AutoCAD Land Desktop (Read Only)
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

simple volume calc of a stockpile

14 REPLIES 14
Reply
Message 1 of 15
weedo
1030 Views, 14 Replies

simple volume calc of a stockpile

hi everyone, i was wondering if anyone could tell me the quick way of finding the volume of a stockpile using LDD?

i have all the elevations inserted and built the hill surface...im getting lost trying to define the ground and the surface independently then calulating the volume between the two? any help would be greatly appreciated

thanks!
14 REPLIES 14
Message 2 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: weedo

Mornin Weed, Decide on a base elevation for the "pile" taht coincides with "ground". make a stratum of the two surfaces, define your site (work your way down the terrain pull down it will unravel itself) and compute Joe "weedo" wrote in message news:27048368.1100676511237.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum2.autodesk.com... > hi everyone, i was wondering if anyone could tell me the quick way of finding the volume of a stockpile using LDD? > > i have all the elevations inserted and built the hill surface...im getting lost trying to define the ground and the surface independently then calulating the volume between the two? any help would be greatly appreciated > > thanks!
Message 3 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: weedo

Hey Weedo; I would add to Joe's suggestion that you place the stockpile's data on separate layers that you can freeze while building the existing ground surface. I always find it easier to build one surface at a time, and preferably in separate DWG files (ProjectNumber TOPO, ProjectNumber GRAD). HTH -- Don Reichle Hacker Engineering, Inc. "King of Work-Arounds" "Joe Bouza" wrote in message news:419b4126$1_2@newsprd01... > Mornin Weed, Decide on a base elevation for the "pile" taht coincides with > "ground". make a stratum of the two surfaces, define your site (work your > way down the terrain pull down it will unravel itself) and compute > > Joe > "weedo" wrote in message > news:27048368.1100676511237.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum2.autodesk.com... >> hi everyone, i was wondering if anyone could tell me the quick way of > finding the volume of a stockpile using LDD? >> >> i have all the elevations inserted and built the hill surface...im >> getting > lost trying to define the ground and the surface independently then > calulating the volume between the two? any help would be greatly > appreciated >> >> thanks! > >
Message 4 of 15
grayd
in reply to: weedo

I would argue that stockpiles do not necessarily have a "base" elevation. I don't know what kind of material you have on what type of surface, but I constantly deal with piles that sit on uneven terrain. Without pre-existing surface information of the ground surface prior to the creation of the pile, you must rely on an estimation of the surface under the pile, based on the ground points around the base of the pile. Ideally, the pile will have an easily definable toe, so those points should be used in creating the base surface, and let the program triangulate across the bottom of the pile. Depending on the variance in the terrain, you might need to add some point or breakline information to the base surface under the pile, or edit the resultant triangulation, in order to get the best estimation of the surface. Your "ground" surface must be your best approximation of the actual surface under the pile. Unless the pile is on a perfectly flat and level surface, you can't just pick a base elevation and expect to get accurate results.

Denny
Message 5 of 15
troller
in reply to: weedo

Curious to see how you made out, and if your points for the stockpile were create via GPS? I'm having the same problem.
Message 6 of 15
weedo
in reply to: weedo

how do i pull it down...i try to get the volume but it says that they dont overlap
Message 7 of 15
weedo
in reply to: weedo

i got it to work.....finally.

i did all the measurement with a total station. the existing surface is pretty much flat so i can assume a level base

thanks for your input and all your help guys, you really know your stuff!!!
Message 8 of 15
grayd
in reply to: weedo

If I were collecting the points myself on a single stockpile, I would just collect a ring of points outside of the base of the pile, and then use those points along with the edge of pile points for definition of the "base" surface. The surface defining the pile would only be as big as the pile itself. There should be no problems calculating the difference between the two surfaces.

