also measured in sq.m — yes.Ordinary cutting up to 1 m: measured in cu.m — not sq.m.Therefore, items (b) and (c) are the ones measured in sq.m. Verification / Alternative check: Schedules of Rates and standard measurement books list separate items for surface dressing/excavation by area and bulk excavation by volume. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) involves substantial depth; it is measured volumetrically. (e) incorrectly includes (a). Common Pitfalls: Confusing superficial works with bulk earthwork; forgetting depth limits that switch the unit from area to volume. Final Answer: Both (b) and (c)

Question 8

In building measurements (quantity surveying), what is the conventional order of booking dimensions for items such as masonry, concrete, and plaster?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A uniform convention for recording dimensions avoids confusion and errors in quantity take-off and billing. Quantity surveyors typically follow a fixed order throughout drawings, abstracts, and bills to ensure clarity and comparability. Given Data / Assumptions: We are concerned with standard building items where three dimensions describe the work. Conventional practice is sought, not a one-off project-specific convention. Concept / Approach: The widely adopted rule is to book dimensions as Length first (the larger horizontal extent or along the run), Breadth (width or thickness), and Height (or depth/vertical dimension) last. This LBH order is applied to masonry, concrete, plastering, and many other trades, with special cases noted in standard measurement rules. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the principal run of the item — record as Length.Record the secondary horizontal dimension — as Breadth (or thickness, as applicable).Record the vertical dimension — as Height or depth.Thus the order is Length, Breadth, Height. Verification / Alternative check: Most SORs and standard method of measurement (SMM) texts explicitly specify LBH to standardize entries and calculations. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any permutation other than LBH departs from convention and can cause misinterpretation or rework. Common Pitfalls: Mixing thickness with breadth inconsistently; switching order between items; failing to note special measurement rules (e.g., deductions and openings). Final Answer: Length, breadth, height

Question 9

In a brickwork Bill of Quantities (BOQ), which of the following items is typically measured in square metres (sq.m) rather than cubic metres (cu.m) or running metres?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Different brickwork and associated items use different billing units. Cubic metres are used for volumetric masonry, running metres for linear features, and square metres for superficial finishes or coverings. Selecting the correct unit maintains consistency across estimates and payments. Given Data / Assumptions: Reinforced brickwork and brick arches are volumetric masonry items. Brick edging is a linear feature along edges. Broken glass coping forms a superficial protective layer along the top of a wall. Concept / Approach: Broken glass coping is spread over an area on top of walls for anti-climb security or finish; hence it is measured in sq.m. Reinforced brickwork and arches involve thickness and volume, thus measured in cu.m. Brick edging is measured by length (running metres) because it is essentially linear with a standard cross-section. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the nature of each item: superficial, volumetric, or linear.Map unit: superficial → sq.m; volumetric → cu.m; linear → m.Apply: Broken glass coping → sq.m; reinforced brickwork → cu.m; brick edging → m; brickwork in arches → cu.m.Therefore, the correct sq.m item is Broken glass coping. Verification / Alternative check: Schedules of Rates and standard measurement rules list coping or protective toppings by area, including materials and laying specifications. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Reinforced brick work: measured by volume due to structural thickness. Brick edging: measured by running metre along its path. Brick work in arches: volumetric measurement applies. Common Pitfalls: Confusing surface treatments with masonry; assuming all “brick” items are volumetric. Final Answer: Broken glass coping (spread over the top of a wall)

Question 10

According to standard productivity norms, what is the expected out-turn (area completed) for a 2.5 cm thick cement concrete floor per mason per day?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Out-turn (productivity) norms help in planning labour, estimating durations, and preparing cost estimates. For thin cement concrete floor toppings such as 2.5 cm thickness, productivity depends on mixing, placing, compacting, finishing, and curing practices. Given Data / Assumptions: Thickness of floor topping = 2.5 cm cement concrete (site-mixed or ready-mix as per specification). One mason working with appropriate helpers in a typical day. Standard site conditions without unusual constraints. Concept / Approach: Schedules of Rates and practical handbooks provide indicative out-turns for common items. Thin C.C. floor toppings require careful finishing and surface accuracy, limiting daily area. A typical benchmark widely used in exams and preliminary planning is about 5.0 sq.m per mason per day for 2.5 cm thickness. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the item and thickness: 2.5 cm C.C. floor.Consult standard norms: thin topping with finishing generally allows moderate coverage.Adopt the indicative value: ≈ 5.0 sq.m per mason per day.Select the option matching this norm. Verification / Alternative check: Cross-checking with other sources shows ranges; however, 5.0 sq.m is the commonly accepted exam key figure balancing finishing quality with productivity. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 2.5 sq.m: Unduly conservative for standard conditions. 7.5 sq.m or 10 sq.m: Aggressive for quality floor finish at 2.5 cm thickness. 12.5 sq.m: Unrealistically high for consistent finishing. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring curing and finishing time in productivity; extrapolating from thicker slabs or machine-finished floors without adjustment. Final Answer: 5.0 sq.m

