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.
69C H A P T E R 7 Development of Requests for ProposalsPhase 2 Process Once the ranked list of proposed research areas that had been prepared in the projectâs first phase was approved by the SHRP 2 committee, the research team was authorized to develop specific research plans based on these proposed areas of interest. During the projectâs second phase, the research team studied the best way to implement each research topic in terms of specific project descriptions that could be issued within the funding levels and time period allocated for this effort by the SHRP 2 program. Issues for Consideration The research topics include technological development and education or training and, according to the specific topic, must involve commercial technology providers, transportation agen- cies, utility companies, municipalities, research organizations, and subsurface utility engineering (SUE) professional and util- ity locators. Specific issues addressed in developing the project descriptions were as follows: ⢠Whether the award should be divided into more than one phase: Technological development projects in which Phase 1 proof-of-concept or prototype development could occur and be tested prior to the award of Phase 2 funds for further development were the types of projects consid- ered for more than one phase. Also, it was not considered appropriate to reduce total project funding levels for multi- phase awards. ⢠Number of awards expected to be made within the same topic area: Single-phase projects were designed so that the request for proposals (RFP) process would result in the selection of a single organization or team. Projects with more than one phase were evaluated on whether there would be an advantage to allowing the potential selection of more than one research groupâif sufficient meritoriousproposals were received. An evaluation at the end of the first phase of such a project would determine which approach would proceed to the second phase. ⢠Tasks and deliverables: Establishing a proposal frame- work invests greater clarity to the evaluation of competing proposals. Thus, expected tasks were described in sufficient detail to give proposal writers a clear idea of what was expected from the successful team(s), but the description was also broad enough to allow proposal writers an oppor- tunity to include novel approaches. ⢠Team composition: Team composition is largely left to the groups to determine; however, guidance was given as to the expected components of a successful team when a critical part of the scope of work included collaboration among technology providers, agencies, and utilities. ⢠Legal, security, and administrative roadblocks: Some issues, such as the sharing of detailed 3-D utility positional information, involve significant issues of data ownership, secure levels of access to utility data, liability issues for incorrect data, and simple administrative reluctance to change current modes of operation. The project descrip- tions address these issues in part through educational activ- ities but mostly through the requirement that pilot-scale operations of proposed technologies have sufficient com- plexity to allow most of the operational and administrative issues that are of interest to be addressed. The pilot-scale operations, however, should be small enough that teams can participate in the trial with limited risk to their overall operations. ⢠Evaluation: During their projects, successful proposers must go through several evaluations. The first task follow- ing the project award requires that a detailed technological- development plan be submitted. Phase 1 proof-of-concept prototypes can be measured against specific levels or ranges of equipment capability that are listed as targets. Proposers are given the option of proposing higher or lower target levels, but the target levels are intended to discourage
70potential technological developments with only marginal real capability improvements from being continued into Phase 2 funding. ⢠Funding level: Proposed funding levels are given for each recommended project based on an evaluation of the level of technological development required, the complexity and effort for team members in team proposals, and the report- ing and evaluation costs imposed on the project. Compar- ative funding levels also are based on the ranking of topics made during Phase 1, the time available for expenditure of funds, and the total funding available for this focus area within the SHRP 2 program. At this writing, the research phase of the SHRP 2 program is due to finish in September 2011, providing about 2.5 years as the maximum project timetable. The total remaining funding is expected to be about $4.7 million. Not all the projects listed can be funded with the level of funding available. ⢠Distribution of funding between phases: In most multi- phase projects, a certain maximum level of funding is set for each phase of the project. This is done to ensure that ade- quate funds are targeted for each phase and are not front- loaded to the first phase. Such a scenario would reduce the value of selecting or evaluating technologies after the first phase, because most of the funds would have been spent already. In contrast, for other projects there is flexibility to allow the Phase 1 funds to be reduced but overall funding to remain unchanged. This will allow proposers with signif- icant existing investments in technological development to concentrate efforts where they believe those efforts will advance the technological acceptance and usage in the best way. The review