Denny
Message 9 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: weedo

Hey Denny; So you would start with the supposition that it's a flat world? And that there was no depression or hump under the stockpile to begin with? With a large enough stockpile base area, I sure would want to know the existing surface conditions prior to the start of placing dirt. I can imagine situations where the depression or hump could account for as much as 10-20 percent of the total. And if I had no data regarding the original site conditions, then I would be making liberal use of the caveats! -- Don Reichle Hacker Engineering, Inc. "King of Work-Arounds" LDT & CD 2004 C3D 2004 SP1 On HP Pavilion a367c 2.80 Ghz/512MB RAM XP PRO - SP2 "Denny Gray" wrote in message news:5688816.1100897263738.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... If I were collecting the points myself on a single stockpile, I would just collect a ring of points outside of the base of the pile, and then use those points along with the edge of pile points for definition of the "base" surface. The surface defining the pile would only be as big as the pile itself. There should be no problems calculating the difference between the two surfaces. Denny
Message 10 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: weedo

Don Reichle wrote: > And that there was no depression or hump under the stockpile to begin with? In an ideal world the client would tell you they plan to create a stockpile area and have you do an existing ground survey first. Its not an ideal world. Terry
Message 11 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: weedo

Hey Terry; You are correct, and that's the reason we have caveats; to which I also made reference in my reply. -- Don Reichle Hacker Engineering, Inc. "King of Work-Arounds" "Terry W. Dotson" wrote in message news:419f6a27$1_2@newsprd01... > Don Reichle wrote: > >> And that there was no depression or hump under the stockpile to begin >> with? > > In an ideal world the client would tell you they plan to create a > stockpile area and have you do an existing ground survey first. Its not > an ideal world. > > Terry
Message 12 of 15
grayd
in reply to: weedo

Don,

Apparently, you didn't bother to read this entire thread, specifically my previous post on 11-18. The only reason I got in on this discussion was to emphasize the importance of having a base surface that represented actual ground conditions. I deal with stockpiled limestone, and unfortunately, that's also one of those materials where the inventory material is the same as the base material. The only thing that separates the product from the yard base is the gradation. The volumes in the piles are dynamic, therefore, I constantly have to deal with a "creep" of the base surface over time - mostly upward. Inventory calculations almost always reflect a loss of material, because of the material mysteriously transforms from product into yard base. I have to deal with piles that are pushed up against each other, piles that are pushed over the berm at the edge of the yard area and flow into ravines, piles dumped over ledges and banks, truck built piles, conveyor built piles, piles over reclaim tunnels, material changing places on the yard ....etc. Therefore, I know all too well about the importance of an accurate base surface in calculating an accurate volume. And the funny part is, my company is not even interested in the volume - they want it in tons. Well, that's an entirely different can of worms, because there is no such thing as a perfect density value. The QC guys have their numbers, based on lab specs, but that doesn't reflect real life. Moisture content, compaction, gradation are all variables that are, in my opinion, much more arguable than the volume measurement. Again, that's why I think you must make your best estimation of the base surface, because the volume measurement is the most accurate, scientific, and defineable aspect of the inventory process.

Denny Gray
Message 13 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: weedo

Hey Denny; While I read all of the posts in the thread, sometimes all of them get to different parts of the gray matter. So sometimes I don't have total recall, and I'm responding to the post just read. I've obviously caused you to take offense, and I apologize for my hastily worded post. If you would allow a suggestion for your continuing endeavors... It seems to me that in the scenario just described by you, other than by collecting as-construct field topo after the last grading operation, you could just use the Paste Surface in Terrain>Edit Surface on a copy of the last existing ground surface to update your current existing surface to include your last Finish Grade surface. That way you would have the closest approximation of the project surface as it progresses. Then just archive the previous Existing Ground, unless you want a lengthy TME window. -- Don Reichle Hacker Engineering, Inc. "King of Work-Arounds" LDT & CD 2004 C3D 2004 SP1 On HP Pavilion a367c 2.80 Ghz/512MB RAM XP PRO - SP2 "Denny Gray" wrote in message news:11736670.1101134802505.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum2.autodesk.com... Don, Apparently, you didn't bother to read this entire thread, specifically my previous post on 11-18. The only reason I got in on this discussion was to emphasize the importance of having a base surface that represented actual ground conditions. I deal with stockpiled limestone, and unfortunately, that's also one of those materials where the inventory material is the same as the base material. The only thing that separates the product from the yard base is the gradation. The volumes in the piles are dynamic, therefore, I constantly have to deal with a "creep" of the base surface over time - mostly upward. Inventory calculations almost always reflect a loss of material, because of the material mysteriously transforms from product into yard base. I have to deal with piles that are pushed up against each other, piles that are pushed over the berm at the edge of the yard area and flow into ravines, piles dumped over ledges and banks, truck built piles, conveyor built piles, piles over reclaim tunnels, material changing places on the yard ....etc. Therefore, I know all too well about the importance of an accurate base surface in calculating an accurate volume. And the funny part is, my company is not even interested in the volume - they want it in tons. Well, that's an entirely different can of worms, because there is no such thing as a perfect density value. The QC guys have their numbers, based on lab specs, but that doesn't reflect real life. Moisture content, compaction, gradation are all variables that are, in my opinion, much more arguable than the volume measurement. Again, that's why I think you must make your best estimation of the base surface, because the volume measurement is the most accurate, scientific, and defineable aspect of the inventory process. Denny Gray
Message 14 of 15
grayd
in reply to: weedo

