Pleet3D × SQ4DDual-Method + Probabilistic Validation · Tulsa, OK

Concrete yardage,
solved by dual independent methods.

3DCP yardage & cost estimating. Every volume is cross-checked by two methods that must agree within 0.001 yd³. Walls pair a closed-form algebraic prism with a discrete bead-layer summation (layers × beads × 1″×1.5″ × length). Footings use discrete form-board pour-lifts; foundation uses bead-layer stem + screed pour-lift slab − sleeve segments — construction-process models, not Simpson-of-constant continuum. Cavalieri / line / disk integrals remain optional verification details only. Exterior cavity walls also carry a third probabilistic check (Halton quasi-Monte Carlo, N = 200 000).

Inputs

Tulsa · OK

Project Name / Job #

Optional. When supplied, flows into the PDF header, embedded filename, and footer watermark. Leave blank for quick test calcs — exports default to “Untitled”.

Building Preset

Ratio-derived LF — matches Architectural ratio suggestion. Ratio-derived (RSMeans/Graphic Standards via suggestLinearFootage): P=183 ft (k_p=4.1·√A), L_int=156 ft ((k_i=0.7·A)/H_plate=9), L_print=339 ft. Not a hand-curated override. Openings: discrete W×H schedule, A_open=432 ft² (legacy LF×H continuity vs pure openingsLinearFt=48).

Building Type (architectural ratio)

Planning coefficient: 1.5:1 rectangle ⇒ P/√A ≈ 4.08; ~0.7 wall-area/floor for a typical 3-bed/2-bath ranch, converted to LF via plate height. Informed by RSMeans Square Foot Costs and NAHB cost studies — not a pinned table-cell look-up. · k_p ≈ 4.10 (range 4–4.3), wall-area/floor ≈ 0.70 sf/sf.

Square Footage

Stories

Architectural ratio suggestion

P_ext = k_p · √A = 4.10 · √2000 = 183.36 ft → rounded to 183 ft
L_int = (k_i · A) / H = (0.70 · 2000) / 9 = 155.556… ft → rounded to 156 ft
L_print = P_ext + L_int = 183 + 156 = 339 ft

Each component is rounded to whole feet, then summed — the input fields below always match the suggestion exactly. k_p / k_i are derived planning coefficients informed by Architectural Graphic Standards, RSMeans Square Foot Costs, Time-Saver Standards, and NAHB cost studies — not verbatim section look-ups. See footer Sources.

Print-Path Linear Footage

Total length of ALL walls printed (exterior + interior partitions)

General Perimeter (exterior)

Exterior perimeter only — used for footings & foundation

Infill Wall (structural fill columns)

Per Pleet3D: often unnecessary in Tulsa OK; more common in California. ON = print an additional 1.5″ solid bead course in the void column. Counts for both material and print time.

Opening schedule (doors + windows W×H)

KindLabelCountW (ft)H (ft)Wall

21.0 ft² face

KindLabelCountW (ft)H (ft)Wall

21.0 ft² face

KindLabelCountW (ft)H (ft)Wall

42.0 ft² face

KindLabelCountW (ft)H (ft)Wall

348.0 ft² face

A_open = 432.0 ft² · equiv full-H LF ≈ 48.0 ft @ H=9

PLE-1086: discrete width×height voids. Concrete deducts A_open × printed thickness per story; print time still uses full print-path LF (travel-line through openings). Not a lintel/edge FEA model.

Story Wall Height (ft)

Per-story wall height (default 9 ft). Multi-story stacks this height × stories — not one taller continuum wall. Total printed wall height = stories × story height.

