J. King Saud Univ.,Vol. 13, Eng. Sci. (I), pp. 39-55 (A.H.

1421/2001)

Stadia Tacheometry with Electronic Theodolites

Abdalla EI Sadig Ali

Civil Engineering Department, King Saud University P.O. Box ROO, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia

(Received 1/5/1999; accepted for publication 25/312000)

Abstract, Six simple electronic digital theodolites, three Sokkia instruments, a DT6, a DT5 and a DT2, a Topon DT20, a Zeiss ETh4 and a Leica Tl600, were used to test measurement accuracy of horizontal distance and difference in elevation using stadia hairs etched on the telescope reticule of these new types of theodolite. A geodetic test line was remeasured using these theodolites and standard deviations in horizontal distance and differences in elevation were then computed using first, the nominal values of scale factor K and additive constant C (namely 100 and 0 respectively) and secondly, the least squares-computed counterparts of these two parameters. In the first case, horizontal distance accuracy obtained ranged from ± lOmm in 100m with the Leica theodolite to ± 16mm in 100m with the Sokkiu DT6 instrument. The vertical distance accuracy ranged from ± 9mlll (in 100m) with the Leica T1600 to± l Smm (in 100m) with the Topcon DT-20 theodolite. The corresponding values in the second case were ± Brnm to ± 13mm in the horizontal direction and ± 7 mm to ± 14mm in height.

This means that in both cases, "semi-electronic tacheometry" gives accuracy figures much better (two to three times) than conventional optical stadia techniques. These high accuracy figures are believed to be auribured partially to repeated measurements and partially to the improved design of modern electronic theodolites used in the test This range of accuracy figures is commensurate with the requirements of a number of surveying, civil engineering, agricultural, environmental and other localized-type surveys where only modest to moderate positional accuracy figures arc sought.

Introduction

Tacheometry is known in surveying as the technique by which horizontal distances and differences in heights are obtained by making use of some optical characteristics of the instrument being used for the survey. The method had long enjoyed decades of popularity as an inexpensive tool for rapid and precise mapping of small areas. Depending on the instrument used, attainable accuracy figures in I UOm distance are generally believed to range from 1/3000 using modern optical theodolites and levels [I] to 1/10,000 using subtense bar tacheometry. The expected accuracy ligures in height difference determination over 100m, range from ± 2Umm to ± 30mm.

25

26

Abdalla EI Sadig Ali

For the last twenty years or so, conventional optical tacheomctry has in many occasions been superceded by electronic digital techniques. In this respect, electronic tacheornetry excels in many ways, namely increased range of operation (up to 3 kms instead of a maximum of 150m - 170m for optical tacheometry), increased accuracy (15-20 times better), ease and speed of the surveying process, user-friendliness of the hardware and software used and amenability to automatic data recording for on- or off-line data processing in a computer. Unfortunately, modular electronic tacheometers and total stations are expensive devices (typically SR 50,000 - SR 100,000). This made many individual practicing surveyors, civil engineers and other field measurement scientists, and some small surveying/civil engineering firms decide to make use of this new digital electronic surveying technology by purchase and use of the relatively inexpensive electronic digital theodolites, often less expensive than even some oftheir conventional optical counterparts. For example, an instrument such as the small and simple Sokkia DT6 reading to 20" (or 5 mgon) is less expensive than any of the equivalent Sokkia TS6 or the Lcica T16 optical scale-reading theodolites [2,31. yet offering most of the main privileges of accurate electronic angle measurement and data recording for the purpose of subsequent downloading to a computer, Most of these "cheap" electronic theodolites (called basic electronic theodolites) [4] have stadia hairs marked on the reticule of the telescope just as the case with optical theodolites. If, for some reasons, it is. mandatory to use these simple electronic systems for stadia tacheometry, then the inverse of the old mount-on system exists, namely, angles are measured electronically while computations of horizontal distances and differences in elevation are computed later using either a computer programme or an electronic calculator. Such a system may be termed "semi-electronic tachcornctry". Indeed, the case may arise, even in this era of automation and high tech mensuration procedures, in which an engineer or a surveyor finds himself obliged to use this method, for example, in the case where a fully electronic tacheometcr or total station is not available or in the case of a breakdown of the distance measuring component of the system. "Semi-electronic" tacheometry can, therefore, be a viable technique in some special circumstances and could well make the only directly available alternative to fully electronic methods.

