Community
Civil 3D Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Civil 3D Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular AutoCAD Civil 3D topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Correct earthworks calculations

7 REPLIES 7
Reply
Message 1 of 8
Anonymous
494 Views, 7 Replies

Correct earthworks calculations

Hi guys, i creating civil 3d based earthworks calculations, i got it i need to fill. I think i do everything right (Creating EG, subgrade and my project surface), but my boss says, that civil calculates bad in this case. Can someone help me. I atach my civil file, with xrefs. Its a football stadium. Dont look at the black lines in xref, it just architects suggestions. 

7 REPLIES 7
Message 2 of 8
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Based on what certitude and assumption does he make that declaration?

 

He should back up his statement with calculation. Or you should defend your position with calculation. Some one is wrong, him or you. You need to determine who that is.

Message 3 of 8
AllenJessup
in reply to: Anonymous

What version of the software are you using? What percentage of the volume does he claim you're off by?

 

Allen

Allen Jessup
CAD Manager - Designer
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.

EESignature

Message 4 of 8
sboon
in reply to: AllenJessup

It appears that the OP has calculated volumes both ways.  There is a volume surface comparing existing ground to "Sankasa" which appears to be subgrade.  The reported volume is 3,134 m3  I used the old REPORTSURFACEVOLUME tool to check this and got exactly the same answer.  There are also sections in the drawing with materials already computed.  The volume reported there is 3,133 m3 - essentially identical.

 

The only problem I can see is that the design corridor includes lanes only, no shoulders, ditches or excavation slopes to daylight.  Without those the calculated excavation volume is going to be short.  We could also argue about shrink and swell factors but this design appears to be cut to waste, so they're not really relevant.

 

Steve
Please use the Accept as Solution or Kudo buttons when appropriate

 

 

Steve
Expert Elite Alumnus
Message 5 of 8
Anonymous
in reply to: sboon

I got those 3144 m3 without digging the soil 20 cm. So i made raise lower surface -0.20  and i got 1555 m3. My Project manager says, that it should get like minus something m3. Do u think i made my assmebly wrong ? 

Message 6 of 8
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I need to make cartograma to see where i making mistake... 

Message 7 of 8
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

So his issue is the sign convention and not the number?

Message 8 of 8
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Well he counted fast, and he got about -2100 m3. I dont know, iam new to this stuff, so i really need yours guys help. To make sure, where iam making mistake, or he. You know, its hard to argue with yours project manager, when u are not 100% sure by yourself, so 🙂 

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

Post to forums  

Rail Community


 

Autodesk Design & Make Report