Footing Standard

IRC 2021 §R403.1.4 / R403.1.4.1 (OUBCC-adopted OK Residential Code path); unconfirmed: Tulsa-metro 18″ AHJ frost-depth planning value — IRC requires exterior footings below the jurisdiction frost line (Table R301.2(1) as filled by the AHJ). Oklahoma adopts the IRC via the OUBCC (currently the IRC 2018 permanent rule; same frost-protection principle as IRC 2021 §R403.1.4). The 18″ Tulsa-metro figure is an unconfirmed planning value from secondary climate tables (OK averages commonly listed ~12–24″) — not a verified City of Tulsa / Tulsa County ordinance citation. The 20″ × 12″ footing is paired with Foundation Depth (≥ 6″ stem-wall above footing top; default 24″ stem-wall places footing bottom at 36″ below grade). Engineer of record and local AHJ verify the governing frost depth.

Footing Width (in)

Footing Depth (in)

Foundation Type

Slab-on-Grade: slab is poured directly on prepared ground; no stem walls. Slab volume is folded into Foundation total.

Foundation Depth (ft)

Per spec: the stem wall's height is the depth of the foundation — same field.

Slab Thickness (in)

Frost-line check · IRC R403.1.4 / Tulsa planning 18″

Footing bottom = foundation depth × 12 + footing depth = 2.00 ft × 12 + 12 in = 36.0 in below finished grade.

Meets Tulsa-metro 18″ planning frost depth (unconfirmed AHJ Table R301.2(1) fill-in; IRC 2021 §R403.1.4 / OUBCC-adopted OK Residential Code path — not a verified City of Tulsa ordinance citation). Default 24″ stem-wall + 12″ footing places footing bottom 36″ below grade — well below typical frost. Confirm with AHJ / engineer of record.

Printing Month (Tulsa)

Rebar Standard

Pleet3D internal (3DCP void-column reinforcement) — Vertical #5 dowels every 16″ in the 9″ void column; horizontal #4 every 24″ (courses scale with wall height); #4 @ 12″ slab mat. Internal planning schedule, not an ACI/IRC code-required pattern.

Rebar Material

Construction Control

Pleet3D internal — Pleet3D delivers directly to the owner; no general-contractor markup.

Markup %

Applied on top of base concrete cost; defaults from the selected standard but is editable.

Estimate

Self-check match ≤ 0.001 yd³

Project Name / Job # is empty — exports will be filed as “Untitled”.

Walls

17.750yd³

Footings

11.296yd³

Foundation

28.073yd³

Total + waste

60.862yd³

Raw 57.119 yd³ · print 10% / pour 5% · eff ~6.554%

Process waste: walls 17.750 → 19.525 yd³ (print); pour 39.369 → 41.337 yd³; rebar scrap 5% on takeoff. Sleeve L=4.00 in (auto = slab t). Planning defaults only — not guarantees.

Base concrete cost

$3,377.87

@ $55.50/yd³ · Type I/II · as of 2026-04-22

Markup (0%)

$0.00

Pleet3D Direct — no GC markup

Total project cost

$8,425.80

Print time 14.6 hr · 108 layers

Scenarios · save / load / compare

Persist estimate inputs locally in this browser or as a JSON file. Reload anytime. Pin two scenarios (e.g. steel vs GFRP, 1-story vs 2-story) for side-by-side deltas. Every save and export embeds the estimation-only legal notice — not PE-sealed engineering.

Scenario name

Compare slotsA empty·B empty

No scenarios saved in this browser yet. Save the current estimate or load a JSON file to start a library.

Pin two scenarios (live calculator and/or library entries) to open the side-by-side comparison panel.

Engineering Validation Panel

Self-check match ≤ 0.001 yd³

Every volume is solved by two methods that must agree ≤ 0.001 yd³. Walls use a closed-form algebraic prism (Method 1) and a discrete bead-layer summation (Method 2) — physically distinct formulations (layer count × beads × 1″×1.5″ bead section × length), not two names for the same product. Footings Method 2 is discrete form-board pour-lift summation (lift count × W×h_lift × perimeter). Foundation Method 2 is a discrete composite: bead-layer stem + screed pour-lift slab − sleeve segment rough-ins. Continuum Cavalieri / line / disk integrals (Simpson 1/3) are retained only as optional verification details — not primary Method 2. Exterior cavity walls additionally carry Method 3 — quasi-Monte Carlo (Halton b=2,3,5, N=200 000) as a probabilistic sampling check.

