Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Volume analyses using Mass Prop, Mass Element Prop, and Composite Volume
Volume analyses using Mass Prop, Mass Element Prop, and Composite Volume
I am operating Civil 3D 2012. When testing the volume of a 3' x 3' x 3' cube, I get an anticipated answer 27 cu. ft. when analyzing the extruded object using mass properties. When converting the extruded cube to a mass element, the volume (with no edits to the object) becomes 46656 cu.ft. When analyzing the composite volume of parallel surfaces, one at the top and one at bottom of the cube, the composite volume returns a fill value of 1728 cu.yd. (46656 cu.ft.). A 3'x 3'x 3' cube has 27 cu.yd. of material. Assistance is needed to determine why these values do remain consistent for mass property, mass element property, and composite volume. Secondly, assistance in needed to determine why the mass element and composite volume analysis are producing erroneous results.
What's all this mass property business? I don't see it in c3d help
Joe Bouza Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post. Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
In order for me to believe the output of the program for composite volume calculation using surfaces, I ran a benchmark against a simple cubic yard of material. I then checked this information against other known tools in AutoCAD used to query the mass of an object. As for the help, it is a how to document. Thus many of the underlying functionality of AutoCAD that has be developed over the past 20 years and that is still intergrated in Civil 3D have little or no documentation. Again, my problem is that the compsite volume analysis of cut and fill material generates information that is off by a factor of 1/400. Has anyone faced this problem?
TIN Volume surface between two planar 3'x3' surface 3 feet different from each other returns exactly 27.0 cubic feet in C3D.
A Grid volume surface will vary depending on the resolution of the grid. (ie, a 3x3 surface gridded to 0.1ft each way will become a 3' deep, 2.9' x 2.9' surface, or 25.23 cf.
Matthew Anderson, PE CFM Product Manager Autodesk (Innovyze)
Thanks Matthew. My Tin Volume surfaces with exactly the same dimensions and conditions arereturning differnent value. Cannot determine why. Have you ever run into such a problem?
OK. You are now seeing my problem. I do realize that it is in feet. However, is there a user control for changing the base unit? The object was definitely drawn with the correct dimensions. Secondly, my block insert is in feet, but this, I do not think, is the same. I will locate and attach shortly.
Actually, the model was analyzing 1/2 cubic yard. Surface 3 is a TIN volume surface analyzing Surface 1 and Surface 2. Even is you use the composite volume for surface 1 and 2, the result are just not beleivable.
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")