Surface-to-Surface vs. Cut-fill from Sample lines
Related to my last post, I thought I'd share with you something that comes up in my discussions with not just students, but professional as well.
When Civil 3D is so advanced, why do we still use End-Area method from cross-section to cross-section to compute quantities (Civil3D supports both)? And connotation there is that end-area (EAR) method does not produce accurate quantities, and perhaps surface to surface comparsion or FEA type analysis would yield better results. So, in some respects, accuracy is compromised, however, let's look at the positives of using EAR method:
1) Calculations generated by EAR method can be back-checked by hand, even without using a software. Trusted old gadgets like Planimeter can measure surface areas of cut and fill shapes on a piece of paper with printed to-scale cross-section. Whereas, surface-to-surface calculation does calculation by mathematical algorithms used by the software, which could vary from application to application.
2) Most important, however, is the fact that knowing a final total cut or fill number (which surface to surface quantity computation produces) is not a good measure of how a highway project is progressing in terms cut or fill. Contractor has a need to know how to move dirt around, and schedule activities around it. Without knowing station-by-station progress, it would be hard to do that. There's a pay item in construction documents called "mobilization", which accounts for such activities and allows a contractor to bid accurately. Hence, the feature in 2009 release - Mass Haul Diagram, which presents a graphical view of material moved in the proposed design site, displaying balance points, free haul and overhaul regions, and grade points.
However, there's place for both surface to surface and end-area based calculations. First option is great for:
1) getting a quick idea of net-net on a project to help you quickly balance or modify design (e.g. changing design profile), or
2) computing quantities on a project which does not lend itself or warrants linear section-by-section calculations, e.g. borrow pit, silos of material, etc.
So, I guess my point is that it doesn't have to be either-or situation - you can use both to help you make better design decisions, or use the one that suits your needs better. In case you're wondering, Surface-to-Surface (or as some people call it DTM-to-DTM) feature is available under Surfaces > Utilities > Volumes. All it requires is selecting the appropriate two surfaces that need to be compared for "trapped" volume in between.











