Revit Architecture Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Revit Architecture Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Revit Architecture topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Cut / fill disaster

15 REPLIES 15
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 16
russ.green
3697 Views, 15 Replies

Cut / fill disaster

I've just come across a blog post highlighting a major issue with cut / fill calculations performed by revit on topo surfaces.  I'm really blown away by this and slightly concerned having just issued a cut / fill schedule on a job.

 

I've remodelled the example shown in the blog I read and confirmed the error.  And its a biggy.

 

The pads are all 1m deep. The volumes of the pads themselves report correctly.

 

All pads are set with a -9m offset to create a 10m excavation. 

 

The volumes only report correctly for 10m3 of cut. All examples above that have random and potentially massive errors.

 

cut fill screen shot.PNG

 

cut fill screen shot 1.PNG

 

Come on Autodesk.  This needs a urgent fix!

Russ Green
15 REPLIES 15
Message 2 of 16
russ.green
in reply to: russ.green

checking a simple and small graded topo surface also results in errors

 

cut fill screen shot 2.PNG

 

cut fill screen shot 3.PNG

 

 

Russ Green
Message 3 of 16
loboarch
in reply to: russ.green

The cut and fill volumes calculated by Revit are approximate.  When you test on a very regular surface/shape like this it is very easy to find descripancies in the "correct" vs. the approximate value.  On an irregular surface doing the calculation manually you would end up aproximating the calculation as well, and would probably come up with a value closer to what Revit will report.



Jeff Hanson
Principal Content Experience Designer
Revit Help |
Message 4 of 16
russ.green
in reply to: loboarch

OK.  So a crucial bit of information required.  To what level of accuracy are the volumes calculated?   Can I write a disclaimed that says "cut and fill volumes are approximate and accurate only to ????? m3" ??

 

 

Russ Green
Message 5 of 16
loboarch
in reply to: russ.green

I can't say for sure.  This is somewhat dependent on the topographical features, where they fall on the site, size of the site overall.  I would say typically the approximation is going to be within +/- 1-2%.

 

In your example it looks like it is about 1% over.



Jeff Hanson
Principal Content Experience Designer
Revit Help |
Message 6 of 16
russ.green
in reply to: loboarch

I'd be happy with that as an answer as long as I can have confidence in the 98-99% accuracy.  I just can't help wondering why it can't do the simple numbers in a simple example with 100% accuracy.  Its quite unsettling.

Russ Green
Message 7 of 16
loboarch
in reply to: russ.green


russ.green wrote:

I just can't help wondering why it can't do the simple numbers in a simple example with 100% accuracy.


Short answer, the math/algorithim does not work that way.

 

The long answer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method

 

Simple volumes of platonic solids are easy to calculate using memorized formulas.  My 7th grader at home can do them.  An irrgular shape like a topographical surface is a much harder problem to solve. 



Jeff Hanson
Principal Content Experience Designer
Revit Help |
Message 8 of 16
russ.green
in reply to: loboarch

Thanks for the this.  Very reasuring that its not just a hideous bug.  Panic averted!

 

 I would suggest a note about the accuracy is added to the documentation.

Russ Green
Message 9 of 16
helsinki_dave
in reply to: russ.green

..you may want to get an idea to what accuracy the guys are setting out on site (on a rainy day, with shovels and wheelbarrow or big, beefy front loaders). Are they using electronic setting out - is this for a nuclear powerplant of a basic commercial slab?

 

That would give you a sense of whether there's an issue or not. The last time I cut and filled foundations...it was messy, ball-park work..with a tolerance of around 20% Smiley Happy

Message 10 of 16
russ.green
in reply to: russ.green

thanks for the patronising comment.  If it were just for a slab it would not be an issue. It is however for a huge volume and as the errors were seemingly random it needed asking to check if it was indeed a bug or other serious underlying fault which meant I could not trust the software.

Russ Green
Message 11 of 16
helsinki_dave
in reply to: russ.green

My sincerest apologies for causing offence Russ. My advice was on the basis of your use of three decmal places in your reporting of earthwork volumes - something I wouldn't do.