Aim of the Test

Having said that, one needs to know the accuracy with which horizontal and vertical distances can be derived using these relatively simple electronic theodolites. In the last five to eight years, the present author carried out several similar tests on a number of modern optical theodolites, levels and special-purpose tacheorneters, the aim being to have an insight into the level of accuracies with which horizontal distances and differences in elevation are measured with these instruments [I, 5-8]. In general, the results of these various tests showed that (depending on the type of instrument used and observation range), optical tacheometry with modern improved optical theodolites and levels can yield horizontal distance accuracy values in the range 113000 - 1/4200 (in 100m); and a range of ± 20mm to ± 30 rum for differences in elevation. Both accuracy ranges reported in those investigations, therefore, were generally much better than what was commonly believed to be possible with optical tacheometry (a max.imum range of 1/500-1/1000) [9-11].

Stadia Tacheometry with Electronic Theodolites

27

This paper reports results of an experiment carried out as a continuation to those tests.

Simple design electronic theodolites with stadia hairs etched on their cross-hair reticules, were, however, used instead of conventional optical theodolites and tacheometers. It is to be pointed out, however, that mention of any type of instrument in this test does not bear the meaning of any sort of endorsement (or otherwise) from the part of the present author or his affiliation nor to set any kind of standards for its use or performance. Rather, the main goal··· is to evaluate, in a limited manner, the instruments used in the test by presenting comparisons of field measurements and results as related to the particulars of the test.

The Electronic Theodolite and Electronic Tacheometer

Electronic theodolites operate similarly to their optical counterparts; one major difference is that angles are turned electronically. Thus, an electronic theodolite provides a visual electronic digital display of horizontal and vertical circle reading on a combined liquid crystal display (LCD) or light-emitting diode (LED), thus eliminating the need for an optical system. The incremental angle-measuring system is usually identical for both horizontal and vertical circles. Each circle carries a reflecting grating and is scanned by two sensors positioned diametrically opposite to each other to eliminate eccentricity. Usually, a sensor of an electronic theodolite comprises an infra-red light source, a lens, an analyser grating and a detector (Figs. Ia, Ib), The light passes through the lens and analyser grating (0 the circle grating from where it is reflected back (0 the detector. As the telescope is rotated, interference fringes move in the plane of the detector. By counting the fringes and interpolating within them, angle measurement is achieved.

Fig. lao Incremental encoding electronic angle measuring system (after (10».

28

Abdalla El Sadig Ali

Fig. lh. Leica T'Cl » a typical electronic tacheomcter.

Stadia Tacheometry with Electronic Theodolites

29

As the angle measuring system is incremental, the circles have neither codes nor numbers. On switching on the instrument, the horizontal circle reading is set automatically to zero. By means of the keyboard, it can be set to any other required value. For the vertical circle, for many models, a pendulum defines the plumb line and compensates for residual errors in levelling up. As the microprocessor combines the circle and pendulum readings, the displayed vertical angle readings are therefore referenced to the plumb line.

The read-outs of both circles can be recorded in a conventional field-book or else can he stored in an electronic equivalent for subsequent print-out or computations. Digital electronic theodolites, therefore, provide several worthwhile advantages to the surveyor and engineer e.g. the circles can be readily zeroed by a simple press of a button or they can he initialized to any desired values through entry with the keyboard; angles can he observed either left or right; and angles measured by repetition can be added to provide the sum. Extra merits include minimizing mistakes in reading angles; increased speed of operation and possibly reduced cost. Also, some of these instruments have various built-in functions that can enable the operator to determine remote ohject elevation (the so-called remote object measurement (ROM)) and distance between remote points (often referred to as missing line measurement capability).

