Topic: Stage storage earth volumes of uneven surfaces

[DaveD]

I'm trying to get incremental storage volumes for sediment as it builds up in a basin.  I need to have even foot increments of accumulating volume but neither the bottom of the basin nor the top of the sediment surface are flat so I'm going to have something llike that shown in the attached image - essentially needing to evaluate the volume enclosed by 3 surfaces (?), the planar elevation, the ultimate sediment level (sloped) and the existing basin.

Any ideas how to best go about this?  I see that I could create a surface for each elevation and get a volume at each, but I have over 20 "steps" I need to calc.
Thanks.

[mjfarrell]

I think one could create a volume surface using the the top and base surface.
then perform elevation banding analysis to get the desired data

do you have boring/sediment logs? if yes why not use xdrefs to do strata model and get your volumes directly
(I think you could also do this with projected sedimentation values as well.)

[DaveD]

Mike.  Thanks (and Hi).  The first method won't give me the results I need because banding (and generating banded volumes from) the volume surface gives me those volumes at "depth increments" and not "elevation increments". Does that make sense?

The strata model idea sounds more like what I'm trying to get at - I have no idea where to look for info on that.  I guess I'll check F1 to start.

Thanks.

[mjfarrell]

Mike.  Thanks (and Hi).  The first method won't give me the results I need because banding (and generating banded volumes from) the volume surface gives me those volumes at "depth increments" and not "elevation increments". Does that make sense?

The strata model idea sounds more like what I'm trying to get at - I have no idea where to look for info on that.  I guess I'll check F1 to start.

Thanks.

There is an older tutorial for this on my site... (it's free to download)

basically you need a grid of points across this silted area
for each point on grid you will create the elevation data in a xls, or mdb file
then within C3D you create point groups and xdref/point overrides to map the different data to the same grid points
use this point groups to build the various silt strata
so you would have point groups like Zero sediment these points would be the as designed channel bottom
6 Months Sed projected depths; etc

[DaveD]

Hm..  I do have the sediment and basin surfaces created already.  Is that what you're ultimately doing with these points?  That seems like it will still put me in the same dilemma, but maybe I'm not understanding you.

[mjfarrell]

one could also take these surface contours into one of the hydraflow extenstions and use the stage storage tool therein

can I see your data?

[DaveD]

one could also take these surface contours into one of the hydraflow extenstions and use the stage storage tool therein

can I see your data?

Sure.  XML's OK?

[mjfarrell]

gimme that data

[mjfarrell]

OK...I think I have what you were after

the following steps may or may not be required...


I Cropped the larger surface you sent me to be closer to the Final Sediment Surface limits.
Reduce data overhead mostly, and I was trying some other stuff not discussed here (FAIL).

I then created a Volume surface (TIN) you may experiment with SMALL grid settings.
I then perform an elevation analysis; during this process one would select a PREDEFINED Table for the Legend
here I edited existing for speed...and ADDED one more column
to that column I add the data type of Surface Range Volume
Then I set the Elevation range
note that these are incremental differences between the volume surfaces (relative values between the Base and Compare surfaces) not actual Sediment Elevations.
After APPLY, and OK,
Go to Annotate>>Labels and Tables>>Place your Legend for the analysis in the drawing.

[mjfarrell]

I'm thinking of another method that could also be used; however it may not have one capability the above method lacks.
If it is correct it would also work quite well with irregular surface comparisons. 
Something like crazy golf course undulations in the base would still yield good results.

[Joe Bouza]

I'm not sure if you got your answer yet but Dave Garigus covered this at AU. you can DL his screencast and data to see if it works for you

[DaveD]

I'll give that a look and get back to y'all.  Thanks, Joe.

I'm not sure if you got your answer yet but Dave Garigus covered this at AU. you can DL his screencast and data to see if it works for you

[DaveD]

Thanks, Mike.  I'm pretty sure this is still demonstrating the same problem I face.  A volume surface between the existing basin and sediment surfaces gives depths of sediment at any given location, not elevations, so creating a ranged elevation data table (I had notice the ranged volume expression while monkeying with this Friday, too, which could come in handy for othe stuff...) gives volumes of the sediment at different depths.  If the sediment surface happened to be a perfectly flat slope, those depths would be "normal" or parallel to the top sediment surface plane.  But does not give me volumes at specified elevation ranges.

