There are three methods for computing materials which I use in my work:
1-Average End Area
2-Prismoidal
3-Composite Volume
I can see that the results calculated by first two are very similar to each other.
But the amount of the earth work calculated by method of Composite Volume is much diffrent from the others.
Is there a general rule about which method been preferable?
My assumption is that each method was developed as a improvement of a previous one... so one should be the optimal method!
Sectional Volume Methods as described in the help.
The Average End Area is probably the most common and also the least accurate.
It's also what many agencies specify as the method to be used on their projects for computing volumes.
The accuracy all of the 3 volume methods are dependent on many variables such as how accurate the survey is
the surface or surfaces were created from etc.
The Prismoidal & Composite are more accurate because they take into account triangle information in between sample lines.
If a site is very flat and sample lines are placed appropriately their likely wouldn't be a lot of difference between the three methods.
With a lot of terrain on a site, the volume method differences will be more noticeable.