Question 11

In measurement and estimation for building services, which of the following statements regarding water-supply pipe items is correct: separate measurement of trench-laid versus wall-fixed pipes, inclusion of cutting through walls/floors with the pipe…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Accurate quantity take-off for water-supply work follows standardized measurement rules so that tenders, billing, and cost control remain consistent. This question checks your grasp of how pipeline items are segregated, what incidental works are included, and how specifications like size, material, and jointing methods are recorded for clarity in civil engineering estimation. Given Data / Assumptions: The item pertains to potable/service water-supply piping. Installations may be trench-laid (buried) or surface-fixed (on walls/ceilings). Openings through walls/floors are required along pipe routes. Standard measurement conventions per common schedules of rates and IS methods are followed. Concept / Approach: Measurement rules separate items by how and where the pipe is installed because resources, supports, and making good differ. Incidental operations like cutting chases or holes and making good are included with the pipe laying/fixing item to avoid double counting. Pipes are always classified by nominal size and material/quality (e.g., GI Class B/C, CPVC SDR rating), and the method of jointing (threaded, welded, solvent-cemented, flanged) must be explicitly specified because it affects labour, fittings, and durability. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify work location: trench-laid vs wall/ceiling-fixed → measure separately due to different accessories and labour.2) Include associated operations: cutting through masonry or slabs and later making good are commonly included with the pipe item.3) Classify the pipe: record size (e.g., 25 mm nominal bore) and quality (material grade/class).4) Specify jointing/fixing: state threading/welding/solvent cement, clamps/hangers spacing, and anchors. Verification / Alternative check: Cross-check with a schedule of rates or method-of-measurement standard: each of the listed statements appears as a foundational rule to keep items unambiguous and comparable across bidders and bills. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options A–D are all true individually; choosing any single one omits other essential rules. Common Pitfalls: Lumping trench and wall runs together, which obscures supports and restoration costs. Omitting making-good after cutting, leading to variations later. Failing to specify jointing method, causing quality and pricing disputes. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 12

According to standard methods of measurement used in civil engineering estimation, the volume of work items (e.g., earthwork, concrete) shall be recorded correct to the nearest which value?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Measurement precision directly influences cost accuracy, reconciliation, and audit trails in project billing. Standard methods of measurement prescribe how finely lengths, areas, and volumes should be recorded to balance practicality with accuracy across drawings, site conditions, and material variability. Given Data / Assumptions: We refer to typical public-works/IS measurement practice. Item type: volumetric work such as excavation, backfilling, or concrete. Units: cubic metres (cum). Concept / Approach: Common civil engineering practice records: length to 0.01 m, area to 0.01 sqm, and volume to 0.01 cum. This precision is a practical compromise; it is tight enough for financial accuracy yet not excessively onerous for site measurement and documentation. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the measure of interest: volume for bulk items.2) Recall standard rounding: volume → 0.01 cum (two decimal places in cubic metres).3) Conclude that measurements should be entered and rounded to the nearest 0.01 cum for payment and records. Verification / Alternative check: Check against departmental SOR prefaces or IS measurement codes; most specify the same precision trio (length 0.01 m, area 0.01 sqm, volume 0.01 cum). Why Other Options Are Wrong: 0.02, 0.03, 0.04 cum: Coarser than standard and may distort small works. 0.05 “sum”: Not a recognized volumetric precision and includes a typographical inconsistency. Common Pitfalls: Mixing unit precisions between length/area/volume. Over-rounding interim measurements, causing cumulative errors. Final Answer: 0.01 cum.

