AutoCAD Civil 3D General Discussion

AutoCAD Civil 3D General Discussion

Reply
Distinguished Contributor
mdriver1
Posts: 337
Registered: ‎01-24-2008
Message 1 of 3 (94 Views)

Surface limits question

94 Views, 2 Replies
03-01-2009 11:52 AM
Explanation's in order first before proceeding to my questions/ideas:
I'm involved in a volume monitoring project of excavated material and have controlled all grade stake layout as well. I have a detailed existing surface, generated by me, and design contours, provided by others, to which I have built a design surface for DTM field monitoring.

I have alignments and profiles in various areas where slope staking has occured. This concept works great with my Leica program RoadRunner for the 1205 robot. I also have stakeout points based on a provided grid that I stake out, occasionaly, for core sampling by another firm and finally I can go anywhere within the limts of my DTM to set grade stakes as it makes me and the equipment operator best friends (to be able to give a grade anywhere he chooses amazes him).

This is what I am mainly posting about:
I have noticed that while slope staking the design slope, the catch (or daylight) stakes fall outside the limits of the design DTM but within a very reasonable tolerance. No issue here as this very common especially when I have a field run surface and the design contours were graded to a flown surface. To my suprise, though, it's very close but it's impossible to match their daylighting scheme to my field run shots.

This is what I would like to have:
A buffer surface of 10' or so outside of the design surface to allow the checking, staking, etc. once the limits of the design surface are exceeded. In other words, I want to follow the design catch line but use a 10' or so portion of my existing surface to allow overrun (or overlap).

Follow me? Now, back to the alignments and profiles for slope staking. That is why I did this in anticipation of flown versus field difference. I can control the design toe and catch to my existing ground.

This is where ya'll come into play. This is how I propose to do it and would love any comments on the scenario.
Both surfaces are in the same file by the way.
1-Create a polygon describing the 10' or so limit that follows the distinct design daylight.
2-Copy my existing surface and rename to something appropriate
3-Apply that polygon as a boundary
4-Copy and name the design surface to something appropriate.
5-Paste those two surfaces together to form one masterpiece of beautiful proportions . Okay maybe that's being overly geeked but hey.
6-Convert to my RoadRunner job and get to work.

Oh, I am in the middle of the first phase, of three, monitoring process and it may be more logical to pick this idea up on the next phase. Either way I have good procedures and data to work with but would find it more convenient to be able to go outside of the design surface a little.
Thanks,
Mark Driver
*wfb
Message 2 of 3 (94 Views)

Re: Surface limits question

03-01-2009 12:53 PM in reply to: mdriver1

Mark:

 

As you can see below this is how it looks in
Outlook Express.  What I would like to know are you not setting slope
stakes that are computed as you go, based on a profile or some design
grade?

 

Your neighbor to the north.

 

Bill


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
Explanation's
in order first before proceeding to my questions/ideas: I'm involved in a
volume monitoring project of excavated material and have controlled all grade
stake layout as well. I have a detailed existing surface, generated by me, and
design contours, provided by others, to which I have built a design surface
for DTM field monitoring. I have alignments and profiles in various areas
where slope staking has occured. This concept works great with my Leica
program RoadRunner for the 1205 robot. I also have stakeout points based on a
provided grid that I stake out, occasionaly, for core sampling by another firm
and finally I can go anywhere within the limts of my DTM to set grade stakes
as it makes me and the equipment operator best friends (to be able to give a
grade anywhere he chooses amazes him). This is what I am mainly posting about:
I have noticed that while slope staking the design slope, the catch (or
daylight) stakes fall outside the limits of the design DTM but within a very
reasonable tolerance. No issue here as this very common especially when I have
a field run surface and the design contours were graded to a flown surface. To
my suprise, though, it's very close but it's impossible to match their
daylighting scheme to my field run shots. This is what I would like to have: A
buffer surface of 10' or so outside of the design surface to allow the
checking, staking, etc. once the limits of the design surface are exceeded. In
other words, I want to follow the design catch line but use a 10' or so
portion of my existing surface to allow overrun (or overlap). Follow me? Now,
back to the alignments and profiles for slope staking. That is why I did this
in anticipation of flown versus field difference. I can control the design toe
and catch to my existing ground. This is where ya'll come into play. This is
how I propose to do it and would love any comments on the scenario. Both
surfaces are in the same file by the way. 1-Create a polygon describing the
10' or so limit that follows the distinct design daylight. 2-Copy my existing
surface and rename to something appropriate 3-Apply that polygon as a boundary
4-Copy and name the design surface to something appropriate. 5-Paste those two
surfaces together to form one masterpiece of beautiful proportions . Okay
maybe that's being overly geeked but hey. 6-Convert to my RoadRunner job and
get to work. Oh, I am in the middle of the first phase, of three, monitoring
process and it may be more logical to pick this idea up on the next phase.
Either way I have good procedures and data to work with but would find it more
convenient to be able to go outside of the design surface a little. Thanks,
Mark Driver
Distinguished Contributor
mdriver1
Posts: 337
Registered: ‎01-24-2008
Message 3 of 3 (94 Views)

Re: Surface limits question

03-01-2009 01:18 PM in reply to: mdriver1
wfb,
My format uses paragraphs for sure. Man that's ugly in OE! I can see why people complain about proper structure.

Where up north are you my neighbor?

Yes I use a alignment for horizontal, a profile for vertical (both located on the toe for this particular situation) and the ground elevtions to set the cut slope stake at whatever slope I indicate but the excavation process always will exceed the daylight points in some way, even if I offset them. Offsetting catch points can be a dangerous way to make the excavator think it's the catch and not a offset. Some have the convenient ability to not read the stakes!

Grading contractors don't always follow and dig exactly either so my main goal is to be able to go outside my limts plus or minus a few feet but 10 would be an adequate for adding for pasting.

I hope I make sense because I know what I want but sometimes the typing way of discussion doesn't help the other end.

For clarification the alignments and profiles are converted as road jobs and need to be added as such and the DTM is converted as its own entity, if used in RoadRunner. I use my RTK to check the DTM, using Carlson SurvCE, and the robot to slope stake, using RoadRunner. I have both pieces of equipment out and it works well. I could put the alignement and profiles into SurvCE as well but choose to keep only the DTM in SurvCE.

Oh man, 7 seconds left and UT better win!
Oh wait they won! Awesome. Beat Florida.

Mark Driver
Post to the Community

Have questions about Autodesk products? Ask the community.

New Post