Electronic tacheometers, on the other hand, constitute further development to these simple electronic theodolites. In addition to the basic features of electronic theodolites mentioned earlier, a tachcometer has extra capabilities including the ability to he extended to total station status with the inclusion of modular components such as electronic distance measurement (EDM) and data collection. Typical electronic tacheorneter specifications include:

Telescope magnification Field of view

Shortest focussing distance Least count

Angle turn

Level sensitivity

25x - 30x 1.50

1.0 m

I" to 20" (1 mgon to 5 mgon) electronic and incremental

plate 40"l2mm; circular - lO'/2mm.

Basic electronic theodolites possess most of these essential features, yet they arc much cheaper compared to full capacity electronic tacheometers.

Procedure of the Test

Essentially, the procedure is to measure lines of known lengths and elevation differences using each of the test instruments. This allows computation of discrepancies (residuals) between the known quantities (distances and elevations) and their measured equivalents. These will allow computation of standard deviations in distance and height. Comparison of the derived standard deviation values with accuracy figures generally

30

Abdalla El Sadig Ali

believed to be possible with tacheometric surveys is then made. Finally, a comparison of the results obtained in the present test with those obtained by a number of researchers is presented; and a general conclusion regarding the use of "semi-electronic" tacheometry in survey practice is then drawn.

A I DOm long, lO-section part of a well-protected and regularly-maintained geodetic test line (being used for surveying instrument calibration) was used for the purpose. The actual distances and differences in elevation between the one end of the line and each of the ten points constituting the various sections were originally established using geodetic means; and are, in fact, being regularly checked. Literature about the test line mentions that its length is known to better than ± l mm in 100m (i.e. better than 11100,000), and the accuracy of the derived heights satisfy the requirements for first order class 1 levelling standards as set out by the U.S.A.-based Federal Geodetic Control Committee (FGCC) (see [5,7]. These accuracy figures were viewed as satisfactory for the purpose of the present test (recall it is semi-electronic tacheometry that is heing tested and not fully electronic tacheometry where the accuracy of distance measurement generally falls in the range (± 2mm + 2 ppm) to ± (10 mm + 10 ppmj), These known distances and elevation differences were assumed to be the "known" or "true" entities of the experiment with which the computed equivalents derived from the test were to be compared.

The distances and differences of elevation between the first point and each of the ten points on the line were then established by stadia surveying using each of the electronic theodolites used in the test. Building on the experience gained in previous investigations carried out hy the author [1, 5-9J, a standard Wild GNLE12 imperial levelling stan' (graduated in feet) was used with all test theodolites, the aim being to increase staff reading accuracy [13]. Also, all observations were carried out in early mornings (06-08 hr) or late afternoons (14-18 hrs) in order to minimize the adverse effects of heat shimmer and refraction on the observations. Further precautions taken when measuring include, careful centering of the theodolite, use of bond level with the staff to help hold it plumb and observing portions of the staff well above ground level (in order to escape grazing rays which increase the effects of refraction).

For each of the ten points on the test line, staff intercepts and zenith angles were measured 10 times in each of the five consecutive days of the test. The mean values of these observations were then used to compute distances and differences in elevation he tween the reference point and each of the test points on the line. The weather conditions during the time-span of the test were almost the same; thus minimizing adverse effects on the measuring process caused by variations in parameters such as temperature, wind, humidity, etc.

All observations (staff intercepts and zenith angles) were manually recorded on a conventional field-book (i.e. no attempt was made to record these entities electronically) and subsequent computations were carried out using a computer program. Also, for the Sokkia DT2 and the Leica T1600 (which are more advanced than the rest of the test

Stadia Tacheometry with Electronic Theodolites

31

instruments) no attempt was made to measure the distances electronically using the built-in microprocessor of these instruments. This was believed to reduce possible observer bias.