OK...I think I have what you were after

the following steps may or may not be required...


I Cropped the larger surface you sent me to be closer to the Final Sediment Surface limits.
Reduce data overhead mostly, and I was trying some other stuff not discussed here (FAIL).

I then created a Volume surface (TIN) you may experiment with SMALL grid settings.
I then perform an elevation analysis; during this process one would select a PREDEFINED Table for the Legend
here I edited existing for speed...and ADDED one more column
to that column I add the data type of Surface Range Volume
Then I set the Elevation range
note that these are incremental differences between the volume surfaces (relative values between the Base and Compare surfaces) not actual Sediment Elevations.
After APPLY, and OK,
Go to Annotate>>Labels and Tables>>Place your Legend for the analysis in the drawing.

[mjfarrell]

I haven't seen that AU document...(yet)  

However do you folks have some sort of spreadsheet that shows your projected sediment values?
Something like t=0 sediment is zero...then at t=6months (years) whatever is the right time scale?
If yes can I see that incremental data?

[mjfarrell]

I'm not sure if you got your answer yet but Dave Garigus covered this at AU. you can DL his screencast and data to see if it works for you

You have a course number handy?

And is this the same guy?  >David Garrigues<

[DaveD]

we have 2 sediment conditions:
The "100 yr" is a theoretical set of sections cut at about every 100' (measured along the basin centerline of flow) that are described as a distance from the beginning of the section sample line and elevation (see image).  I've converetd that to profile views, then the "profile" (section) to 3dpoly, then rotated that vertically and aligned at elevation with each corresponding sample line.  Then created the 100yr sediment surface from those 3dpoly's

The 2nd condition is a max basin capacity- simply a surface from top of spillway at upstream end of basin to top of overflow spillway at dowstream end of basin.

I'll send whatever, but the 100yr sediment surface is complete in the xml I sent you.  I have the basin max too, but it presents the same issues.

thanks.

I haven't seen that AU document...(yet) 

However do you folks have some sort of spreadsheet that shows your projected sediment values?
Something link t=0 sediment is zero...then at t=6months (years) whatever is the right time scale?
If yes can I see that incremental data?

[DaveD]

Any chance you have a link handy?  I went to AU online and the webcasts are all YouTubed.  We can't stream it here unless we get cleared on kind of a link by link basis.  If not, no worries, I've asked if I can just open up for a a day or so - so we'll see how that goes.

Thanks.

I'm not sure if you got your answer yet but Dave Garigus covered this at AU. you can DL his screencast and data to see if it works for you

[DaveD]

Was it this one?  AutoCADŽ Civil 3DŽ Caffeinated Tips and Tricks: A Yard Sale

I'm not sure if you got your answer yet but Dave Garigus covered this at AU. you can DL his screencast and data to see if it works for you

[mjfarrell]

OK, give this a spin...

Using the two surfaces provided...
I created an alignment roughly centered through the basin
Then I created a profile along that alignment
sampling BOTH surfaces
hover Create the Sediment Surface profile as STATIC
then you can COPY and Lower
Copy and Lower
Copy and Lower
until you have gone the depth of basin at whatever interval you are after
Then create an assembly with Link Slope to surface set to REALLY flat slopes left and right, then target the Basin Final Surface
This corridor surface will give you Top elevation
then copy the corridor and change the profile and start stop station as required to not overshoot where surface intersects.
This will give you the desired stage storgae volumes along that tilted plane.

[sinc]

I don't think that's giving the volumes the OP is after, but I think the general approach might work...

I think it would even be possible to create a custom assembly that creates a bunch of shapes, similar to the way the Lane subassemblies...  Then you could use the QTO stuff to get volumes for all layers all at once.  That might be the easiest approach, given the current capabilities of C3D...

[mjfarrell]

I don't think that's giving the volumes the OP is after, but I think the general approach might work...

I think it would even be possible to create a custom assembly that creates a bunch of shapes, similar to the way the Lane subassemblies...  Then you could use the QTO stuff to get volumes for all layers all at once.  That might be the easiest approach, given the current capabilities of C3D...

I think it does...here is a clip of the 'bigger' picture....I would continue this...slicing towards the deep end of the pool..

