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.
6Research Approach Phase 1: State-of-the-Art Review and Planning In order to achieve the objectives in an organized manner, several tasks were performed during Phase 1 that informed and guided the execution of Phase 2. The two primary activi- ties were: ⢠A technology review that assessed the state of the art in underground location technologies was performed based on the published literature. Time and budgetary con- straints precluded interviewing experts in the field out- side of the project team. The technology assessment also reviewed soil properties and the physics of wave motion to provide an understanding of why the selected technologies should improve facility location. This review was formal- ized as a report that was circulated to SHRP 2 and the tech- nical expert task group (TETG). This report is included as Appendix B. ⢠A user panel was formed to provide guidance about the application of these technologies under real-world con- ditions. A set of key performance indicators (KPIs) was constructed for each proposed technology and provided to the user panel for review. The feedback from the user panel was incorporated into the technology devel- opment and field-testing plan. These KPIs and the feed- back were used as guidance in the development of the technologies. It also became apparent during the performance of Phase 1 that the efforts of R01B and R01C paralleled one another to a high degree. In addition, SHRP 2 Project R01A would make use of data generated by R01B and R01C. To this end, the three projects coordinated efforts in those areas that over- lapped. The technology assessment covered the findings of both R01B and R01C, which also shared a common user panel (Appendix C). Review of Current and Emerging Practices In this task (Task 1), the project team collaborated to produce an amplified work plan and work breakdown structure (WBS) during the first 15 days after the activation of the project. This WBS laid out the roles and responsibilities of project team members in reasonable detail through the end of Phase 1. An amended WBS was developed for Phase 2. The project team conducted a review of the technologies and practices currently available for locating and tracing bur- ied infrastructure. The following is a nonexhaustive list of the technologies that were examined. The project team has col- lective experience in all of the technologies enumerated. ⢠Seismic and acoustic location. 44 Surface-launched seismic reflection techniques. 44 Introduction of an active acoustic signal to media inside of piping. 44 Passive detection of utility acoustic signatures. ⢠Ground-penetrating radar (GPR). 44 GPR at various frequencies. 44 Multiantenna arrays. ⢠Electromagnetic (EM) tracing of metallic utilities. 44 Introduction of active signal current onto the piping. 44 Induction of a signal onto the piping. 44 Passive detection of residual magnetic signatures on piping. ⢠Smart tagging, locating, and identification. 44 Advanced, long-range IEEE 1902.1 smart tags. 44 Location of legacy radio frequency (RF) tags at shallow depth. 44 Locate and read proprietary serialized tags. 44 Integration of smart tag reader with EM pipe locators. A review of current and emerging practices identified a wide range of technologies developed globally that make per- formance claims with limited verified laboratory and field C h A P t e R 2
7evaluation. Technologies that have existed for many years have not been able to penetrate the barriers of market entry to develop and support a sustainable business. Without the ability to enter the market, a technology will not be available for use by transportation agencies, even though the technol- ogy was successful during the proof-of-concept testing in the laboratory and the field. Although the primary objective of this project was not to develop a commercialization program for the deliverables, it was essential that the research program be cognizant of mar- ket forces that would drive the deployment of the tools devel- oped. Future transportation industry challenges will require advanced detection and accurate determination of buried utilities within an expanded current locatable zone. To avoid the waste of time and money on research to produce tools that never reach the user community, the research team col- laborated with a team of industry advisers. This user panel consisted of stakeholders that would be, or would contract with, end users of the locating technologies developed. The function of this body was to provide the end- user perspective early in the development process, not to pro- vide feedback on the technical approaches. A joint user panel was developed for the R01B and R01C projects because many of the issues were the same for both projects. James Anspach, a consultant for both projects, was the primary organizer and recruiter for the user panel, with assistance from the principal investigators. The project team used a model developed through the Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in which several municipal evaluators committed to evaluating a pipeline condition assessment. These evaluators identified the KPIs that they determined to be essential to the successful adoption of the technologies. These KPIs became the baseline for establishing the commercialization potential and being able to develop a sustainable market. The user panel for the R01B and R01C projects represented a wide range of expertise, including transportation engineering and construction and Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE). The user panel was designed to be geographically distributed and to represent transportation and utility agencies. Task 1 Variance During the early execution of SHRP 2, it was realized that there was a good deal of commonality