Topic: Stage storage earth volumes of uneven surfaces

[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...)