Walls — Exterior

Method 1 — Algebra

Closed-form algebraic prism

11.250 yd³

L_ext = General Perimeter = 183 ft (full envelope — openings are W×H voids, not LF length cuts). A_open,ext = 432.00 ft² (equiv. full-height LF = 48.00 ft @ H=9 ft). Schedule: 1× Entry door (door, exterior) 3′×7′ → 21.00 ft²; 1× Rear / service door (door, exterior) 3′×7′ → 21.00 ft²; 1× Patio / slider (door, exterior) 6′×7′ → 42.00 ft²; 29× Windows (window, exterior) 3′×4′ → 348.00 ft². Opening voids (exterior, PLE-1086): A_open=432.00 ft² · t=0.2500 ft → V_void=4.0000 yd³ subtracted from solid wall. V₁ = L · H · t = 183 ft · 9 ft · 0.2500 ft = 411.7500 ft³ → ÷27 yd³ → net after voids

Method 2 — Independent formulation

Discrete bead-layer summation

11.250 yd³

L_ext = General Perimeter = 183 ft (full envelope — openings are W×H voids, not LF length cuts). A_open,ext = 432.00 ft² (equiv. full-height LF = 48.00 ft @ H=9 ft). Schedule: 1× Entry door (door, exterior) 3′×7′ → 21.00 ft²; 1× Rear / service door (door, exterior) 3′×7′ → 21.00 ft²; 1× Patio / slider (door, exterior) 6′×7′ → 42.00 ft²; 29× Windows (window, exterior) 3′×4′ → 348.00 ft². Opening voids (exterior, PLE-1086): A_open=432.00 ft² · t=0.2500 ft → V_void=4.0000 yd³ subtracted from solid wall. V₂ = layers × beads × (h_bead × w_bead) × L = 108 × 2 × (1″ × 1.5″) × 2196″ → in³ ÷ 46 656 yd³ → net after voids

Self-check match ≤ 0.001 yd³Δ 0.000000

Method 3 — Probabilistic

Quasi-Monte Carlo (Halton, N=200 000)

11.250 yd³

L_ext = General Perimeter = 183 ft (full envelope — openings are W×H voids, not LF length cuts). A_open,ext = 432.00 ft² (equiv. full-height LF = 48.00 ft @ H=9 ft). Schedule: 1× Entry door (door, exterior) 3′×7′ → 21.00 ft²; 1× Rear / service door (door, exterior) 3′×7′ → 21.00 ft²; 1× Patio / slider (door, exterior) 6′×7′ → 42.00 ft²; 29× Windows (window, exterior) 3′×4′ → 348.00 ft². Opening voids (exterior, PLE-1086): A_open=432.00 ft² · t=0.2500 ft → V_void=4.0000 yd³ subtracted from solid wall. V₃ = (hits / N) · V_box, V_box = 1 ft · 183 · 9 = 1647.00 ft³. Sampling 200 000 Halton (b=2,3,5) points in the 12-in cavity-wall box; concrete predicate: x ∈ [0, 1.5 in] ∪ [10.5 in, 12 in] (the two beads, void between). → × solid-face fraction 73.8%

Self-check match ≤ 0.001 yd³Δ₃ 0.000000

+Verification detail — continuum check

Cavalieri definite integral (Simpson 1/3) — verification detail

11.250 yd³

L_ext = General Perimeter = 183 ft (full envelope — openings are W×H voids, not LF length cuts). A_open,ext = 432.00 ft² (equiv. full-height LF = 48.00 ft @ H=9 ft). Schedule: 1× Entry door (door, exterior) 3′×7′ → 21.00 ft²; 1× Rear / service door (door, exterior) 3′×7′ → 21.00 ft²; 1× Patio / slider (door, exterior) 6′×7′ → 42.00 ft²; 29× Windows (window, exterior) 3′×4′ → 348.00 ft². Opening voids (exterior, PLE-1086): A_open=432.00 ft² · t=0.2500 ft → V_void=4.0000 yd³ subtracted from solid wall. Optional continuum check (not Method 2): V = ∫₀^9 A(z) dz, A(z) = 183 · 0.2500 ft² (Simpson 1/3, N=1000). For constant section this is algebraically equivalent to the prism; bead-layer Method 2 is the independent physical formulation.