Question 13

While preparing a detailed estimate for civil works, specify the required recording precision for each quantity: dimensions (length), areas, and volumes to be entered in the measurement book.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Consistent precision in measurement records ensures transparent contractor billing, accurate cost control, and reliable audits. Standardized rounding prevents disputes by making the level of detail explicit across all items in a detailed estimate. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard public-works/IS method-of-measurement practices apply. Quantities are logged in a measurement book before abstracting and BOQ preparation. Length, area, and volume are measured for different items. Concept / Approach: The commonly adopted precisions are: length to 0.01 m, area to 0.01 sqm, and volume to 0.01 cum. Adhering to these thresholds reduces rounding bias and supports consistent rate application when abstracting quantities for the estimate and subsequent payments. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Length entries: record to the nearest 0.01 m for linear items (e.g., foundations lines, pipe runs).2) Area entries: compute to the nearest 0.01 sqm for plastering, painting, and flooring.3) Volume entries: compute to the nearest 0.01 cum for earthwork and concrete.4) Summaries: carry forward quantities consistently with the same precision to abstracts. Verification / Alternative check: Departmental manuals and SOR introductions reiterate these same precisions, ensuring harmonization between design, execution, and finance teams. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single statement alone omits the full set; the correct practice encompasses all three precisions together. Common Pitfalls: Rounding too early in calculations, compounding errors. Using inconsistent precision across items, complicating auditing. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 14

In the design of household sanitation, what is the minimum internal width typically adopted for a septic tank to ensure maintainability and structural practicality?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The internal width of a septic tank influences hydraulic retention, scum accumulation zones, and maintainability (e.g., desludging access). Standards and practical guidelines recommend minimum dimensions so that the tank functions reliably and can be constructed and maintained without undue difficulty. Given Data / Assumptions: Rural/urban domestic septic tank for household sewage. Conventional rectangular masonry or concrete construction. Focus is on minimum recommended internal width. Concept / Approach: Very narrow tanks become difficult to construct properly (formwork, reinforcement clearance) and hinder maintenance. A practical minimum of 0.75 m (75 cm) internal width is widely adopted to accommodate inlet and outlet fittings, baffle walls, and effective sludge storage while keeping excavation and material costs controlled. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Consider space for baffles, inlet/outlet tees, and scum clearances.2) Ensure adequate working room for periodic cleaning/desludging.3) Adopt 0.75 m as the minimum internal width meeting functional and construction needs.4) Larger capacities may increase width proportionally; however, the lower bound remains near 75 cm for typical domestic units. Verification / Alternative check: Field manuals and municipal guidelines generally show widths from 0.75 m upwards, with length based on population/flow and depth tailored to cover, freeboard, and sludge space. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 70 cm: Often too narrow for fittings and maintenance clearance. 80 cm or 90 cm: Acceptable but not the minimum; they exceed the lower practical limit and increase cost for small units. Common Pitfalls: Confusing external with internal width (wall thickness reduces internal space). Ignoring access for desludging equipment or manual cleaning. Final Answer: 75 cm.

Question 15

In public works accounting and estimation, identify the correct definitions: work value (excluding contingencies and establishments), actual cost (including incidentals), administrative approval, and technical sanction.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Public sector projects follow codified financial procedures distinguishing planning approvals from technical vetting and tracking of costs. Clarity on these definitions prevents bottlenecks in sanction, tendering, and payment processing. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard public works terminology is used. Separate roles: administrative departments (policy/finance) vs engineering authorities (technical vetting). Direct and indirect cost components are recognized. Concept / Approach: Work value generally denotes the net cost of the physical work excluding contingencies and establishment T&P overheads. Actual cost includes all expenditures incurred to complete a work, covering incidentals and establishments. Administrative approval is the formal go-ahead to spend public money on a defined scheme. Technical sanction is the engineer’s vetted approval of a detailed estimate, drawings, and quantities. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Map each term to its standard definition in codes/manuals.2) Confirm that administrative approval precedes technical sanction in the workflow.3) Recognize that actual cost >= work value due to added overheads and incidentals.4) Conclude that all statements A–D are correct and complementary. Verification / Alternative check: Departmental codes and SOR prefaces list these definitions to standardize project processing from proposal to completion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single statement alone would be incomplete; the question is testing recognition of the complete set. Common Pitfalls: Confusing administrative approval (policy) with technical sanction (engineering vetting). Misreporting work value by including contingency or establishment. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 16