[DaveD]

Thanks, Chris.  I don't know how that would work but have not used substrata in assemblies at all so I may not be fully seeing what you guys see.  But the way I understand that, the assembly would create its own top surface and then create it's substrata off of that.  My sediment surface is not flat/evenly-sloped but is more of a naturalized surface of its own, so I don't think I could make an assembly that had a top that acurately represented the uneven sediment surface... and then substrat would be (?) distances below that top - not necessarily specified elevations.  Hard to explain and I may be missing what you're describing.

To get the project done I went ahead with this procedure, kind of bull moosing it:
1. Copy sediment surface in place
2. Rename new copy "Sediment 461"
3. Surface properties - "don't include elevations greater than" = 461.00, rebuild
4. Insert copy of original 2d boundary
5. Break boundary to only leave boundary area not included by the new clipped surface
6. Set new clipped pline elev to 461
7. Add that as a breakline to "Sediment 461" surface
8. In surface definition, delete "transform by 0,0,0" and push original surface boundary to the end of the list
9. Rebuild
10. Create vol surface from "basin" and "Sediment 461"
11. Repeat for a dozen more elevations...

I'll look in to asemblies with multiple datums, tho - I should anyway

I don't think that's giving the volumes the OP is after, but I think the general approach might work...

I think it would even be possible to create a custom assembly that creates a bunch of shapes, similar to the way the Lane subassemblies...  Then you could use the QTO stuff to get volumes for all layers all at once.  That might be the easiest approach, given the current capabilities of C3D...

[sinc]

Be very careful, and do some checks to make sure you're getting what you think you're getting.

In particular, look at this step:

3. Surface properties - "don't include elevations greater than" = 461.00, rebuild

That option is not the same as "Slice the surface at elevation 461.00".  Instead, it simply eliminates all surface Points that are higher than that elevation, and retriangulates the surface using the remaining points.

[sinc]

I think it does...here is a clip of the 'bigger' picture....I would continue this...slicing towards the deep end of the pool..

Here's my understanding...

[mjfarrell]

Thanks for that Sinc,
OK...I thought that was what the elevation volume was doing...although...doing this with gradings might not be such a bad process, at that...
although I'd probably still want to do it with a corridor and user defined point codes to ease the sub surface(s) creation process.

[DaveD]

Thanks, C.  I did actually notice that after I started into it the first time and ended up taking the original sediment surfaec, displaying contours, extracting contours, creating another "Sediment from Contours" surface and using that to do my clips.  Then it would clip right at the speced elev.

Great point.  It woulda saved me an hour or so if I'd thought of that before I started in the first time - about 15 minutes of that was staring at the screen going, "What the hell?"

Be very careful, and do some checks to make sure you're getting what you think you're getting.

In particular, look at this step:

3. Surface properties - "don't include elevations greater than" = 461.00, rebuild

That option is not the same as "Slice the surface at elevation 461.00".  Instead, it simply eliminates all surface Points that are higher than that elevation, and retriangulates the surface using the remaining points.

[sinc]

Thanks for that Sinc,
OK...I thought that was what the elevation volume was doing...although...doing this with gradings might not be such a bad process, at that...
although I'd probably still want to do it with a corridor and user defined point codes to ease the sub surface(s) creation process.

The volume surface gives you areas by depth of cut, not the volume between elevations.  For example, if we look at the volume surface, the area reported between 0 and 1 is the area where there's between 0 and 1 foot of fill.  Those areas can be anywhere, depending on the difference between the two surfaces.

But DaveD has two surfaces, and is looking for the amount of fill between specific elevations.  Different thing.

(BTW, DaveD, I'm Richard "Sinc" Sincovec.  I think you might be confusing me with Christopher, aka C3DReminders...)

[DaveD]

Arrgh.  Sorry, sinc.

Thanks for that Sinc,
OK...I thought that was what the elevation volume was doing...although...doing this with gradings might not be such a bad process, at that...
although I'd probably still want to do it with a corridor and user defined point codes to ease the sub surface(s) creation process.

The volume surface gives you areas by depth of cut, not the volume between elevations.  For example, if we look at the volume surface, the area reported between 0 and 1 is the area where there's between 0 and 1 foot of fill.  Those areas can be anywhere, depending on the difference between the two surfaces.

But DaveD has two surfaces, and is looking for the amount of fill between specific elevations.  Different thing.

(BTW, DaveD, I'm Richard "Sinc" Sincovec.  I think you might be confusing me with Christopher, aka C3DReminders...)