Volume Estimation of Stock Pile: A Study Case Comparing Estimation Results between Surpac and AutoCAD C3D

Main Article Content

พงศ์ศิริ จุลพงศ์
วิฆเนศว์ ดำคง


This research is a study of the differential of volume estimation results between Surpac and AutoCAD Civil 3D (C3D). The survey data from 7 stockpiles were transformed to CSV (Comma Separated Values) file extension, it is the input data for volume estimation of both C3D and Surpac. The estimation results from both software were analyzed and compared with the estimation result of Average End Area method. The result show the average percentage of absolute differential between Surpac and Average End Area with AutoCAD C3D and Average End Area are 3.2% and 3.5% respectively. While the standard deviation of both case are 2.9. The comparing of estimation results between Surpac and AutoCAD C3D show the average percentage of absolute differential is around 5.3.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Research Article


J. T. Crawford and W. A. Hustralid, Open Pit Mine Planning and Design. New York: Society of Mining Engineers, 1979.

P. L. Raeva, S. L. Filipova, and D. G. Filipov, “Volume Computation of a Stockpile - a Study Case Comparing GPS and Uav Measurements in AN Open Pit Quarry,” ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. 41B1, pp. 999–1004, Jun. 2016.

B. Pflipsen, “Volume computation : a comparison of total station versus laser scanner and different software,” MSc thesis (Geomagnetic), University of Gävle, Department of Technology and Built Environment, Sweden, 2007.

B. H. Hazida and M. S. Shaharuddin, “Measuring Volume of Stockpile using Imaging Station,” Geoinformation Science Journal, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 15–32, 2011.

S. LABANT, H. Stankova, and R. Weiss, “Geodetic Determining of Stockpile Volume of Mineral Excavated in Open Pit Mine,” GeoScience Engineering, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 30–40, 2013.

H. Wadell, “Sphericity and Roundness of Rock Particles,” The Journal of Geology, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 310–331, 1933.