Carlson - Volumes by Layers

Is it possible to post the text of what Carlson returns? Is the second cut number the net?

FRANK

HERE'S 3 OUTPUTS FROM THE CALCS. The first is JUST septic fill. The second is JUST foundation fill, and the 3rd is TOTAL fill. They are not adding up?

SELECTED JUST THE SEPTIC SYSTEM FILL
Grid corner locations: 404.44,360.49 to 616.98,535.25
Grid resolution X: 100, Y: 100 Grid cell size X: 2.13, Y: 1.75
Area in Cut : 84.1 S.F., 0.00 Acres
Area in Fill: 5,992.5 S.F., 0.14 Acres
Total inclusion area: 6,076.5 S.F., 0.14 Acres
Cut to Fill ratio: 0.00
Average Cut Depth: 0.19 Average Fill Depth: 2.33
Max Cut Depth: 0.72 Max Fill Depth: 4.76
Cut (C.Y.) / Area (acres): 4.22
Fill (C.Y.) / Area (acres): 3707.37
Cut volume: 15.9 C.F., 0.59 C.Y.
Fill volume: 13,963.6 C.F., 517.17 C.Y.

SELECTED JUST THE SMALL AMOUNT OF FILL AROUND THE FOUNDATION
------------------
Grid corner locations: 404.44,360.49 to 616.98,535.25
Grid resolution X: 100, Y: 100 Grid cell size X: 2.13, Y: 1.75
Area in Cut : 21.1 S.F., 0.00 Acres
Area in Fill: 2,003.1 S.F., 0.05 Acres
Total inclusion area: 2,024.3 S.F., 0.05 Acres
Cut to Fill ratio: 0.00
Average Cut Depth: 0.01 Average Fill Depth: 0.72
Max Cut Depth: 0.03 Max Fill Depth: 3.70
Cut (C.Y.) / Area (acres): 0.12
Fill (C.Y.) / Area (acres): 1157.39
Cut volume: 0.2 C.F., 0.01 C.Y.
Fill volume: 1,452.2 C.F., 53.79 C.Y.

SELECTED TOTAL FILL OF SEPTIC SYSTEM AND FILL AROUND FOUNDATION
-------------------------
Grid corner locations: 404.44,360.49 to 616.98,535.25
Grid resolution X: 100, Y: 100 Grid cell size X: 2.13, Y: 1.75
Area in Cut : 571.0 S.F., 0.01 Acres
Area in Fill: 10,920.9 S.F., 0.25 Acres
Total inclusion area: 11,491.9 S.F., 0.26 Acres
Cut to Fill ratio: 0.01
Average Cut Depth: 0.23 Average Fill Depth: 2.14
Max Cut Depth: 0.92 Max Fill Depth: 4.76
Cut (C.Y.) / Area (acres): 18.63
Fill (C.Y.) / Area (acres): 3283.14
Cut volume: 132.7 C.F., 4.91 C.Y.
Fill volume: 23,386.1 C.F., 866.15 C.Y.

Dumb question but ....

I have my EXISTING_GRADE contours in one layer over the entire area. Where the existing grade has changed; I have drawn 2D polylines (in the FINAL_GRADE layer) that diverge from the existing grade contours (at a vertex) and rejoin the existing grade contours (at a vertex).

Would the software require me to also continue the FINAL_GRADE contours over the entire area? (even where the grade hasn't changed?)

Dumb question but ....

Why are you using 2d polylines? Every time I use volume by layers, I use 3d polylines or contours with z values. I have existing contours previously generated. If I want to calculate the fill for a stockpile, I first contour the stockpile. Then when using volume by layers, define a 2d polyline around the area you want to determine the volume (inclusion perimeter) for the first layer, be sure to pick all contours that represent a separate layer within your perimeter. For example, if 2' contours are used and your final contour map layers are made up of 2' contours and 10 index contour layers, pick a contour on those two layers. The same goes for the existing contours. But I think they have to be 3D

Dumb question but ....

I haven't done a lot of volume stuff with Carlson, but I would definitely agree that they must be 3d.

> Why are you using 2d polylines? Every time I use volume by layers, I use 3d polylines or contours with z values. I have existing contours previously generated. If I want to calculate the fill for a stockpile, I first contour the stockpile. Then when using volume by layers, define a 2d polyline around the area you want to determine the volume (inclusion perimeter) for the first layer, be sure to pick all contours that represent a separate layer within your perimeter. For example, if 2' contours are used and your final contour map layers are made up of 2' contours and 10 index contour layers, pick a contour on those two layers. The same goes for the existing contours. But I think they have to be 3D

Sounds like you need to compute area for each contour interval, compute the volume for each segment and add them up. Used a planometer to do it in the past.
jud

Agree with above.

3D software, Think 3D.

Also, make sure that the 3D polylines (boundaries) are closed.

:beer:

2-d polylines vs. 3-d

I know there are other ways to do volume calcs, but I believe I am correct in using 2-d poly lines. Contours in Carlson are always 2-d polylines since a contour line has a single elevation value. A 3-D polyline would (usually) have different elevations along it's length.

I don't know anything about Carlson, but the total inclusion areas included don't seem to add up. Fill shows 6076 sq. ft., cut shows 2024 sq ft., combined shows 11491 sq. ft. Maybe linking across an additional area.

