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?

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.