Instruments Used, Computations and Results of the Test

Electronic theodolites used in the test were one each of the following brands; a Sokkia DT6, a Sokkia DTS, a Sokkia DT2, a Topcon DT-20, a Zeiss ETh4 and a Leica T1600. All of these instruments have stadia hairs marked on their diaphragms, which facilitates their use [or semi-electronic tachometric surveys. The test instruments were subjected to the usual adjustment procedures before being used in the experiment. All instruments arc supplied with automatic vertical circle indexing mechanism, an important feature for the circumstances of this test. Table 1 presents some of the characteristics of the test instruments helieved to be of some reference to the particulars of the present test.

Table 1. Some characteristics of the test Instruments
Telescope Anglc reading Display Stadia constants
Instrument magnifica tion system resolution K&C
Sokkia DT6 26)( Incremental rotary 20" (5 mgon) 100.0
encoder
Sokkia DT5 30 II Incremental rotary 5" (l rngon) 100,0
encoder
Sokkiu DT2 32 x Incremental rotary I" (0,2 mgon) (OD,D
encoder
Topcon DT-20 25 x Incremental rotary 20" (5 mgon) 100,0
cncoder
Zeiss Eth4 30 x Incremental rotary 10" (3 mgon) IOO,()
encoder
Lcica Tl600 30 II Absolute encoder I" (0,2 mg-on) ioo.o The basic and general tacheometric equation was used, i.e.

D = KS sin2 z + C sinz

(1)

where

D = horizontal distance to be derived from stadia technique S = staff intercept

K = multiplication constant (scale factor) C = additive constant; and

z ::: measured zenith angle

32

Abdalla EI Sadig Ali

In the vertical direction differences in elevation between the first point (treated as error-free benchmark) and each of the points on the line occupied by the staff were derived using the equation:

(2)

where

H; = elevation of staff position held at point P; H~ = elevation of instrument station (known);

hi = height of trunnion axis of theodolite (measured by tape or otherwise); V = vertical component of slope distance; and

m = middle hair reading (made equal to hi during ohservation).

The vertical component of the slope distance is given by the equation:

V = lJ2 K S cos 2z + C cos z

(3)

where K, S, C and z arc as before.

As was the case in the similar tests carried out by the author in previous investigations, e.g. r 1, 6-9J, the procedure was to place the middle hair on the staff at a height equal to that of the trunnion axis of the theodolite (rounded to the next 0.02 ft line). The upper and lower hairs are read to one tenth of a graduation (in this case 0.61 mm) so as to increase the reading accuracy of the levelling rod [12]. Of course, the index error of the vertical circle may contribute significantly to the overall accuracy of the test. Hence, for each instrument, this error was checked and adjusted (when necessary) following the description given in the respective manufacturer manuals.

The initial part of the computer program calculates horizontal distances and differences in elevation using nominal values of K and C as given in instrument manuals (typically K = 100 and C = 0). The program then proceeds to compute the discrepancies (residual errors) between calculated distances (and elevations) and their known values (as given in the literature of the geodetic test line). The program then uses these discrepancies to compute root-mean-square errors as standard deviations (0') using the formula:

(4)

when:

Vi residual error between known and computed values of distance (or elevation) i using theodolite j;

n number of measured distances (elevations); and w, = a weighting function = IOO/Oj (OJ is in meters).

Stadia Tacheometry with Electronic Theodolites

33

The accuracy figures O"j correspond to a unit weight observation over a distance of 100m. The usual 30" rejection criteria was also adopted in this test. However, no observation was rejected on this basis. Table 2 shows the results of this stage of the experiment.

Table 2. Results of the initial stage of test (K := 100, C = 0)

Instrument O"D (nun) O"H (nun)
SokkiaDT6 ±16 ±14
Sokkia DT,) ±15 ±12
Snkkia DT2 ±12 ±IO
Topcon DT·20 ±16 ±15
Zeiss ETh4 ±15 ±Il
Leica TI600 ±IO ±9 The next part of the program is a subroutine which solves for the two parameters K and C using a combined least squares solution. These derived values are then used to compute distances and differences in elevation using equations (I ,2) and (3) as before. This operation is followed by computation of the discrepancies between these derived values and their known counterparts. However, standard deviations are computed using a modified version of equation (4) in which n is replaced by (n-2) (since the number of degrees of freedom is (n-2) in this case). The results obtained with this subroutine are shown as Tables 3 and 4 respectively.

