Area =√ s(s-a) (s-b) (s-c)
Where ,
a+b+ c
S=
2
TRAINGLE 1:
SIDES
A: 23.224 M
B: 19.04 M
C: 37.347 M
23.224+19.04 +37.347
S=
2
S= 39.81
A=√ 39.81(39.81−23.224 )(39.81−19.04)(39.81−37.347)
A1=183.79
TRIANGLE 2:
SIDES
A: 15.87 M
B: 37.153 M
C: 37.347 M
15.87+37.153+37.347
S=
2
S= 45.185
A=√ 45.185(45.185−15.87)(45.185−37.153)(45.185−37.347)
A2=288.77
TRIANGLE 3:
SIDES
A: 21.2 M
B: 37.153 M
C: 25.05 M
21.2+ 37.153+25.05
S=
2
S= 41.70
A=√ 41.70(41.70−21.2)(41.70−37.153)(41.70−25.05)
A3=254.40
AREA OF THE PENTAGON = A1+A2+A3
AREA OF PENTAGON = 183.79+288.77+254.40
=726.96
Law of Cosines:
2 2 2
a +b -c
cos A=
2ab
a, b – Two sides
c – diagonal opposite to angle
Triangle A:
Sides:
a = 15.87
b = 19.04
Diagonal:
c = 28.322
2 2 2
15.87 + 19.04 - 28.322
cos A=
(2)(15.87)(19.04)
251.81+362.53−801.99
cos A=
(2)(15.87)(19.04)
−187.65
cos A= ≈−0.3104
604.61
−1
A = cos (−0.3104 ) ≈ 108.09∘
Triangle B:
Sides:
a = 19.04
b = 23.224
Diagonal:
c = 37.247
2 2 2
19.04 + 23.224 - 37.247
cos B=
(2)( 19.04 )( 23.224 )
362.53+539.37−1387.38
cos B=
(2)( 19.04 )( 23.224 )
−485.48
cos B= ≈ −0.5487
884.83
−1
B= cos (−0.5487) ≈ 123.29∘
Triangle C:
Sides:
a = 23.224
b = 25.06
Diagonal:
c = 31.95
2 2 2
23.224 + 25.06 - 31.95
cos C=
(2)( 23.224 )( 25.06 )
539.34 +628.00−1020.80
cos C=
(2)( 23.224 )( 25.06 )
146.54
cos C= ≈ 0.1259
1163.94
−1
C = cos (0.1259) ≈ 82.77∘
Triangle D:
Sides:
a = 25.06
b = 21.2
Diagonal:
c = 37.153
2 2 2
25.06 + 21.2 - 37.153
cos D=
(2)( 25.06 )( 21.2 )
628.002+ 449.44−1380.36
cos D=
(2)( 25.06 )( 21.2 )
−302.918
cos D= ≈ −0.2846
1063.536
−1
D = cos (−0.2846) ≈ 106.56∘
Triangle E:
Sides:
a = 21.2
b = 15.87
Diagonal:
c = 37.153
2 2 2
21.2 + 15.87 - 37.153
cos E=
(2)( 21.2 )( 15.87 )
449.44 +251.77−1022.21
cos E=
(2)( 21.2 )( 15.87 )
−321
cos E= ≈ −0.4766
673.37
−1
E = cos (−0.4766) ≈ 118.47∘
Total Sum of Angles:
108.10∘ + 123.29∘ + 82.77∘ + 106.56∘ + 118.47∘ ≈ 539.19∘
OBSERVATION:
This fieldwork focused on the creation of a five-sided figure plotted directly
on the ground without initially measuring the side lengths. The shape was
established first through manual layout, and measurements were taken only
afterward to determine the actual dimensions and geometric characteristics of the
figure. As a result, the pentagon formed was irregular, with unequal sides and
varying interior angles.
Following the completion of the layout, each side and diagonal was measured
using a tape. To compute the area, the figure was divided into three connected
triangles. Heron’s Formula was applied to each triangle using the recorded side
lengths. The calculated areas were 183.79, 288.77, and 254.40 square meters,
giving a total area of approximately 726.96 square meters.
To analyze the interior angles, the Law of Cosines was applied using the
measured sides and diagonals. The computed angles were approximately 108.10°,
123.29°, 82.77°, 106.56°, and 118.47°, resulting in a total of 539.19°, which closely
aligns with the theoretical sum of interior angles in a pentagon.
During the conduct of the activity, several observations were made regarding
the layout process and group coordination. One challenge observed was ensuring
the plotted shape would close properly without precise tools or immediate
measurements. Frequent adjustments were made to reposition points so the figure
would form a complete five-sided loop. Ground conditions, such as uneven surfaces
or grass-covered areas, also affected visibility and alignment, occasionally leading
to slight distortions in direction.
Team communication and spatial awareness were essential throughout the
layout process. Coordination was required to determine point locations, align
reference points, and hold tapes steady for accurate measurement. Some difficulty
was noted in maintaining straight lines over longer spans, especially when visual
reference points were unclear. This highlighted the importance of establishing
fixed markers or guides in the absence of advanced surveying instruments.
This activity demonstrated the importance of accurate measurement and
post-layout verification in fieldwork. It highlighted how inconsistencies can arise
when geometric figures are formed without real-time measurement. The exercise
reinforced the value of applying geometric formulas and computations to assess
and refine figures constructed under actual site conditions. Overall, the task
offered insight into the level of precision, communication, and field awareness
necessary to carry out geometric layout work effectively.
