Technologies to Support the Storage, Retrieval, and Use of 3-D Utility Location Data (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

7C h a p t e r 2 A literature search was performed, and industry subject mat- ter experts were engaged to identify best practices from exam- ples of existing coordinated 3-D mapping/modeling protocols and projects involving multiple utilities. The TRB request for proposals (RFP) asked that the literature review be performed on international projects. But after a concerted effort search- ing only for international projects, GTI increased the scope of the search to include both international and domestic proj- ects. A field of 40 projects was inventoried. Twenty-nine of the 40 projects reviewed were eliminated for content, timing, or applicability. Eleven projects, both international and domes- tic, were identified as having value for the purposes of the literature search. Additionally, several academic papers were reviewed for basic research to explore a relatively new vendor- neutral standard for defining, storing, and interchanging 3-D spatial features. Four of the more noteworthy papers, from the international sources, are recorded in the list below. List of projects and papers 1. Virginia Utility Protection Services (VUPS) Pilot Program, Roanoke, Virginia. 2. Utility Mapping Program, Hillsborough County, Florida. 3. Geospatially Enabled Community Collaboration (GECCO) Initiative, Tampa, Florida. 4. Road Information Center (ROADIC) Program, Tokyo, Japan (GITA, ROADIC Task Force 2003). 5. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Survey- ing GIS Program. 6. Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) CAD to GIS Conversion Program. 7. Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement (AWVSR) Project, Washington State DOT (WSDOT) and City of Seattle. 8. Mapping the Underworld (MTU), United Kingdom. 9. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Marker Ball Program, Virginia. 10. National Underground Assets Group (NUAG), United Kingdom. 11. Enterprise GIS Phoenix Sky Harbor International Air- port, Phoenix, Arizona. 12. Extending 2-D Interoperability Frameworks to 3-D (Müller and Curtis, no date). 13. A Step Toward Interoperability: Managing 3-D Urban Data Within GML Structure (Scianna et al. 2006). 14. Conceptual Requirements for the Automatic Reconstruc- tion of Building Information Models from Uninterrupted 3-D Models (Nagel et al. 2009). 15. Making Interoperability Persistent: A 3-D Geo Database Based on CityGML (Stadler et al. 2008). projects reviewed During the literature search, GTI looked for methods and pro- cesses that supported the SHRP 2 R01A goals. However, many of the projects researched provided little insight into a best- practices model because few of the projects had any 3-D utility features. Many of the projects were 2-D GIS mapping efforts, while several of the projects were conversion projects or stan- dards development projects supporting conversion. One of the projects—GECCO in Tampa Bay, Florida—had several elements that were consistent with the SHRP 2 R01A goals, in that sharing data across several organizations was its primary focus, but the data being shared in the project were emergency management data. The ROADIC project dealt with the issues of storing and retrieving data and methods for maintaining an ongoing record of the utility features. The ROADIC project was established to provide utility location data across both government and utility organizations. The system employed by ROADIC was originally developed in 1986 to track utility systems in Tokyo after natural gas explosions in the utility system. The ROADIC project was extended nationwide to include 12 other regions where the util- ity infrastructure served large population centers. ROADIC was Literature Search and Information Gathering

8an interesting project to study as it emphasized the need to maintain an integrated view of all of the utilities in a highway right-of-way. The organization that operates and manages the ROADIC system has recorded significant benefits through improved coordination of construction activities and significant reduction in delays of large projects by reducing the number of unknown utility locations. One feature of ROADIC that was of particular interest was the permitting process. The ROADIC sys- tem provided universal access to the utility infrastructure when it came time to review the areas affected by a permit request. When ROADIC was used, turnaround time was dramatically reduced to just a few days from permit application to issue. Given ROADIC’s success with the permitting process, GTI stressed the importance of modeling permits in the SHRP 2 R01A pilot system. The use of permits and their integration into the SHRP 2 R01A system is a key finding of this report. The ROADIC project has a central data store that is used to control and maintain the utility features for the entire country. It was not apparent from the literature review whether ROADIC has 3-D utility data. ROADIC requires that all parties use the same editing and viewing tools when accessing data in the sys- tem. This mandated use of system tools that were declared a national standard in Japan is counter to the SHRP 2 R01A proj- ect. The