Case Study 2 of ZeonEarth
| Project size | CAD Entities | EL Data | PL Data | Platform | Triangles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.81 acres | 411 | 279 | 61 | 16 | 1037 |
| CPU | Memory | OS | Time CAD | Time Run 3D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| i7-6500U CPU2.5GHz | 16GB | Win10 Pro 64bits | 10 mins | 0.174mins |
One of our unique feature of our ZeonEarth is that it comes with 3 method of earthworks which can provide user an alternative computation on any earthworks given.
This is one of test case on a project which comprised of 3 methods of earthworks computation.
This site is consider as a flat terrain which not 100% flat. With a small portion of hilly area in bottom area of site.
The results of run have been tabulated below:
| Method | Total Vol | Cut Vol | Fill Vol | Total Area | Cut Area | Fill Area |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3D Method | 3127.56m³ | 6295.94m³ | -3168.38m³ | 11369.5m² | 7046.92m² | 4322.58m² |
| Grid 5mx5m | 4121.64m³ | 6492.99m³ | -2371.35m³ | 12300.00m² | 7775.00m² | 4525.00m² |
| Grid 1mx1m | 3561.85m³ | 6688.73m³ | -3126.88m³ | 11677.00m² | 7267.00m² | 4410.00m² |
| Section 5m spacing | 3016.00m³ | 6308.85m³ | -3292.85m³ | 1920.34m² | 1261.77m² | 658.57m² |
| Section 1m spacing | 3105.70m³ | 6400.45m³ | -3294.75m³ | 9695.20m² | 6400.45m² | 3294.75m² |
From the 3 methods computation. We used 3D model result as a benchmark to compare. Where we found out the moment reduce the size of grid or cross section, the results of each methods shown toward the 3D model. the area of grid method is not similar to are of cross section method.
Somehow, it seems the cross section method can provides more close result to 3D model.
Below are the Layout image captured after the run of software in 3 methods. 3D, grid and cross section.
The run result may varies a lot depends on the terrain being attended. Especially in hilly terrain. Zeon Earth can given a choice for designer to evaluate the result on 3 difference methods. Designer must uses his own best expertise to make the choice of cut and fill volume in his project.
The selection of result is a subjective matter where there is always argument on this from difference parties. Like consulting engineer, earthworks contractor, client, property developer. Due to the earthwork amount being entertained is a huge volume. A small change in volume will reflect a large amount of money.
For this example, let say earthworks contractor submitted a claim of 4121.64m³ of volume. Say 1 m³ cost RM3.00 will amount to RM12,364.92. And the consulting works out by 3D volume of 3127.56m³ will come to total of RM9382.68. There will be a difference of RM2982.24. If consultant is approved this claim, then it will not fair to client because of consultant has over paid the contractor. Whereby, if consultant follow his own computation, then the contractor will under be paid with amount of RM2982.24. Therefore, which will be the best answer to be used. Either side will have one party get losses.
For this case, we do not have a solid solution for this. Somehow, this is a recommendation that in order to keep arguing which is more correct, why not put in this way, get an average position for the volume by summing up (4121.64+3127.56)/2=3624.60m³. Then amount to be approved is RM10,873.80. Else the argument will not be ended, every parties will get losses in term of project cannot be progressed due to argument.
Another recommendation is on check which method of earthworks being computed, then use that method a benchmark to compare to approve the claim.
......
Zeon Earth can be used to calculate earthworks computation for civil consultant, contractor, quantity surveyors and more. User friendly for user to use and operate with attractive user interface. Zeon Earth will work with you to save your time and money.
......