Walls — Interior

Method 1 — Algebra

Closed-form algebraic prism

6.500 yd³

L_int = Print-Path Linear Footage − General Perimeter = 339 ft − 183 ft = 156 ft (interior partitions only). V₁ = L · H · t = 156 ft · 9 ft · 0.1250 ft

Method 2 — Independent formulation

Discrete bead-layer summation

6.500 yd³

L_int = Print-Path Linear Footage − General Perimeter = 339 ft − 183 ft = 156 ft (interior partitions only). V₂ = layers × beads × (h_bead × w_bead) × L = 108 × 1 × (1″ × 1.5″) × 1872″ → in³ ÷ 46 656 yd³

Self-check match ≤ 0.001 yd³Δ 0.000000

+Verification detail — continuum check

Cavalieri definite integral (Simpson 1/3) — verification detail

6.500 yd³

L_int = Print-Path Linear Footage − General Perimeter = 339 ft − 183 ft = 156 ft (interior partitions only). Optional continuum check (not Method 2): V = ∫₀^9 A(z) dz, A(z) = 156 · 0.1250 ft² (Simpson 1/3, N=1000). For constant section this is algebraically equivalent to the prism; bead-layer Method 2 is the independent physical formulation.

Walls — Total

Method 1 — Algebra

Σ closed-form (ext + int + infill + plate)

17.750 yd³

Linearity: V_total = V_ext + V_int + V_infill + V_floor_plate

Method 2 — Independent formulation

Σ independent Method-2 (bead-layer walls + Cavalieri plates)

17.750 yd³

Linearity: V_total = Σ bead-layer walls + Σ plate integrals

Self-check match ≤ 0.001 yd³Δ 0.000000

Footings

Method 1 — Algebra

Closed-form algebraic prism

11.296 yd³

V₁ = P · W · D = 183 ft · 1.6667 ft · 1.0000 ft → ÷27 yd³

Method 2 — Independent formulation

Discrete form-board pour-lift summation

11.296 yd³

V₂ = lifts × (W × h_lift) × P = 12 × (20″ × 1″) × 2196″ → in³ ÷ 46 656 yd³

Self-check match ≤ 0.001 yd³Δ 0.000000

+Verification detail — continuum check

Perimeter line integral (Simpson 1/3) — verification detail

11.296 yd³

Optional continuum check (not Method 2): V = ∮ A_cross(s) ds, A_cross = 1.6667 ft², s ∈ [0, 183] (Simpson 1/3, N=1000). For constant section this is algebraically equivalent to the prism; pour-lift Method 2 is the independent construction-process formulation.

Foundation

Method 1 — Algebra

Closed-form: prism stem + prism slab − π·r²·L rough-ins

28.073 yd³

V₁ = V_stem(prism) + (A · t) slab − Σ π·r²·L rough-ins | slab term = 2000 ft² · 0.3333 ft | sleeve L=4 in (auto = slab thickness; not footing depth)

Method 2 — Independent formulation

Bead-layer stem + screed pour-lift slab − sleeve-segment rough-ins

28.073 yd³

V₂ = V_stem(bead-layer) + screed lifts × A × h_lift − sleeve segments × π r² × h_lift | slab lifts = 4 × (h_lift=1″) | sleeve L=4 in (auto = slab thickness; not footing depth)

Self-check match ≤ 0.001 yd³Δ 0.000000

+Verification detail — continuum check

Cavalieri slab integral + disk-method rough-in (Simpson 1/3) — verification detail

28.073 yd³

Optional continuum check (not Method 2): V = V_stem(prism) + ∫₀ᵗ A_footprint dz − π·Σ ∫₀ᴸ r(z)² dz | slab Cavalieri over z ∈ [0, 0.3333 ft]; rough-in disk method per Stewart §6.2 | sleeve L=4 in (auto = slab thickness; not footing depth). Pour-lift / sleeve-segment Method 2 is the independent construction-process formulation.