Don,

No offense taken. I appreciate your suggestion, but I don't think there is a real solution to the problem. For us, inventory is an annual event that takes place at the same time every year. We're talking large scale - thousands of piles at multiple locations. It is typically done by aerial photography, but ground checks are performed if there is a significant concern about individual piles. There is no grading operation going on. These are just stockpiles that are being added to and loaded from on a daily basis. Generally, gradation contamination can occur if the loader digs too deep and gets into the yard surface, so the loader operators try not to dig too deep in order to avoid that. Consequently, the yard surface usually tends to rise in elevation, but it is a slow and gradual thing. The product that is left on the ground is essentially accepted as contaminated. Occasionally, they will come in and dig it out in order to try to use it for something. In that case, the yard surface might actually get lower. Consequently, there is no static base surface. Piles might get built and depleted several times during the course of the year. Sometimes, a product is depleted, and a new pile is built of a different product in that location. Even if you tried to keep up with the material that was left on the ground by documenting the ground surface every time, changing products makes that a futile effort. In our case, the only material that can realistically be counted as product is what is defined by the visible edge of the pile at the time of measurement. That may seem like a poor way to manage your product, but that's life in the rock world. As the conversation here turned to "pile" measurement, I simply wanted to point out some hidden problems that can come into play in determining the volume of a pile.

Denny
Message 15 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: weedo

Hey Denny; Thanks for filling in the details for me. I'm glad there was no offense taken, because there was none meant. I just wish that others involved in the NGs were as understanding. One in particular, I can't say anything without them taking it the wrong way. Thanks again. -- Don Reichle Hacker Engineering, Inc. "King of Work-Arounds" LDT & CD 2004 C3D 2004 SP1 On HP Pavilion a367c 2.80 Ghz/512MB RAM XP PRO - SP2 "Denny Gray" wrote in message news:19653278.1101222233084.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... Don, No offense taken. I appreciate your suggestion, but I don't think there is a real solution to the problem. For us, inventory is an annual event that takes place at the same time every year. We're talking large scale - thousands of piles at multiple locations. It is typically done by aerial photography, but ground checks are performed if there is a significant concern about individual piles. There is no grading operation going on. These are just stockpiles that are being added to and loaded from on a daily basis. Generally, gradation contamination can occur if the loader digs too deep and gets into the yard surface, so the loader operators try not to dig too deep in order to avoid that. Consequently, the yard surface usually tends to rise in elevation, but it is a slow and gradual thing. The product that is left on the ground is essentially accepted as contaminated. Occasionally, they will come in and dig it out in order to try to use it for something. In that case, the yard surface might actually get lower. Consequently, there is no static base surface. Piles might get built and depleted several times during the course of the year. Sometimes, a product is depleted, and a new pile is built of a different product in that location. Even if you tried to keep up with the material that was left on the ground by documenting the ground surface every time, changing products makes that a futile effort. In our case, the only material that can realistically be counted as product is what is defined by the visible edge of the pile at the time of measurement. That may seem like a poor way to manage your product, but that's life in the rock world. As the conversation here turned to "pile" measurement, I simply wanted to point out some hidden problems that can come into play in determining the volume of a pile. Denny

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report