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.
3⢠Expertise in the standards and practices of the following industries: 44 Highway construction; 44 Gas transmission and distribution; and 44 Oil and gas exploration. To achieve ASCE 38-02 QL-B, part of the process involves the application of appropriate surface geophysical methods to attempt to determine the existence and horizontal position of all utilities within scope within the project limits. This utility geophysical search activity is called âdesignating.â The utility information obtained in this manner is surveyed to project con- trol. Designating provides data that can solve problems caused by inaccurate utility records, abandoned or unrecorded facili- ties, and lost references. QL-B information provides reliable information to reduce the project risks during project develop- ment. Decisions regarding location of storm drainage systems, footers, foundations, and other design features can be made to successfully avoid conflicts with existing utilities. Slight adjust- ments in design can produce substantial cost savings by elimi- nating utility relocations. The definitions of the ASCE 38-02 Quality Levels A through D are provided in Appendix A. Fur- ther information on the processes to achieve these quality levels can be found within the ASCE 38-02 standard. The project was divided into two phases: ⢠Phase 1: State-of-the-Art Review and Planning. ⢠Phase 2: Innovation Prototypes Development and Testing. The overall work plan to fulfill the goals and objectives of the project consisted of eight tasks, with Phase 1 consisting of Tasks 1 through 3 and Phase 2 consisting of Tasks 4 through 8. The tasks were as follows: 1. Review of Current and Emerging Practices. 2. Plan for Innovations to Improve Extent of Locatable Zone. 3. Phase 1 Report. The original objective of the SHRP 2 R01C project was to improve the location accuracy of buried utilities at depths below 10 ft. A separate project, R01B, dealt with multisensor platforms for shallower depths. The primary driver of the project and venue for technology demonstration is highway construction. Department of transportation (DOT) projects, by their nature, involve all utilities within the actual or pro- posed public right-of-way (ROW) and many times for some distance beyond for relocation design purposes. In order to improve the detection and reliable [ASCE 38-02 Quality Level B (QL-B)] determination of the positions of buried utilities within an expanded locatable zone, a project team with diverse and unique qualifications was assembled. In recognition that each location has its own challenges, the approach was multifaceted. The original project team consisted of the following organizations: ⢠Gas Technology Institute (GTI); ⢠Underground Imaging Technologies (UIT); ⢠Visible Assets Incorporated (VAI); ⢠Geospatial Corporation; ⢠J. H. Anspach Consulting; and ⢠Water and Sewer Innovation Research (WASIR) Consultants. The project objectives were modified based on the Phase 1 findings to accurately locating a wide range of facilities embedded in a challenging environment. Some specific goals were to be able to locate deep facilities and also facilities that may be stacked in such a fashion that there are interferences. The project team has expertise in the following areas: ⢠Seismic and acoustic technologies for use in soils. ⢠Electromagnetic (EM) technologies for the locating of metallic piping and features. ⢠Smart-tagging technologies for marking and identifying buried assets. C h a p t e r 1 Background
44. Innovation Prototypes Development. 5. Innovation Prototypes Testing. 6. Guidance for Transportation Agencies and Utility Owners. 7. Final Report. 8. Project Management. The initial schedule called for 30 months to complete the eight tasks called out in the first amplified work plan, as shown in green in Figure 1.1. The cumulative delays that occurred during the course of the work required 39 months for execution. The variances in schedule by task are shown in red and blue in Figure 1.1. It was also necessary during the course of the project to make adjustments in the project team. The final project team at the time of the R01C in-service testing consisted of the fol- lowing organizations: ⢠Gas Technology Institute; ⢠Visible Assets Incorporated; and ⢠J. H. Anspach Consulting.
5Figure 1.1. Project schedule with variances.