Table .l Values of K and C and their standard deviations as obtained in the combined least squares solution

Instrument

K

C (nun) O"K OC (mrn)
-0.25 ±0,O9 ± 0.011
·0,19 ±0.04 ±O,O04
-0.02 ± 0.012 ±O,om
-0.21 ±o.m ±o,on
-0.24 ± 0,08 ± 0.004
-0.03 ± 0,009 ± 0.002 Sokkia DT6 1,)9,993
Sokkia DTS 100.004
Sokkia DT2 99.998
Topcon rJT-20 100.005
Zeiss ETh4 99.989
Leica T1600 99997 Table 4. Results of the experiment using the least squares solution

Instrument O"J) (rum) 0"11 (nun)
Sokkia DT6 ±l3 ±13
Sokkia DTS ±II ±10
Sokkia DT2 ± 8 ± 8
Topcon DT-20 ±12 ±14
Zeiss ETh4 ±10 ± g
Leica TI600 ± 8 ± 7 34

Abdalla EI Sadig Ali

Analysis of the Resnlts and Discussion

Comments on the results presented on Tables 2,3 and 4 are now due. Adopting the values of 100 and a for the scale factor K and additive constant C (as supplied by the manufacturer) in computing horizontal distances and differences in elevation resulted in accuracy values ranging from ±16mm (in 100m) with the Leica Tl600 electronic theodolite to ±16nun (in 100m) with the Sokkia DT6 and Topcon OT20 (i.e, a range of 1110000 to 1/6250). This range of accuracy is much better than what is generally recognized possible with stadia tacheometric surveys (i.e. typically ±50mm in 100m or 112(00). With modern optical instruments (i.e. those manufactured in the late 1970's and 1980's), Ali [1] reported a maximum accuracy performance of ±28mm in 100m (i.e. 113500) with the Wild NA2. This immediately points to the fact that semi-electronic tacheometry, as carried out in this lest, performs two to three times better than conventional optical tacheometry even if most modern optical mensuration equipment is used.

In the vertical direction, the accuracy ranged from ±9mm (in 100m) with the Leica TI600 theodolite to ±15mm with the Topcon DT-20. Again, this is almost 2 to 2.5 times better than the figures reported by Ali [I] with modern optical theodolites and levels (typically ±20mm to ±34mm in 100m).

The results of Table 4, which represent the accuracy figures obtained after determining K and C in a least squares solution are, in general, slightly better than those obtained when using the nominal values of these two parameters (i.e, 100 and 0 respectively). This finding is in general agreement with what had been reported by Ali r 11· The accuracy results, in themselves, range from au = ± 8nun in 100m with the Leica T 1600 and Sokkia DT2 to aD = ± 13mm with the Sokkia DT6 (i.e. 1112500 to 1177(0), while for elevation difference determination, the corresponding figures arc aH = ± 7nun with the Leica instrument to aH = ± 14mm with the Topcon DT20. In both directions, therefore, the accuracies obtained are much better than what is generally believed to be attainable with optical stadia surveys. To the best knowledge of the present author, the accuracy figures reported herein arc the best reported in the open literature for stadia tacheornetry, The excellent results obtained in this study seem to point to the fact that instrument manufacturers tend to use improved theodolite optical components (e.g. high quality, finely-ground lenses), thin stadia hairs and more powerful, robust-design telescopes when designing modern digital electronic theodolites. Taking into account the fact that Circle-setting and reading are purely electronic (thus eliminating errors due to optical circle, manipulation) this justifies the high accuracy figures of this lest In Tables 2 and 3, it is noted that the accuracy in elevation difference determination is generally better than the accuracy of horizontal distance. This is in line with theory and practice gained elsewhere.

