Welcome Guest, Not a member yet? Create Account  




Cut and fill depth categories

#1

The NRM2 (RICS new rules of measurement) requires that:
1. excavations be separated into that <2m deep, 2-4m deep, 4-6m deep, etc
2. filling be separated into that <500mm and that >500mm deep

Is there any way that Kubla could be developed to separate the cut and fill into such categories?

Thanks
Reply

#2

(11-14-2018, 11:11 AM)Marcus Wrote: The NRM2 (RICS new rules of measurement) requires that:
1. excavations be separated into that <2m deep, 2-4m deep, 4-6m deep, etc
2. filling be separated into that <500mm and that >500mm deep

Is there any way that Kubla could be developed to separate the cut and fill into such categories?

Thanks

Hi Marcus

We have had this request in the past and after doing some analysis believe we can do it.  Basically when you are doing the cut\fill analysis you end up with a 3D model of the cut\fill (internally in the calculation engine).  By doing a subsequent analysis of this model against a plane at various steps (2m, 2-4m, 4-6m) etc... we could separate the volume in the way required by NRM2\SMM7.  It wouldn't be especially easy to execute however but we could do it.  The issue is finding out how much demand there would be for a feature like this.  We used to get this request frequently but it has been somewhat drowned out by other feature request resulting on it being taken off the table.   

I will direct others to this thread who have similar requirements so we can get an idea of interested numbers and get a conversation going.  What software is currently available for this?  If we could get some dialogue going with RICS members and were sure that there would be a sufficient market to justify the R&D then we would certainly go ahead.

At the moment we are working on Kubla Cubed 2019 (due for release Dec\Jan).  It has a number of enhancements but not this feature, if we were to do it, it would be as an update after that release as the feature list is locked for that one and we are getting toward the testing stage.

WORKAROUND : 

I believe you could accomplish this with a little extra maths, by offsetting the existing surface in Z (you can offset an existing surface by amending its properties).

Lets imagine a simple scenario whereby you have Existing and Proposed surface.  By raising the existing surface in Z by 2m  you will be able to see an amount of cut disappear.  The figure missing would be the cut of depth 2m and below.  Raise by another 2m and the additional cut missing would be 2-4m etc...

Things will become more complicated with multiple phases however.  If you did have multiple phases I would export the final phase model to XML and import it back into a project with only existing->proposed and repeat the above procedure.

It is a pretty clunky workaround but might give you something to work with for now.  If you do try it please report back so others can follow this method.  We added the Z offset option into the existing surface for this reason buy so far have not heard of anyone using it in this way.  They might well be but are just not telling us about it.
Reply

#3

(11-14-2018, 11:11 AM)Marcus Wrote: The NRM2 (RICS new rules of measurement) requires that:
1. excavations be separated into that <2m deep, 2-4m deep, 4-6m deep, etc
2. filling be separated into that <500mm and that >500mm deep

Is there any way that Kubla could be developed to separate the cut and fill into such categories?

Thanks

Agreed, We could also do with this function by being able to define the depths for SMM7 as well as NRM2
Reply

#4

(11-16-2018, 01:10 PM)Jules Attwood Wrote: I have encountered a similar limitation that I can imagine would be useful to others as well:

I have been quantifying asphalting depths for a runway which is approx. 120,000m2. The difference between the existing runway surface and the proposed varies (i.e. thicknesses to be asphalted are between 0 and 180mm). The asphalt needs to be laid in given layer thicknesses to meet the specification. As an example the surface course we are using can't be laid and compacted at less than 40mm thick. This leaves the area of the runway that needs to be asphalted (between 0-39mm thickness) that we will need to plane out so we have the required depth. I can visualise this by adjusting the colours and being specific with the depths of the contours but I can't get an area or volume of the different contour bands. I need this because I need to quantify how much of the 120,000m2 needs to be planed out (i.e. is this 10% of the total area, 20%, 30% for instance)

So far I have exported the data into CAD and traced round the contours to get areas of each different contour band, but that is time consuming. I have been given a workaround which will involve some manual calculations, which should work but for the benefit of others that have the same problem in the future it is a feature I would like to see.

The other thing that I am unable to deal with is layers that have a thickness of 15, 25, 35, 125mm for instance. Most of the time for earthworks etc. the 5mm is negligible but it would be nice to be able to increase the accuracy if needed.

Thanks.
Reply

#5

(01-30-2019, 02:37 PM)SThabit Wrote:
(11-16-2018, 01:10 PM)Jules Attwood Wrote: I have encountered a similar limitation that I can imagine would be useful to others as well:

I have been quantifying asphalting depths for a runway which is approx. 120,000m2. The difference between the existing runway surface and the proposed varies (i.e. thicknesses to be asphalted are between 0 and 180mm). The asphalt needs to be laid in given layer thicknesses to meet the specification. As an example the surface course we are using can't be laid and compacted at less than 40mm thick. This leaves the area of the runway that needs to be asphalted (between 0-39mm thickness) that we will need to plane out so we have the required depth. I can visualise this by adjusting the colours and being specific with the depths of the contours but I can't get an area or volume of the different contour bands. I need this because I need to quantify how much of the 120,000m2 needs to be planed out (i.e. is this 10% of the total area, 20%, 30% for instance)

So far I have exported the data into CAD and traced round the contours to get areas of each different contour band, but that is time consuming. I have been given a workaround which will involve some manual calculations, which should work but for the benefit of others that have the same problem in the future it is a feature I would like to see.

The other thing that I am unable to deal with is layers that have a thickness of 15, 25, 35, 125mm for instance. Most of the time for earthworks etc. the 5mm is negligible but it would be nice to be able to increase the accuracy if needed.

Thanks.

Hi STHabit!

Interesting to hear about your take on this.  I think it's essentially the same problem as others are having, except you are dealing with much thinner asphalt layers instead of bulk earthworks.  I think a break-down by depth export would resolve a lot of these issues, and we are currently planning how to implement this.

We are hoping to do this before long, and it will allow you to input your own depth thresholds.  This means it should work just as well for standard methods of measurement (e.g. NRM2, SMM7) or custom requirements based on practical considerations like yours. 

On your second point about displaying down to the millimetre for very thin layers such as yours: You can change the precision that is displayed by clicking on 'Measure' and then 'Display Units'.  This is where you can set the units.  It's mostly used to switch between metric and imperial units for users in different regions, but you can also change the precision which is displayed, so there will be more or less decimal places.  We set it to 2 by default.  That's enough for most of our users, but you can increase it to 3 to see the mm.

Hope this helps,

Leo
Reply





Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)