Currently the Mass Haul Diagram volumes are generated from 3D mesh volumes and the End Area Volumes report calculates the volumes from the cross section areas.
Hence there is a difference between the Mass Ordinate values between the two reports.
It would be better if the Mass Haul Diagram can be generated considering the End Area Volumes as well.
It would be really important for the Mass Haul diagram to also take volume reporting into the End Area Volumes Report. It's a way for the end customer to check if the data makes sense or not, based on the cross sections.
+1 from a production environment. We hit exactly this issue on a current earthworks project: using the same named boundary, the same material list and the same shrink/swell factors, the End Area Volumes Report and the Mass Haul Diagram produce different mass ordinates.
In practice, the End Area Volumes Report is the method we (and most contractors and clients) rely on for quantity takeoff and payment, because it is based on the cut and fill areas in the cross sections. But the Mass Haul Diagram — the standard deliverable for earthwork transport planning — uses the 3D mesh/prismoidal volume, so the two deliverables never match. That forces us to manually reconcile the numbers or explain the discrepancy to the client, and it has a direct impact on earthwork budgets.
An option to generate the Mass Haul Diagram from the End Area Volumes (average end area method) would solve this cleanly for the entire industry. It would also help to make the boundary handling consistent between the two commands.
Thank you for submitting this idea — voted and following closely.
I would argue that, having the freedom to choose the method (or at least see it), would bring more flexibility in matching client standards/demands.
- Just in order to be able to do both under the same method regardless of the chosen method.