Stadia Tacheometry with Electronic Theodolites

35

The accuracy figures reported on Tables 3 and 4 are compatible with accuracy requirements of a number of civil engineering applications (see [10-12]), agricultural and waste site surveys (see e.g. [141), town planning and landscaping architecture rI5], archeology [16] and a wide range of other locational surveys.

Conclusion

The conclusion of the present test appears to be that if the case arises in which simple and basic electronic digital theodolites are the only available mensuration equipment, then depending on the distance of observation and type of instrument used, horizontal distances and differences in elevation can be determined to accuracy values up to ± 8mm in 100m (i.e. lt12500) and ± 7mm in 100m respectively. These high accuracy figures point first to the fact that instrument manufacturers seem to be using improved optical components, thin stadia hairs and robust-design more powerful theodolite telescopes in designing digital electronic theodolites and second to the advantage of using electronic circle setting and reading in theodolite angular measurements. This range of accuracy is commensurate with a numher of civil engineering, agricultural, architectural and some other locational survey applications. Taking into consideration the fact that such simple electronic theodolites are easy to use, operate and adjust and that, in many occasions, they arc cheaper than their optical counterparts, "semi-electronic" tacheometry seems to have much to offer to practising surveyors, civil engineers and other field measuring scientists. It is recommended that both the scale factor K and the additive constant C be found by testing the instrument instead of using the nominal values to attain better results.

Acknowledgement. Dr. E. Siddig, Engineers Azhari Awad, Imad Ali and Tarig Bilal provided and/or arranged for the supply of the instruments used in this test. My sincere thanks are due to them all.

References

r 11 Ali. A.E. "Accuracy of Stadia Tacheometry with Optical Theodolites and Levels." Journal ofKing

Saud University (Eng. Sciences), 7, No.2 (l ':195), 175-184.

[2] Sokkia (Saudi Arabia). Private Communication.

[3] Alkaki (Agents of Leica), (Saudi Arabia). Private Communication.

[4] Wolf, P.R. and Brinker, R.C. Elementary Surveying. 9th ed., New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1 <J<J4.

[5] Ali, A.E. "Field Evaluation of Some Electronic Tacheometers." The Australian Surveyor, 34, No.7 (1989).711-715.

[6] Ali, A.E. "Electronic Theodolites: Comparison Test." Journal ofSurveying Engineering. (U.s.A.) 117, No. I (1991).3·8.

[7] Ali. A.E. "Evaluating the Accuracy of Some Optical Tacheorneters." Australian Surveryor, 36, No. I (1991),53-58.

l8j Ali. A.E. and Algarni, A.M. "Evaluating the Accuracy of Laser Levels for Engineering Surveying."

Journal orKin/-: Saud University (Eng. Sciences), 8, No.1 (1996), 121-130.

[91 Aigami, D.A. and Ali, A.E. "Heighting and Distance Accuracy with Electronic Digital Levels." Journal atKing Saud University (En;? Sciences). 10, No.2 (I 99l!), 229-240.

36

Abdalla EI Sadig Ali

[10) Bannister, A.. Raymond S. and Baker, R. Surveying. 6th ed., Harlow (U.K.), Longman Scientific and

Technical. 1992.

[II) Uren J. and Price, W.F. Surveying for Engineers. First ed., London: Macmillan Press. 1978. [12] Schofield, W. Engineering Surveying. Second ed., London: Butterworths, 1984.

l13] Rueger, J.M. and Brunner. F.K. "Practical Results ofEDM-Height Traversing." Australian Surveyor. 30, No.6 (1981), 363-372.

f 14] Warner, W.S. "Evaluating a Low Cost. Non-Metric Aerial Mapping System for Waste Site Investigations." Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 60. No.8 (1994). 983-988.

[15] Dallas, R.W.A. "Surveying with a Camera: Photograrnmetry." Architect's Journal, 171 (5),249-255. [16] Burnside, C.D., Walker. A.S., Hampton, J,N. and Saffe, J. "A Digitial Single Photograph Technique for Archeological Mapping and Its Application to Map Revision." t'hotogrammetric Record. 11(61), 59-68.