between the R01B and R01C projects. The TETG, on reviewing the draft state- of-the-art assessments from both projects teams, determined that these could be combined into a single document. The first draft specific to the R01C project was submitted in December 2009. There were several revisions that added detail as requested by the TETG. The final combined technology assessment for R01B and R01C was issued in June 2010. Plan for Innovations to Improve Extent of Locatable Zone The primary goal of this task (Task 2) was to establish the metrics for the performance goals of the innovation proto- types. These metrics were based on the KPIs established through the collaboration of the user panel and the project team. The project team created a set of draft KPIs for the vari- ous technologies under development. The draft was reviewed and commented on by the user panel. The finalized KPIs were factored into the development of the innovation prototypes and the field testing. GTI prepared a draft of the state of the art as per the find- ings of Task 1. This was reviewed by the project team to iden- tify gaps and areas of improvement in the technology. The individual team members provided input in their respective areas. Another goal of Task 2 was to identify and contact other organizations engaged in similar efforts in order to prevent duplication of efforts. J. H. Anspach Consulting coordinated with the United Kingdomâs Mapping the Underworld (MTU) research project and solicited comments from state DOTs regarding potential field sites at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) annual ROW and utilities subcommittee meeting, as well as from various SUE providers across the country. Jim Anspach and Dr. Chris Rogers (University of Birming- ham, MTU project) started collaborating in 2007. They kept each other informed of progress and joint research opportu- nities with the goal of leveraging strengths. Gary Young of UIT and Anspach also worked with Dr. Rogers during the execution of SHRP 2 R01B to coordinate efforts. Anspach was the liaison between MTU and both R01B and R01C. Appendix C gives information on the joint user panel for the R01B and R01C projects. An invitation was issued to indi- viduals identified by the project team as probable end users of the technology. Those accepting the invitation were pro- vided with the KPIs for review. A user panel webinar was also presented by the various investigators to give more in-depth background. Finally, questions and feedback were solicited from the user panel. Phase 1 Report The Phase 1 report (Task 3) was produced by GTI with sub- stantial input from the project team members and the project advisers. It contained the following sections: ⢠The current state of the art for locating and tracing technologies;
8⢠The outstanding gaps and needs to address the objectives of the request for proposal (RFP); ⢠The KPIs articulated by the advisory group; ⢠The device performance requirements to meet the KPIs; and ⢠A detailed test plan of the activities required to fulfill these. This report was proposed to be presented to the sponsor at the end of Task 3. The preparation of the report required more time and resource than originally anticipated. One of the pre- requisites for the preparation of the report was the approval of the KPIs by the user panel; this process was delayed because it took longer than expected to get responses from the panel members. There were also several iterations of the state-of-the- art technology review that was a precursor to the Phase 1 report. The first revision of the Phase 1 report was submitted in October 2010. There were several iterations and requests for additional material to be included. The final version of the Phase 1 technical report was accepted in May 2011. The report was substantially improved by the feedback of the TETG, which required additional technical detail in several areas. The original planned start of Task 4 was to coincide with the end of Phase 1 as signified by the acceptance of the report. In the interest of keeping the project as close to the original calendar schedule as necessary, technical work was allowed to go forward while the Phase 1 report was still in revision. Phase 2: Innovation Prototypes Development and testing The primary activity of Phase 2 was the construction and testing of innovation prototypes that were suffi- ciently robust for field demonstration. It was originally expected that several distinct prototype modules would be constructed: ⢠A seismic reflection module incorporating the following: 44 Seismic reflection sources and sensors in a movable frame. 44 The ability to map a 2-D survey line, or slice across a site. ⢠An active/passive acoustic locating module incorporating the following: 44 A set of wireless sensors. 44 An active acoustic source that can be attached to a pipe. 44 Signal processing to determine depth and location from the sensor data. 44 Signal processing to locate features from passive signa- tures, such as flow or 60-cycle hum. ⢠Smart tags with the following features: 44 The ability to be located and read at depths up to 20 ft. 44 Compliance with the IEEE 1902.1 communication standard. 44 The ability to incorporate sensors and memory within the tag. ⢠An EM module was originally planned incorporating the following: 44 An innovative technique for accurately locating buried metal. 44 Odometry incorporating inertial navigation system (INS) and GPS technologies. This was a logical partition of functions for the purpose of prototype construction. Higher levels of integration might be possible in a finished product but were outside the scope of this project. Not all the technologies in this list resulted in prototypes that were available for field testing. The following section addresses the technologies individually.