2-d polylines vs. 3-d

Perry,

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if your contour has a single elevation, say 500.00 (in my neck of the woods), then it IS a 3d polyline. Unless your contour polylines have an elevation of 0 (which would be 2d), then they're 3d.

> I know there are other ways to do volume calcs, but I believe I am correct in using 2-d poly lines. Contours in Carlson are always 2-d polylines since a contour line has a single elevation value. A 3-D polyline would (usually) have different elevations along it's length.

2-d polylines vs. 3-d

My experience with the software is:

I never use lines (L).

I always use the command 3DP (3D polylines) whenever I draw line work.

And I make sure that boundaries are closed. Not just by closing a 3D polyline to a starting node, but by actually typing the command "closepl". The software then confirms "polyline already closed".

2D polylines (elevation 0), I keep for presentation stuff.

My industries: heavy/civil construction + surface mining.

Call tech support, they will help you, no charge.

:beer:

Carlson - Volumes by Layers - Eddy

> I don't know anything about Carlson, but the total inclusion areas included don't seem to add up. Fill shows 6076 sq. ft., cut shows 2024 sq ft., combined shows 11491 sq. ft. Maybe linking across an additional area.

Im with you Eddy. 2D or 3D seems apart from the fact that Area A + Area B do not equal Area C which is supposed to be A+B=C . I think this is the gist of Perrys post. Somethings screwey on the combined areas that Perry picked off.

Glenn - Carlson Contours are (2d) Polylines

> Perry,
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if your contour has a single elevation, say 500.00 (in my neck of the woods), then it IS a 3d polyline. Unless your contour polylines have an elevation of 0 (which would be 2d), then they're 3d.
>
>
> >

Not in my Carlson. When Carlson/Acad generates contours, it generates 2-D Polylines (NOT 3-D Polylines). Each of the 2-D Polylines generated has a different elevation. If you draw a 3-D polyline, each vertex can have a different elevation. I use 3-D polylines as breaklines for connecting TOP OF BANK and TOE OF SLOPE shots.

Carlson - Volumes by Layers - Eddy

> > I don't know anything about Carlson, but the total inclusion areas included don't seem to add up. >

I think the inclusion areas are different because....

In one case, I'm selecting ONLY the leach field fill area.

In another case, only the foundation fill area.

And in the third case, I'm selecting the entire site area.

2-d polylines vs. 3-d

> My experience with the software is:
>
> I never use lines (L).
>
> I always use the command 3DP (3D polylines) whenever I draw line work.
>
> And I make sure that boundaries are closed. Not just by closing a 3D polyline to a starting node, but by actually typing the command "closepl". The software then confirms "polyline already closed".
>
> 2D polylines (elevation 0), I keep for presentation stuff.
>
> My industries: heavy/civil construction + surface mining.
>
> Call tech support, they will help you, no charge.
>
> :beer:

I never use lines either, just 2d and 3d polylines. But I have had problems in the past using 3d polylines ESPECIALLY for boundary. If you have to explode them, you end up with your curves being converted to many tiny segments of lines. It certainly seems to also make the boundary math weird when you throw in a changing vertical curve into a simple horizontal boundary curve.

Maybe my Carlson 2009 is different, but even the TRIANGLULATE & CONTOUR routine generates 2D contours. But of course, each of the 2-D polylines generated has a different elevation value, in fact when I do the volume calcs, I select IGNORE ZERO ELEVATIONS.

You may have a bug. It would not be the first time there was a bug in the volumes routines.

I would call Carlson and try to work through this one. Usually they will suggest a better way of doing things, so you kind of get free training as well.

If you are hell bent on using the routine you have chosen, try increasing the density of the vertices of the contours before running that routine. It would not suprize me if it is not creating a t-net from the contours behind the scene and probably snapping between the vertices. Not the most accurate way of calculating volumes. If you have ever tried to duplicate a surface by contours alone, you know what I mean.

Generally I create my contours from a surface model that is based upon breaklines and well spaced ground shots. It is much easier and more accurate to generate volumes by surfaces. That may be something you will want to try as a check. If nothing else....average end areas....by hand.

Give us an update on how it turns out, as well as what version software you are running.

JRL

Carlson - Volumes by Layers - Perry

> > > I don't know anything about Carlson, but the total inclusion areas included don't seem to add up. >
>
> I think the inclusion areas are different because....
>
> In one case, I'm selecting ONLY the leach field fill area.
>
> In another case, only the foundation fill area.
>
> And in the third case, I'm selecting the entire site area.

Perry..

SELECTED JUST THE SEPTIC SYSTEM FILL
Total inclusion area: 6,076.5 S.F., 0.14 Acres

Is this area A?

SELECTED JUST THE SMALL AMOUNT OF FILL AROUND THE FOUNDATION
Total inclusion area: 2,024.3 S.F., 0.05 Acres

Is this area B?

SELECTED TOTAL FILL OF SEPTIC SYSTEM AND FILL AROUND FOUNDATION
Total inclusion area: 11,491.9 S.F., 0.26 Acres

Is this area A + B? Sure looks like it isnt. Having a bigger area will generate larger volumes. It did last time I looked anyway.

Hi Perry,

A few questions:

1. If you click Help -- About Carlson, what build number are you running?
2. What version of CAD (AutoCAD version and/or IntelliCAD version) are you running?

If you'd be willing to send me your data set(s), I'll be happy to check the results.

lnelsonATcarlsonswDOTcom

--
Ladd Nelson