Surface Template material classification

The surface type is what is stored on the terrain and called up on the General Leaf.  The different options for Surface Type are Existing, Design, Substratum, Ignore, or Subgrade.  From the Help:

Existing type is for the original ground surface as surveyed. This is the default for most newly created surfaces.

Design type is for the surface that you are designing that you will be comparing against the existing surface for volumes. This is the default type for surfaces created by Roadway Designer.

Substratum type is the type for existing subsurface layers, such as rock, sand, clay etc. If you select Substrata, the Cross Section symbology from the Advance tab of Surface Properties will be used to control the symbology of substrata shapes produced by End-Area Volumes.

Ignore means that this surface is not to be used in computing volumes.

Subgrade type is the type you use to compute end area volumes that have a subgrade surface.

Then under the Classifications Tab, this is dealing with the material type for the components not the surface type.

What is the ultimate output you are looking for?  Do you need the volumes reported based on each substrata terrain to the existing terrain to give you a cut/fill volume to each of these terrains as if they are 'layers'?

I want ot make sure to know the surface type and the clasification type are referring to completely different things.  It would also be good if you could include a DGN with the terrains and sections so we can go through the volumes and check out the report to see how it will report everything versus what you are looking to get as an output.

Chris,

Please see the attached video. Two questions:
1) Why Soil_Exchange Surface Template is Design type instead Substrata (video time 1:00)? As you can see at the beginning of the video, Feature Definition assigned to the component has Substrata volume option set.
2) Why Unsuitable Material by Station overlaps with my Soil_Exachange at some stations (video time 1:30 and forward)?

Thanks, Krzysztof

And going further, question number three:
3) shouldn't the red area be also included in cut area?

Thanks, Krzysztof

1.  I noticed you have a Soil_Exchange and a Soil_Exchange Surface Template listed as terrains.  Is the Soil_Exchange Surface Template a terrain generated from the corridor terrain mesh and not necessarily the Component?  I am not sure where each of these is coming from. 

2. When you do an unsuitable material by station, it should take the extents/limit of the design surface as the offset limits for the unsuitable material component.  The unsuitable material should run all the way across the design surface.

3.  Are you referring to the closed shape for the unsuitable material?  If so, yes, it should be uncluded in the cut volume.  Does the normal cut line not represent this when you annotate the end area volumes?

1.  I noticed you have a Soil_Exchange and a Soil_Exchange Surface Template listed as terrains.  Is the Soil_Exchange Surface Template a terrain generated from the corridor terrain mesh and not necessarily the Component?  I am not sure where each of these is coming from. 

2. When you do an unsuitable material by station, it should take the extents/limit of the design surface as the offset limits for the unsuitable material component.  The unsuitable material should run all the way across the design surface.

3.  Are you referring to the closed shape for the unsuitable material?  If so, yes, it should be uncluded in the cut volume.  Does the normal cut line not represent this when you annotate the end area volumes?

Chris,

Either in my case or in Krzysztof's issue terrains listed in general leaf with name appended with 'surface template' are not in fact standalone terrain models but these are surface templates applied to terrein model limited with user defined boundary (tool from 3D geometry task). Surface templates have components which are listed in classification leaf. I d like to clasify these components as unsuitable material. Cut volume should be reduced by these components volume and in some situations unsuitable volume should be added to fill.

In my workflow i add surface templates to terrain model and limit these templates with shapes as boundries. These are my areas where i have existing pavement or topsoil to be removed. Like an equiwalent of ubsuitable material by feature in inroads ss2.

Unfortunately even if i classified thes components as unsuitable normal cut is not reduced and volumes are not added to fill where needed. In fact it looks that setting these components as unsuitable dont work. To get good volumes in reports i need to set them as MDC inclassification leaf. Reports are fine then, but cut areas on cross sections covers that components while it is not cut but unsuitable material.

Chris, please take a look on the sketch below. It's the ultimate result I'm looking for. As Adam wrote, in InRoads SS2 it was very easily achievable using Unsuitable Material by Feature. Can we get similar result in OpenRoads? If so, can I ask for any tips please?

Thanks, Krzysztof

In both of your cases, I can see what the expected results are and I believe this is the process most users would follow to get results they are used to seeing with the program.  So I think this needs to be reviewed as a possible enhancement request to allow for the component type to control the cut volumes better so that the unsuitable material can be quantified better.

Can you attach a DGN and we will go through the process and verify to make sure there is no other option at this time to get it working as you need?  then we can have a good dataset to supply with the enhancement request.

Chris,

Thanks for your assistance. I will prepare a dataset and send it to you. I guess it will take ma while. I can log a CR if desired.

In anyway I will drop here a line when we sort that out. So anyone here can benefit from that.

Thanks.

Adam has this issue been resolved?  I believe I'm experiencing the same issue as what you and Krzysztof described.