So, for clarity, the 111.45 is the elevation at the PVI, not a point on the curve?
If one - tangent grade
meets another + tangent grade, as stated, that's the PVI by definition. I like how the question is worded. It makes you stop and think for a second without making it obvious.
This was exactly what I was thinking .... but I wasn't really concerned with PVI here ....
I know there are a few guys taking transpo in April that have been following along, so I'll let this one sit for a few days, I'll email you my solution.
I know you weren't concerned with the PVI, that's why I asked. If it were a point on the curve, that'd change everything.
Thanks, got it.
So, for clarity, the 111.45 is the elevation at the PVI, not a point on the curve?
If one - tangent grade
meets another + tangent grade, as stated, that's the PVI by definition. I like how the question is worded. It makes you stop and think for a second without making it obvious.
I think the way it is worded is the 111.45 is
on the curve. But I know PE problems always give PVI sta/el and not the el on the curve at the PVI, so I asked. I think the term PVI should be used in the problem statement if that's what the elevation is referring to.
Considering how you like to sometimes write tricky questions, I figured you'd appreciate how it was worded.
As it stands, I feel that it's worded adequately and PVI was the obvious intention, IMO. But I do see where you're coming from.
LOL. We're getting off topic but.... If it said g1 and g2 meet at sta x and elev y, then I would agree. But it starts off with "A sag vertical curve descends.... " . A sag vc is a real entity. A PVI is an imaginary point. If it says "A sag vertical curve .... with elevation 111.45" I am going to assume it is on the actual physical curve, not an imaginary point, unless specifically told otherwise.
