Floor Flatness Help Request

[mbmiller34]

Evening All,

I'm struggling to understand Floor Flatness and I thought Leica's Cloudworx was a magic bullet but not I'm more confused than ever. I originally created a heat map of the color from the scan data which showed a vertical variation of about 5cm inside civil from the scan data. I was asked if the floor was within a tolerance of 25 / 50 as that was what the client required. I don't deal with this normally so I gave Cloudworx a spin as Leica's FF routine seem excellent. The floor definitely has issues another subcontractor was brought in and they marked up the highs and lows.

1) why is there a vertical difference of about 2cm between Cloudworx input vs the heatmap I created from the same file? See attachments. Ignore the dark blue on the Cloudworx as I didn't exclude the post cut outs but I did on the civil model.

2) why is the floor which is clearly not flat passing the FF25 and FF50 test inside Cloudworx? What am I missing?

3) what interval should I be using. I just realized the reason it was passing was my interval was set to 0.01 which mean if i understand it correctly that it was comparing every 0.01m to the next to determine flattness.

[Kruse]

Evening All,

I'm struggling to understand Floor Flatness and I thought Leica's Cloudworx was a magic bullet but not I'm more confused than ever. I originally created a heat map of the color from the scan data which showed a vertical variation of about 5cm inside civil from the scan data. I was asked if the floor was within a tolerance of 25 / 50 as that was what the client required. I don't deal with this normally so I gave Cloudworx a spin as Leica's FF routine seem excellent. The floor definitely has issues another subcontractor was brought in and they marked up the highs and lows.

1) why is there a vertical difference of about 2cm between Cloudworx input vs the heatmap I created from the same file? See attachments. Ignore the dark blue on the Cloudworx as I didn't exclude the post cut outs but I did on the civil model.

2) why is the floor which is clearly not flat passing the FF25 and FF50 test inside Cloudworx? What am I missing?

3) what interval should I be using. I just realized the reason it was passing was my interval was set to 0.01 which mean if i understand it correctly that it was comparing every 0.01m to the next to determine flattness.

When setting up the tests, you have to enter the values you want to test it against. The SOV values are what you should change, so that is where you'd enter 25 and 50 and then the software will populate the Pass/Fail boxes. The higher the FF/FL numbers the flatter and more level the floor/area tested is, so in your first snapshot it was a passing test with 80 and 100.

As for the look of the heat map that gets generated on the FF/FL report, I wouldn't be too concerned with the colors as those heat maps are auto generated and don't seem to be the most accurate elevation maps you can generate. We use them as more of a quick idea of the highs/lows of a floor tested. Just setup your elevation mapping and export seperate elevation heat maps using either the built in tools with CloudWorx. We like to setup the elevation mapping, then add spot elevations (cogo points) and then export everything on one document. It has much higher resolution and detail for the color mapping and you have the spot elevations every few feet. See the attached as a simple example.

With CloudWorx and the FF/FL testing, it follows the ASTM 1155 standard, so when you set it up, I believe you should only be testing one point every 1' (I don't deal with metric, so I don't know if it would differ at all). Testing every 1', you need to have an area with a minimum of 10'x10' tested to meet the standard's requirement. If you change the interval, it will change the values it spits out for the composite FF/FL produced. When I change the interval to something smaller than 1', it seems to produce higher composite FF/FL numbers, but I don't believe that is standard and isn't how it should be used. Also, when you setup a test with the CloudWorx plugin, make sure all your lines do not run over any holes in the point cloud or areas containing points that are clearly not the slab you want to test. CloudWorx could grab a point from the holes or surface (such as feet or extension cords) and it could throw off your report. We only draw custom lines instead of using the prebuilt templates to ensure our lines tested avoid any points/objects that would fail the test.

[Mackkowalski]

Make sure to read the ASTM before you perform a ff/fl. There is no magic button. The ACI has done several tests and have found inconsistent results. That being said using scan data in this manner is a waste in my opinion. You’re throwing out millions of data points in favor of a few. I have been fighting to update floor testing methods as laser scanning gives us a better representation of the entire floor as well as actionable data

[mbmiller34]

Thanks Kruse, I didn't understand how to properly use the software and had the wrong interval set. It made a lot more sense once everything was set to 1'. And I agree Mackkowalski, to take a scan of millions of points and doing it every 1' seems like a waste of data. I'm only a surveyor what do i know hah.

I originally created a heat map with spot elevations and even profile lines but then it was kicked back as they wanted to confirm if it complied with the spec which was an FF of 30.

We are currently using a Leica BLK G1 and i'm looking at doing another floor flatness scan. I've been doing some more reading and wondering what people's thoughts are for ideal spacing. I'm thinking about doing setups every ~3-4m for the next floor scan we do. The scanner isn't the greatest so I need to keep my setups tight but wondering if that's just overkill?

[mbmiller34]

We only draw custom lines instead of using the prebuilt templates to ensure our lines tested avoid any points/objects that would fail the test.

I tried looking everywhere I could think of for this, but I couldn't draw custom lines as the plugin would give a different reason every time, equal number of lines, perfectly parallel, then I gave up after the next error hah. It also had a bad habit of hanging if I misclicked a line and I would have to restart.

[Kruse]

We only draw custom lines instead of using the prebuilt templates to ensure our lines tested avoid any points/objects that would fail the test.

I tried looking everywhere I could think of for this, but I couldn't draw custom lines as the plugin would give a different reason every time, equal number of lines, perfectly parallel, then I gave up after the next error hah. It also had a bad habit of hanging if I misclicked a line and I would have to restart.

Draw 1 line down the center then 3 lines that run perpendicularly through the first line. Make sure all lines are at a minimum of 10'. After they're drawn, select the custom template then select your 4 lines and hit enter on the keyboard and you should be set to fun the test.

[JamesDare]

Do not scan a floor for testing FF/FL! I am from a floor consultancy and testing company who have been involved in testing floor for over 30 years, we have been trailing the use of scanners to measure for floor flatness but simply it is not accurate enough. Even if you have 0.5mm accuracy it can throw the F-numbers out significantly, its all okay until a contractor doesn't get paid as his floor fails the specification then if the data is incorrect when verified then the brown stuff starts to hit the spiny thing and I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of that lawsuit.

I have recently wrote an article on the use of scanners for measuring floor flatness which also refers to the article mentioned by Mackkowalski and other articles from CoGri Group on the use of scanning for floor flatness. https://face-consultants.com/why-floor- ... es-matter/

If you do need any advice or surveys carried out on floor using traditional methods, please reach out, we have offices based globally.