# Surface Area Calculations in AutoCAD

• jonthebaptist
In summary: I'll try to be clear without sounding presumptive. I used theorems from Differential Geometry that apply to piece-wise differentiable surfaces, and since the part is piece-wise differentiable, the theorems apply with mathematical uncertainty, meaning uncertainty set exactly to 0. The only places for error would be transcription, algebraic, or in one's conceptual understanding of Differential Geometry. Differential Geometry is much more powerful than the Analytic Geometry most engineers are used to. I know that Differential Geometry is not a class Engineers are required to take, but it may be worth it if your interest is in drafting or design.In summary, the surface area of the part calculated using Differential Geometry
jonthebaptist
My problem: I calculate, using Differential Geometry, the surface area of a specific part to be 50% more than the surface area AutoCAD calculates it to be using the AREA command on an extruded solid.

I am certain that my calculations are correct. I use theorems of Differential Geometry that apply to piece-wise differentiable surfaces and said part is piece-wise differentiable. I have had my calculations double-checked by a colleague and verified by an independent calculation, so I am certain there are no typographical or algebraic errors. I used wolfram alpha to run the arithmetic in obtaining the final value.

My Question: I would really like to be able to account for the deviation between my calculation and AutoCAD's. If anyone has any general information about the algorithm used in AutoCAD's AREA command, enough information that a Physics major who (barely) passed the undergraduate and graduate Differential Geometry courses could determine if such an algorithm applies to said part, I would be very grateful.

Note: I have produced a (sloppy) proof that their exists no equiareal mapping from the surface of said part to any of the common primitives.

I reevaluated my calculation and found an error. The new calculation matches AutoCAD's value. However there still is some interesting things to consider. The part is a helix, and a colleague originally calculated the surface area for this part by approximating the helix as a sum of circles, and his value also agrees with mine and AutoCAD's values. However, that approximation only applies because the pitch for this helix is small. So this still leaves the possibility that the AutoCAD was calculation was an approximation. So if anyone knows if AutoCAD calculates AREA using approximations with primitives known from analytic geometry, or if it uses the full power of Differential Geometry to calculate surface area, it may be useful knowledge for anyone else who is designing parts with complex geometries.

Note: It appears from my initial readings that constructive solid modelers such as Solidworks or Pro/E store the information as boolean sums of a library of known primitives, thus it is possible that they may not give accurate calculations for some surfaces.

jonthebaptist said:
I reevaluated my calculation and found an error. The new calculation matches AutoCAD's value. However there still is some interesting things to consider. The part is a helix, and a colleague originally calculated the surface area for this part by approximating the helix as a sum of circles, and his value also agrees with mine and AutoCAD's values. However, that approximation only applies because the pitch for this helix is small. So this still leaves the possibility that the AutoCAD was calculation was an approximation. So if anyone knows if AutoCAD calculates AREA using approximations with primitives known from analytic geometry, or if it uses the full power of Differential Geometry to calculate surface area, it may be useful knowledge for anyone else who is designing parts with complex geometries.

Note: It appears from my initial readings that constructive solid modelers such as Solidworks or Pro/E store the information as boolean sums of a library of known primitives, thus it is possible that they may not give accurate calculations for some surfaces.

Pretty much everything computer based uses discreet methods to calculate stuff. All 3D CAD packages I've used do.
They use such small slices (on very high accuracy setting) that any error is negligable for most uses. It's certainly more accurate (for a given calcualtion time) than using assumptions and calculating by hand.

Pretty much everything computer based uses discreet methods to calculate stuff. All 3D CAD packages I've used do.
They use such small slices (on very high accuracy setting) that any error is negligable for most uses. It's certainly more accurate (for a given calcualtion time) than using assumptions and calculating by hand.

I'll try to be clear without sounding presumptive. I used theorems from Differential Geometry that apply to piece-wise differentiable surfaces, and since the part is piece-wise differentiable, the theorems apply with mathematical uncertainty, meaning uncertainty set exactly to 0. The only places for error would be transcription, algebraic, or in one's conceptual understanding of Differential Geometry. Differential Geometry is much more powerful than the Analytic Geometry most engineers are used to. I know that Differential Geometry is not a class Engineers are required to take, but it may be worth it if your interest is in drafting or design.

Also, I'll note that the value from AutoCAD differs in the 3rd decimal place, well within our tolerance for this specific helix, but that does indicate that AutoCAD did use an approximation. Since the dependences of various values of interest, arc-length, surface area, etc... on the parameters of the helix are not linear, there is no way to predict the deviation of any approximation (unless more specific knowledge about the approximation is given) if any parameter is changed significantly. So use caution if you are doing anything with helices, or other geometries that do not equal any Boolean sum of geometrical primitives known from Analytic Geometry.

For some more basic information about the helix, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Helix.html

## 1. What is the purpose of surface area calculations in AutoCAD?

Surface area calculations in AutoCAD are used to accurately determine the total area of a surface or object. This is important for various applications such as construction, architecture, and engineering, as it allows for precise measurements and estimations.

## 2. How do I calculate surface area in AutoCAD?

To calculate surface area in AutoCAD, you can use the AREA command. Simply select the object or surface you want to measure, and the software will automatically calculate and display the total area in square units.

## 3. Can AutoCAD calculate the surface area of irregular shapes?

Yes, AutoCAD has the ability to calculate surface area for both regular and irregular shapes. However, for irregular shapes, the software will use a series of smaller straight lines to approximate the surface and calculate the area.

## 4. Is there a specific unit for surface area in AutoCAD?

No, AutoCAD does not have a specific unit for surface area. The software will display the total area in the unit system that is currently set for your drawing, such as inches, feet, or meters.

## 5. Can I use surface area calculations in AutoCAD for 3D objects?

Yes, AutoCAD can calculate the surface area of 3D objects as well. However, the software will only measure the surface area of the visible faces of the object, so it may not be entirely accurate for complex 3D shapes.

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
274
Replies
5
Views
789
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
33
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K