R01A system data should be available to a variety of users within the DOT and permitting agencies. Unlike ROADIC, the data storage environment should be flexible enough to sup- port multiple viewing and editing tool sets. The literature review and telephone inquiries on the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement (AWVSR) project proved interesting because a significant portion of its design was developed in 3-D. The use of 3-D design supported a vari- ety of processes in the implementation of the project. The con- tractor, Parsons Brinckerhoff, created 3-D data during the project and used it with a variety of 3-D tools from Autodesk, Bentley, ESRI, and Leica for presentation and evaluation of dif- ferent design alternatives, design of subsurface utilities, and earthwork and in support of other project activities. From the 3-D model, Parsons Brinckerhoff prepared a number of 3-D renderings used in the final design deliberations and produced a number of animations depicting the planned project. As with most projects, the 3-D utility model was not avail- able at the start of the AWVSR project; however, 3-D technol- ogy proved to be valuable for a number of project-related work activities. Information gathering on the AWVSR project pointed to the value of preserving the 3-D utility data for future projects. The Enterprise GIS Phoenix Sky Harbor International Air- port project was reviewed; however, nothing of relevance to the R01A project was discovered. Several best practices in both the ROADIC and the AWVSR projects were considered for incorporation into SHRP 2 R01A. The ROADIC project has a central data store that is used to control and maintain the utility features across Japan. The ROADIC program mandated that all parties use the same editing and viewing tools when accessing data in the system. Mandating the use of specific system tools (in this case, tools that were declared a national standard in Japan) is contra- dictory to the objectives of the SHRP 2 R01A project—and, regardless, such a mandate would be almost impossible to implement across all U.S. DOTs. Thus, the SHRP 2 R01A sys- tem should not be developed with any requirements for spe- cific technology for viewing and editing the data. The system should be engineered in such a way that multiple groups working on the system with different tools can access the data. And the system should be defined with technology that is indifferent to the tool sets that connect and consume the data. Several of the other projects reviewed occasionally produced 3-D designs to assist in some of their construction projects. Many of the 3-D designs were developed to support construc- tion scheduling and to assist in visualization and construction logistics. Unfortunately, many of these projects are not preserv- ing the record of the finished utilities and are ignoring elevation data when documenting as-built conditions. Of the 11 projects reviewed from the list above, only the AWVSR project was using full 3-D models of the underground utilities. Few of the projects in this literature search had discussions on data quality grading as defined in ASCE 38. Some utilities have properly defined characteristics and documented loca- tions certified by a professional engineer’s seal, which is the preferred source of information for a project. However, a number of sources of utility location data are extremely valu- able but were never classified using ASCE 38. Managing and understanding the difference between both sets of utility data are critical when designing and operating a system that will store both types of data. A common finding was that many of the projects allowed the maximum use of data with varying quality levels. There must be a means of defining the quality of the utility data. Once the data have a known quality, they may be used for design and construction within the limits of the quality designation. Storing data with a defined data qual- ity level is the first step in setting up a new DOT project. According to numerous examples in the literature reviews, the SHRP 2 R01A system must provide a means of managing all ASCE 38 classifications, and all data being entered into the system must carry an ASCE 38 classification. papers reviewed In addition to the review of the eleven projects listed, GTI’s literature review included several papers concerned with newer computing technologies for storing, retrieving, and using 3-D spatial data. The research focused on developing a solution that could be implemented completely independent of any mainstream CAD and GIS vendors. At the time of the review, the technologies discussed in these papers represented a sampling of the latest thinking for