When estimating reinforced cement concrete (RCC) works, what cover assumptions are adopted: (i) at the end of a reinforcing bar, (ii) for thin slabs, and (iii) for longitudinal bars in a beam?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Concrete cover is the thickness of concrete between the surface and the nearest reinforcement. Correct cover is vital for durability (corrosion, fire) and for ensuring that reinforcement develops the required bond. Estimation uses assumed covers to derive net dimensions, bar schedules, and quantities. Given Data / Assumptions: Ordinary RCC members: slabs and beams. Typical minimum covers for ends, thin slabs, and beam longitudinal bars. Cover criteria are expressed as minimums or as functions of bar diameter. Concept / Approach: At bar ends and in aggressive exposures, larger cover may be required; however, estimation adopts standard minimums unless specifications dictate otherwise. For thin slabs, the practical lower bound is 12 mm or one bar diameter, whichever is more, to ensure bond and to account for tolerances. For beam longitudinal bars, 25 mm or the largest bar diameter (whichever is greater) is a common baseline before exposure-based adjustments. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) State end-cover rule: 25 mm or 2d (d = bar diameter) whichever is greater.2) State thin slab rule: 12 mm minimum or d, whichever is greater.3) State beam longitudinal rule: 25 mm minimum or largest bar diameter, whichever is greater.4) Apply these values consistently while preparing bar bending schedules and net formwork dimensions. Verification / Alternative check: Design codes allow modifications based on exposure class or fire rating, but the above serve as standard estimation assumptions for general conditions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each individual statement is correct; the comprehensive answer requires acknowledging the full set. Common Pitfalls: Confusing nominal cover with clear cover (to links/stirrups vs main bars). Ignoring tolerance and exposure adjustments leading to under-cover in practice. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 17

In building measurement, damp-proof course (D.P.C.) installed in walls is measured for payment under which unit of measurement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Damp-proof course is a thin barrier layer (e.g., polymer-modified bituminous membrane, rich cement mortar with additives) laid horizontally in masonry to block capillary rise of moisture. Correct unit selection in measurement ensures alignment with standard rates and avoids ambiguity in tendering and billing. Given Data / Assumptions: D.P.C. is a thin layer of nearly uniform thickness under wall lengths. Thickness is specified, but the payable quantity primarily depends on covered area. Standard schedules treat such items similarly to floor or surface treatments. Concept / Approach: Because D.P.C. is not a volume-intensive item like concrete nor a simple linear accessory like a beading, its measurement is generally on an area basis. The unit therefore is square metre (Sq m), with the thickness and composition defined in the item description (e.g., 25 mm thick 1:2 mortar with waterproofing compound or a membrane specification). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify that D.P.C. covers a plan area under walls.2) Record length × width (or wall thickness) to compute area.3) Apply the specified thickness and material in the item description; unit for payment remains Sq m.4) Note any laps, overlaps, and turn-ups as per specification—often included in the area measurement. Verification / Alternative check: Schedules of rates list D.P.C. with rate per Sq m, reinforcing the area-based measurement convention. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Cub.m: Used for volumetric items (concrete, earthwork), not thin layers. Metres: Suits linear items (beading, expansion joints), not area spreads. None of these: Incorrect because Sq m is standard. Common Pitfalls: Measuring D.P.C. by wall centre-line length only, forgetting to multiply by thickness for area. Ignoring overlaps/returns required by specification. Final Answer: Sq m.