 

Apologies again.

Message 12 of 16
russ.green
in reply to: helsinki_dave

I didn't really.  I'm having a bad morning.

 

I wish the errers were in the decimal places only......

 

My biggest issue was reading a blog post that said cut/fill calcs are not accurate, then looking hte documentation to see no mentions of the approximations are level of accuracy to be expected and then just hear from ADSK that volumes are approximate only before explaining the 1-2%...erm  my head went into a spin and I started to wonder what else revit was deciding to do approximately without documenting it.

 

As it is I was doing a cut/fill model on a very large hillside to check were were in balacnce so 2% is a lot of material to potentially have to buy in or cart away if discovered later.  Granted, its probably the most accurate way of doing it but if you are getting 3 decimal places out of a computer model you might naively expect the computer model to be giving you the answer to within 3 decimal places and doing so accurately. Anexplanation in the help is needed.

 

At least now I have an answer and can explain likely errors to be expected.

 

 

Russ Green
Message 13 of 16
Alfredo_Medina
in reply to: russ.green

These are the results of making excavations of different sizes, starting from a small 1x1x1 (m), to a very large 1000 x 1000 x 1 (m).

 

According to these results, I agree with Jeff Hanson's response, above. The variations don't seem to follow a consistent pattern that we can comprehend easily if we see a test as the one shown in that blog that was referenced by Russ in the original post. But we have to keep in mind that the algorithm is made to produce an approximate result not only with simple boxes like in that blog, but also with irregular volumes, which would be the most typical situation.

 

In this test of mine, with simple boxes of different sizes, the results are always less or just a little more than 1% of the results that you could obtain with simple math. Notice how, for an excavation that is 100 x 100 x 1 m, more than an American football field, the "extra" volume is just 1.6 cubic meters, the 0.02 %, which is less than the actual volume that will result of that excavation because of the "swell factor" of the soil.

 

tests_schedules.jpg

tests_comparison.jpg

 

Edited by
Discussion_Admin


Alfredo Medina _________________________________________________________________ ______
Licensed Architect (Florida) | Freelance Instructor | Autodesk Expert Elite (on Revit) | Profile on Linkedin
Message 14 of 16

I found some incorrect entries in the first column of the topography schedule in imperial units that I posted in my previous message, and since I cannot edit that image in that post, I am posting the corrected version in this new post, for future, correct, reference:

 

topo_imperial_units.jpg


Alfredo Medina _________________________________________________________________ ______
Licensed Architect (Florida) | Freelance Instructor | Autodesk Expert Elite (on Revit) | Profile on Linkedin
Message 15 of 16
ArchChiba
in reply to: russ.green

Good morning ! 

 
Given the problems that I´m facing, this has been a very good read. I was unaware of the math/algorithim and approximations that revit makes regarding toposurface cut/fill. 
 
Though I can´t understand the data its giving me in this schedule... I don´t know if it´s purely human error here, or if Revit is on crack.
 
I´ve done a Graded Region of a toposurface, created Building Pads extracting soil from that toposurface and created a Schedule.
 
If it´s not too much trouble, please could you make me understand the coherence between the data from the schedule and the corresponding  toposurfaces and Pad.
 
I don´t understand the correlation of the data between the CUT/FILL for (Terreno Final = 10.50m3) and that of (Pad -15.74 = 232´985.28m3). 
Should they not be the same ?  Afterall, I the volume of soil cut with the Building Pad is the volume cut from the Terreno Final... 
And if the Pad doesn´t have a fill, why does the Terreno Final (6.92m3)
 
Please find the attachment below.
 
Thanking you for your help. 
Yumiko 

 

Message 16 of 16
evrenozsoy
in reply to: loboarch

Hi,

In my case of 1290173m2 projected area graded surface. It calculates -242038m3 of net cut/fill. After splitting the surface to two; total of two surfaces net cut/fill becomes -236945m3. When I merge the two surfaces again the net cut/fill calculates -230917m3. It looks like with each action on toposurface I get a decrease of 2.2% in calculated value.

Regards,

 

Evren

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report