Tulsa Mix — June

unconfirmed: auto-selected per internal Concrete_Math PDF (2026-04-22) only — climate/mix monthly table not yet independently double-sourced. Avg high 88 °F · Warm/Summer · 75–85% RH · thunderstorm risk High.

Cement

30,431 lbs · Type I/II

323.7 × 94-lb bags · ≈ 0.61 truckloads

Masonry Sand

73,035 lbs

≈ 1.52 truckloads

Water

1,400 gal

≈ 0.22 truckloads · 23 gal/yd³

Superplasticizer

273.9 lbs

% of cement mass per mix table

Other Admixture

Optional light retarder

Loop Recommendation

Frequent rain days early in month; monitor evaporation in wind.

Print Time — SQ4D ARCS

Speed

500 in/min · 41.67 ft/min

Layer time

8.14 min

339.0 ft × 12 ÷ 500

Total

14.64 hr

108 layers · 878.7 min

Assumptions

Vendor/internal: SQ4D (Aiman Hussein memo, 2026-03-31) planning speed 500 in/min (41.67 ft/min); 700 in/min is reachable but not sustained — not a third-party code rate.
Door & window openings count in time (travel-line through openings) — full Print-Path LF is used.
Layer count = wall height (in) / bead height (1″).
Layer change / start-stop overhead is configurable; default 0 s.

Rebar Schedule

Recommended

Vertical

#5 × 138 bars

1,242.0 ft @ 1.043 lb/ft

1,295.4 lbs

Horizontal

#4 × 5 courses

915.0 ft @ 0.668 lb/ft

611.2 lbs

Slab Mesh

#4 @ 12″ o.c. each way

1.3360 lb/sqft × 2,000 sqft

2,672.0 lbs

SteelSelected

4,578.6 lbs

$4,807.56

@ $1.05/lb · as of 2026 Q2

Fiberglass (GFRP)

1,145.9 lbs

$6,302.35

@ $5.50/lb · as of 2026 Q2

Derivation

Vertical: perimeter × 12 ÷ spacing = bars; bars × wall height × lb/ft.
Horizontal: perimeter × courses × lb/ft (courses from wall height ÷ stated spacing when the standard claims continuous vertical spacing; fixed for top+bottom / custom).
Slab mesh: #4 @ 12″ o.c. each way: 2 × (12/12) ft/sqft × 0.668 lb/ft = 1.3360 lb/sqft
Steel: total linear footage × steel density (lb/ft). GFRP: same linear footage × GFRP density (~25% of steel by weight; unconfirmed: manufacturer/distributor planning densities — not ACI 440.1R-15 Table 1.1; confirm product datasheet). Cost = weight × rate (steel $1.05/lb, GFRP $5.50/lb). The GFRP $/lb is derived from 2026 distributor per-linear-foot quotes (#4 ≈ $0.80–$1.10/ft, #5 ≈ $1.05–$1.35/ft; Owens-Corning Pinkbar+, Hughes Bros. Aslan, Pultron Composites, Tulsa metro). Total GFRP installed cost runs ~3–4× steel — high enough to reflect the corrosion-immunity premium, not the artificial 4× delta a same-weight assumption would produce.

Concrete yardage,
solved by dual independent methods.

Inputs

Estimate

Scenarios · save / load / compare

Engineering Validation Panel

Tulsa Mix — June

Print Time — SQ4D ARCS

Rebar Schedule

Materials Chemistry Cross-Check

Code-referenced planning assumptions (IRC / ACI)

Sources & Citations

Legal Disclaimer