Stadia Tacheometry with Electronic Theodolites 37

4.,.i J.,PJ"i1 .:,J1o:.) J~ _,.;J~ 4JI::....I~1 .:,Jlp ~.f-A.{IJ ~J~I...AlI.i»I~

• A' "'";-"..r' ,.)..,......,<..!..W!w~(;_.,.y!4.JS,~·..uf;_.,.y!r-i ~.)y-1! i:>...r-J! i5J....f.1. " f r, ...,..,V'

~y,j-A ..l.>.\JJ (DT4,DT5, DT6) l;S.,......,j-A U)I.; , ~.; ~J~I.:..L::.)_p_'; ~ .~I ~ uJ..l\j ~)1\ ;U..\.l\ '7'L..:l...::..J.....:;1 (T1600) ~'1K.r-.:.r- ..b-IJJ (Elh4)._,.-:Ai K_r. o- ...b.IJJ (DT20) 14· • ft-":" ")1 • ..w. .:..~_,s;...JJ ~ 0.) ~)I ~.)\::....... ")1 U\."....:. JL...,..;;....~ ..w~J .:..\JUI '7'~ ~ ~i)1 J..5 ..:.J.....,.;:.1.t.\.....,i;.J'1IJ J_,hJ1 t. __,.L... .1fi-t or.:.r- 0foJ I_;... , •• .oj_,], ~)~L6.;.. ~\.? fJl ~ 'i I ;.;LlI .r l:Al ~) L::-J.I W I~ '11 ..r..l u. ~ ~ . .:..IJ"" 'J.s. .kJ-1 \j_" .r lJ .) U. ~ .. ft-":" )II • .Lt. ~I ..:.J.....,.;:.I JJ"l1 U,.>JI ~ ~).; ~~I":""$i .J.jJ ,UJj}.1 jjL.l1 .. l.lL.... JL......:.....~ ~i)IJ L.L~)-;- ... u ~~I;.lI'.bWI ~ JI_,::.JI ~ ~J , •• '-!""J (C)~I ~\!JIJ (K)<.J"~\ Jow jjJ_r11 ~,j-AJ ,jJ"lI.:..L.....)1 ~ u,.» JL.....::...-,~ ~ji ( K,C) ~\....JI.:r:J,... r-J ~ ..IAj ~\jl ~_,.hJ1 ~ .) t-"' ' • ,j-A JJ''1\ u.>J\.) ~i oWI..rl::' 6,;)..:...> Jl_} .~...r- ~1;.l1 'J.lWI ~ '-i,_).1 ~1 ~ j~ JL.....::...-,~ (i Yo. / \ -si)1_;:-.o \ .. .) t-"' \\ Jl T1600 ~'1jlp. JL....:......~ (I .... / \)? \ .. j~ t-"' ' 0 J! Tl600 ~ '1 j~ <_;-. , •• ~) t-"' .. :.r ~1)1 oUI ;u) ..:...> _,I_} ~ DT6l:5 _,.... ("-'" 'i J! ( , " 0 • • /, -s\)\" I\"-H ~L:::.JI ~ _,I_) ..L..A.t, ;'___;\:JI U~I .) Lot .DT20 ~y 0i ~ IL s , ~i)1 ;.;L..J.I .) r-" 'i JJ <_;...... \ • • ~)r-" v s ~"ll ;.;~ (vv· ./ 'J)L.;) pi \.:.L....::....ly,_r>- ~.yA:JI4J~ l,r"~.j->I"-'i) ~ 0\ ~"~J_;SJ~I ~ ~...r-~\::.ll" '1 ..;-1\ ~I .:..b- _,_l.1l,r" )J.s. .:..Yh1 L;.....I.;.. ~ UJ.l\ .:r -s..ullh .UI...b." L....w ~I ;; ~ 'i\

.~I_, ¥I.;) I d.> _,.....tl_, ~.ul L41 J~\ ~ y:.. :u...., yo J! ;.....,pIp ij) '11 ~