Accuracy Comparison of Roadway Earthwork Computation between 3D and 2D Methods

被引:13
|
作者
Cheng, Jian-chuan [1 ]
Jiang, Long-jian [1 ]
机构
[1] Southeast Univ, Sch Transportat, Nanjing 210096, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
关键词
earthwork volume; highway design; 3D method; average-end-area method; VOLUME ESTIMATION; COST; SIMULATION; DESIGN; GRADES; MODEL; FILL; CUT;
D O I
10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.145
中图分类号
U [交通运输];
学科分类号
08 ; 0823 ;
摘要
This study aims to calculate the earthwork volume in 3D method that has been seldom used before in roadway engineering, and to reconfirm the feasibility of average-end-area method for earthwork volume that is widely used in literature. After reviewing the related studies and comparing various CAD packages, the analysis of accuracy difference between 3D method and average-end-area method is conducted. It shows that in average-end-area method the critical value of interval distance between two consecutive cross sections is 30m. It also shows that the Change Rate of Cut-Fill (CRCF) value, an index firstly proposed to represent the cut-fill variance frequency associated with roadway terrain, alignment and profile design, has no significant impacts on the accuracy of 2D result. It is concluded that the 3D method could be easily used in practice with the CAD software. Meanwhile, average-end-area method with less than the critical interval distance between two consecutive cross sections can guarantee the earthwork calculation accuracy. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:1277 / 1285
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Linear and Nonlinear Model of Cutting Forces in Peripheral Milling: A Comparison between the Accuracy of 2D and 3D Models
    Moradi, Hamed
    Movahhedy, Mohammad R.
    Vossoughi, Gholamreza
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASME INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CONGRESS AND EXPOSITION 2010, VOL 3, PTS A AND B, 2012, : 955 - 962
  • [22] Comparison of stereoscopic effect between 2D, 3D and pseudo-3D endoscopes
    Yamauchi, Y
    Yamashita, J
    Mochimaru, M
    Fukui, Y
    Yokoyama, K
    CARS '99: COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOLOGY AND SURGERY, 1999, 1191 : 1048 - 1048
  • [23] Comparison of 2D and 3D gamma analyses
    Pulliam, Kiley B.
    Huang, Jessie Y.
    Howell, Rebecca M.
    Followill, David
    Bosca, Ryan
    O'Daniel, Jennifer
    Kry, Stephen F.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 41 (02) : 021710
  • [24] Sculpting 3D spatial selectivity with pairs of 2D pulses: A comparison of methods
    Farkash, Gil
    Dumez, Jean-Nicolas
    Frydman, Lucio
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE, 2016, 273 : 9 - 18
  • [25] A quantitative comparison of methods for 3D face reconstruction from 2D images
    Morales, Araceli
    Piella, Gemma
    Martinez, Oriol
    Sukno, Federico M.
    PROCEEDINGS 2018 13TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AUTOMATIC FACE & GESTURE RECOGNITION (FG 2018), 2018, : 731 - 738
  • [26] 3D, 2D or score: a comparison of methods for assessing MSM development.
    Noldner, Lara K.
    Edgar, Heather J. H.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 2011, 144 : 226 - 226
  • [27] Comparison of the accuracy of 2D and 3D cephalometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Qian, Yuran
    Qiao, Hui
    Wang, Xu
    Zhan, Qi
    Li, Yuan
    Zheng, Wei
    Li, Yu
    AUSTRALASIAN ORTHODONTIC JOURNAL, 2022, 38 (01): : 130 - 144
  • [28] Interactive Visualization and Computation of 2D and 3D Probability Distributions
    Bobrovnikov M.
    Chai J.T.
    Dinov I.D.
    SN Computer Science, 3 (4)
  • [29] On the transition between 2D and 3D dunes
    Venditti, JG
    Church, M
    Bennett, SJ
    SEDIMENTOLOGY, 2005, 52 (06) : 1343 - 1359
  • [30] Evaluation of the Rotational Alignment Accuracy and Error Using 3D/3D, 2D/3D and 3D Surface Registration
    Kuo, H.
    Ballangrud, A.
    Li, G.
    Lovelock, D.
    Wolthuis, B.
    Della-Biancia, C.
    Berry, S.
    Hunt, M.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (06) : E307 - E308