93-D data conversion, 3-D rendering, and 3-D data storage in an environment not tied to a specific software product. GTI considered this path for a solution for the storage, retrieval, and use of utility data with the fewest ties to any commercial software vendor’s solutions. Findings from Literature Search and Information Gathering 1. The solution must contain an integrated view of all utilities in the right-of-way. GTI’s finding from the research is that all utilities and belowground infrastructure—regardless of the owner—should be included so that the view of the underground is inclusive and without exception. 2. The solution must integrate permitting processes and permit status to define areas of change. The permitting process must be integrated in a solution to ensure that there is a uniform means of capturing change to the DOT project right-of-way. Permitting processes are a unique opportunity for capturing utility engineering design information, utility construction status, and completion of utility final as-built conditions. 3. The solution should be built on a single data storage envi- ronment. The systems studied in the literature search all seemed to be constructed on a single data storage environ- ment, holding all of the utilities in the DOT right-of-way. The data storage was controlled by a single entity and its security administration by a single entity. Several options for compositing utility information from individual utility data storage systems were considered, because this would have significant benefits for labor savings, but these options were dismissed because of concerns over control and data integrity. The quality of the utility information would be difficult to confirm and would not be viewed by the DOT as reliable. 4. The solution should be architected with a data storage environ- ment flexible enough to support multiple viewing and editing tools. The choice of the data storage technology should not mandate a specific vendor’s technology or software product. In several of the projects reviewed, different groups of peo- ple (engineering, construction, public relations, permitting) had different requirements for data access. The system’s data storage technology must allow for different tools to sat- isfy a variety of users’ needs. Complex design and engi- neering tools should be able to be used with the data, as well as with tools to produce public awareness presentations for community outreach and education. 5. Organizations that use the solution may be required to re- design some of their workflows to optimize the systems value. While the system must be flexible, new work processes and modifications to existing workflows will likely result from the adoption of the SHRP 2 R01A system architecture and recommendations. Attempting to fit the recommended system around existing organizational structures and work processes may reduce the effectiveness. Several of the proj- ects researched discussed changes in both work processes and techniques for capturing ASCE 38 quality level A data. These changes occurred during and after the completion of a construction project and were viewed as key to pro- viding high-quality data. 6. The utility companies need to supply the locations and charac- teristics of each utility system or component that lies within the DOT right-of-way. Specifications consistent with ASCE 38 for recording horizontal and vertical measurements must be developed and adopted for all utilities. All utility loca- tions should be tied to a suitable coordinate system. Utility companies installing utility components, inside the DOT right-of-way, should fully define the utility (e.g., sizes, material type). 7. Utility data must be stored with an ASCE 38 data quality rat- ing. All utility data loaded into the SHRP 2 R01A 3-D utility location data repository must have an ASCE 38 data quality level of A, B, C, or D. No utility data should be entered that are not categorized by quality level. All project managers would prefer to start a project with 100% of the utility data at quality level A. If 80% of the data for a project are classi- fied as ASCE 38 quality level A and the balance as levels B–D, the project manager has 80% of the utility location investi- gation complete and can focus the investigating resources on 20% of the underground data. Concentrating only on utili- ties with lower quality levels is key to the project and funda- mental to saving resources. 8. Utility data locations must be obtained through direct mea- surement. Development of as-built locations on utility installation postconstruction is often done by marking changes on design drawings (i.e., exception reporting). At the beginning of a project, utilities are given a design loca- tion on a set of design plans. Often, as-built locations of the utilities are established by marking up exceptions to the design location on these plans. The actual location could be different from the marked up drawing when construction exceptions are overlooked. Utility locations should be inde- pendently identified through direct measurement. Both the horizontal and vertical as-built locations of the utilities should be reported from direct measurement. Reporting by this means provides a definitive description of the location of the utility system. 9. New technologies can improve future utility location map- ping. Going forward, newer technologies such as radio fre- quency identification (RFID) or other low-cost locational markers can provide an added accuracy check and help with postconstruction locating in the field. Permitting requirements may need to mandate the installation of low- cost electronic markers in the future, to take advantage of these new technologies. Utility purveyors are unlikely to do this voluntarily due to the increased cost.