Question 18

In quantity surveying for civil engineering works, identify the incorrect rounding convention from the following measurement precisions (dimensions, areas, volumes, and weights).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Standard measurement rules in civil engineering (as followed in common Schedules of Rates and methods of measurement) prescribe practical rounding precisions for dimensions, areas, volumes, and weights. Estimators and measurers must adopt consistent rounding so that bills, tenders, and audits reconcile without disputes. Given Data / Assumptions: The conventions refer to on-site or drawing-based take-off for building and infrastructure works. Typical precisions: length to centimetres (0.01 m), areas to 0.01 sq.m, volumes usually to 0.01 cu.m, and weights to 0.001 tonne. Only one of the listed statements is incorrect. Concept / Approach: Dimension precision is selected to be fine enough for accuracy yet practical for documentation. Lengths are commonly recorded to 0.01 m. Areas—being products of lengths—are reasonably kept to 0.01 sq.m. Volumes are commonly to 0.01 cu.m for concretes, earthwork, etc., because 0.1 cu.m would be too coarse for many items. Weights (for reinforcement, structural steel, etc.) are frequently recorded to 0.001 tonne (1 kg) for billing accuracy. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate A: 0.01 m for linear dimensions is standard and practical.Evaluate B: 0.01 sq.m is a widely used rounding for area computations.Evaluate C: 0.1 cu.m is overly coarse; standard practice uses 0.01 cu.m to avoid large rounding errors.Evaluate D: 0.001 tonne (1 kg) is an accepted precision for steel and other weights.Therefore, option C is the incorrect statement. Verification / Alternative check: Check a small slab volume (e.g., 3.5 x 2.4 x 0.1 m = 0.84 cu.m). Rounding to 0.1 cu.m could distort values by more than 5%, which is unacceptable; 0.01 cu.m mitigates this risk. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A, B, and D reflect common, defensible practice and are not incorrect. E is false because C is indeed incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Mixing drawing scale precision with billing precision; over-rounding volumes, which accumulates significant errors across multiple items. Final Answer: Cubic contents (volumes) are measured to the nearest 0.1 cu.m.

Question 19

For earthwork in trenches or borrow pits, which statements correctly describe standard methods of measurement in uniform ground, irregular ground, and when direct methods are infeasible?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Earthwork measurement varies with site conditions. Surveyors select techniques that best reflect actual excavation or filling. Understanding when to use average depths (dead men), level differences, or filling-based back-calculation ensures fair and auditable quantities. Given Data / Assumptions: Trenches or borrow pits can be in fairly uniform or irregular terrain. Dead men (reference pegs) mark original ground to gauge average depths easily. Filling-based inference is used only when direct measurement methods are impractical. Concept / Approach: In uniform ground, average depths from fixed reference points give reliable volumes. In irregular ground, pre- and post-work levels yield volumetric differences. Where neither works (e.g., access constraints, waterlogged conditions), back-calculate from filled quantities and deduct voids to approximate the in-situ earthwork. Step-by-Step Solution: Confirm A: Average depth method with dead men is standard for uniform ground.Confirm B: Level-difference (strip levels or grid) is appropriate for irregular ground.Confirm C: When direct measurement is infeasible, using fill with voids deduction is accepted practice.Hence D (All the above) is correct. Verification / Alternative check: Field manuals outline all three as valid, with documentation of assumptions (e.g., bulking/void ratios) when using filling-based estimates. Why Other Options Are Wrong: E omits the legitimate third contingency approach and is therefore incomplete. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring bulking/compaction factors; using the average-depth method in highly irregular ground. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 20

In the long-and-short-wall method of estimation, the length of a long wall is taken as the centre-to-centre distance between walls plus which allowance?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The long-and-short-wall method is a classic approach to estimate quantities of masonry. It distinguishes between external (long) and internal (short) walls and prescribes how to compute their lengths for volume or area calculations. Given Data / Assumptions: Long walls are measured out-to-out; short walls in-to-in. Centre-to-centre spacing and wall thickness B are known. We seek the correct allowance for long-wall length. Concept / Approach: For long walls, out-to-out length = centre-to-centre length + half breadth at each end (total +B). For short walls, in-to-in length = centre-to-centre length − half breadth at each end (total −B). This ensures joints and overlaps are correctly accounted when summing item quantities. Step-by-Step Solution: Long wall out-to-out = L_c/c + 0.5B (left) + 0.5B (right) = L_c/c + B.Therefore the rule is “add half breadth on each side”.Select option that states this explicitly. Verification / Alternative check: Worked examples in estimation textbooks consistently apply +B for long walls and −B for short walls when moving from centre lines. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A overstates the rule (adds full breadth at one end only). C is an arbitrary fraction not used. D ignores necessary out-to-out allowance. E reverses the correct adjustment. Common Pitfalls: Applying the same sign for both long and short walls; forgetting to adjust at junctions and for openings. Final Answer: Half breadth of the wall on each side (i.e., add 0.5B at both ends).

Estimating and Costing Questions