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.
80C H A P T E R 8 ConclusionsUtility Locating Technologies At present, there is no prospect that a tool will be developed in the foreseeable future that can simply and quickly locate and characterize all of the buried utilities at a site. In truth, there is little likelihood that such a tool could ever be devel- oped. However, there are many technological improvements that can and should be made that would improve our ability to cost-effectively detect utilities, integrate this information with the information in utility company databases, and retrieve information on site and in real time. Even with improved technology, though, it is unlikely that the necessary resources and technologies would be deployed to a site without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis that considers potential project delays, safety issues, and cost over- runs that could occur if utilities are not effectively identified and located. Thus, technological advances in utility locating and characterization must be accompanied by complemen- tary improvements in management and procedures to allow this technology to be used effectively. In fact, the management and funding of efforts to locate utilities, the required training, and the prohibitive cost of implementing effective operations are as much factors in preventing the effective use of advanced technologies in the field as the technologyâs limitations. Subsurface utility engineering (SUE) is a viable engineering practice that reduces costs associated with subsurface utility risks. In SUE, an engineer collects and depicts utility location data, identifies the source of the data, and assigns the data a quality level based on its reliability. SUE is most effective when an agency adopts it in a systematic manner and introduces it early in the design stage. Once designers realize the value of SUE data in optimizing their design and apply the SUE prac- tice, financial returns should increase. Utility Characterization Technologies Few aspects of utility characterization data can be reliably determined from a surface-based utility location or character-ization survey. This could change substantially, however, with the introduction of utility smart-marking and -tagging sys- tems. Using these systems, new utilities would be identified with programmable and updatable electronic markers, and existing utilities would be marked as they are exposed for maintenance or for other excavation activities. Without smart tags, most characterization data must be obtained from utility records or by physically exposing the utility through access pits or test holes. The quality of utility records varies in the original informationâs accuracy and the consistency of its updates. Even the type and applicability of information that can be gained, without destruction, when the utility is physically exposed is limited. The internal inspection techniques for pipelines, the devel- opment of consistent terminology for pipe defects and pipe condition assessment, and the use of asset management approaches to effectively manage buried utilities over their life cycle have been the areas of greatest activity in recent years in terms of utility characterization data. There has been an equivalent technological and procedural improvement in management of electrical and communication cables. Many utility companies have readily embraced asset management approaches and, hence, are in a much better position to answer questions about utility condition today than they were a decade ago. Targeting Improvements Chapter 6 discussed the technology improvements that the research team considers most beneficial in reducing the delays and costs incurred by inaccurately locating and characterizing utilities in transportation renewal projects. As has been empha- sized, managerial and financial adjustments may improve and allow for more effective utility location and characterization work to be done early in the highway project design process. Improvements in the utility coordination processes that exist in many areas of the country are also possible, and these improve- ments are addressed in a companion study (1).
81Previous discussion has addressed technological problems and potential solutions related to key locating and characteri- zation issues, including deep utilities, nonconducting utilities, congested utilities, unfavorable site conditions, mitigation of practical limitations on theoretical performance, multisensor approaches, target recognition, 3-D location and transfer to geographic information system/computer-aided design (GIS/ CAD) databases, development of additional approaches, and utility characterization improvements. Some examples were provided of the current state of the art for both utility locating and characterization. Specific areas or actions for improve- ment were then discussed in terms of characterization infor- mation for planning and design, available access to the utility, recordkeeping, mapping and marking; mapping and data- base technologies; utility marking technologies; liability and security management; funding, procedural, and contractual issues; demonstration project development; and education and training. A broad range of potential technological improvements for utility locating and characterization were identified. These were then evaluated with respect to SHRP 2âs expected time and funding constraints and the programâs desire for short- to mid-term results with minimal duplication of the activities under way by other organizations. Nine target research and development activities were identified, includ- ing related educational components. This list of target activities was then ranked by a panel of 14 experts from the transportation and utility sectors, including key research team members, according to the importance of each activ- ity to SHRP 2, as was described in chapter 2. Although the importance assigned to specific topics varied significantly, the group as a whole had a fairly clear preference in their ranking of alternatives. The ranking results are shown in Table 6.2 in chapter 6. Storage, retrieval, and use of utility data and the development of multisensor platforms were ranked as the most important activities, with the development of guidelines ranked close behind. The second-highest priority was given to smart tag- ging, educating and training, and locating deep utilities. Tech- nologies grouped in the third tier of priorities include thedetection of external voids, the benchmarking of current tech- nologies, and deformation characterization technologies. The ranking of priorities was then developed into draft requests for proposals (RFPs) for the SHRP 2 committee to consider and from which to select the final work program within this SHRP 2 focus area. Concluding Remarks Buried utility congestion will only increase with time. Utility locating and imaging technologies will continue to evolve, but they are unlikely to offer a comprehensive solution for all site conditions. Project owners can mitigate utility-related prob- lems through effective utility coordination, realistic utility risk and cost assessments, and integration of policies, procedures, scopes of work, and qualification and training requirements for utility field investigations. The ranking process for future research opportunities indi- cated that greatest potential for improvement exists in the area of accurate mapping and marking of utilities as they are installed or exposed and in the area of ongoing enhancements to accessible GIS-based utility databases that contain SUE utility-quality designations. Significant administrative and legal hurdles may need to be overcome to fully implement techno- logical improvements in these areas, but they offer significant advantages. Improvements to multisensor systems to compen- sate for weaknesses in the individual detection approaches for various target utilities, depths, and site conditions is also an area of great interest, and improvements to the techniques for obtaining accurate utility locations ranked as more critical than improvements to techniques for obtaining accurate utility char- acterization. Finally, from the recommended future research opportunities identified in this report, SHRP 2 developed three follow-on research projects that were advertised in March 2009. Reference 1. Ellis, R., M. Venner, C. Paulsen, J. Anspach, G. Adams, and K. Van- denbergh. SHRP 2 Report S2-R15-RW: Integrating the Priorities of Transportation Agencies and Utility Companies. TRB, Washington, D.C., 2009.