panel will need to evaluate which strategies are most appropriate for different technologies at different stages of development. ⢠Education and training programs: The education and training program projects are relatively straightforward, but training kits are required that include both presentation materials and supporting information such that the educa- tion or training can be effectively used by a wider group of professionals than the development team. An opportunity is provided to evaluate the materials and presentations before they are finalized. In the technology-oriented educa- tional materials development, provision is made for a tech- nological update to be prepared each year for two years. If this is found to be valuable, as is expected, it could be a task that is continued by an appropriate agency or organization into the future. Draft Request for Proposals The project descriptions developed by the team in each of the nine ranked priority areas follow. Only the core text of each proposed project is included because the supplementary infor-mation will be similar for each RFP and will need to be final- ized once funding levels and submittal dates are determined and the specific RFPs for release have been selected by the SHRP 2 committee. Also, the deliverables and meeting require- ments listings are omitted for brevity. Project R01-P01: Innovation in Technologies to Support the Storage, Retrieval, and Utilization of Three- Dimensional Utility Location Data Objective This project is intended to support the development of software and hardware that would take advantage of recent advances in global positioning system (GPS) and geographical information system (GIS) technologies to increase the quality and efficiency of storing, retrieving, and using utility records with three- dimensional (3-D) positional information. The project is also intended to demonstrate the collection and use of such infor- mation in a multi-utility environment. The overall objective is to reduce the time spent on repeatedly refinding known utili- ties so that resources can be focused on unknown or previously misrecorded utilities and so that an increasingly comprehen- sive record of utility information beneath public rights-of-way can be created. Number of Awards One or two Phase 1 awards may be made. At the end of Phase 1, one project is expected to be selected to proceed to Phase 2. Scope The project is intended to operate at a pilot scale within a man- ageable geographic area and with a manageable number of par- ticipating utility companies to provide a demonstration of the access control, data security, data pedigree [based on Construc- tion Institute/American Society of Civil Engineers (CI/ASCE) 38-02], positioning uncertainty, available characterization data, and liability issues that would be faced in a full-scale implemen- tation of the system. Ongoing database management issues, data ownership, and data sharing shall be discussed. Providing documented examples of solutions to administrative and legal issues is an important part of the project. The project should include implementation of positional data capture involving the participating agency and the participating utilities for new utility installations and exposure of existing utilities, and the removal or updating of the status of those utilities that may have
71undergone relocation. The project should include the field deployment of computerized utility data or maps for use in util- ity locating for design purposes and for damage prevention for excavation or construction projects. Existing laws and best practices regarding utility damage prevention should be fol- lowed, but the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed approach should be recorded. It is expected that the proposal team will include one or more technology providers; a transportation, municipal, or other public works agency with responsibility for permitting and construction within utility corridors or public rights-of- way; and at least two independent utility companies that have agreed to participate in the demonstration project. It is anticipated that technology providers may have existing software or hardware in commercial use, in prototype devel- opment, or in the research stage. The proposal should disclose how the proposed technological developments will improve on the current technological developmentâs status or deployment, or both. Proposers are encouraged to provide data to show the current capabilities of the proposerâs technology, including horizontal and vertical positional accuracy. Information about the earlier use of such technologies in connection with projects should be verified by a client or consultant that is not finan- cially connected to the technological development. It is impor- tant that sufficient technical information be provided in the proposal to allow the technical reviewers to assess the like- lihood of significant advances over current technology. The proposers should also demonstrate familiarity with existing national and international approaches to this problemâfor example, the U.K. VISTA/Mapping the Underworld initiative, the Virginia Pilot Study of GPS-based one-call ticketing, and other commercial developments in the public domain. Tasks Phase 1: Technology Development and Detailed Operational Procedures TASK 1. Prepare an expanded technological-development plan across all proposed phases with more detailed development and evaluation milestones. These should amplify the plans presented in the proposal but remain consistent with the pro- posal plans and schedule. Prototype refinement and testing cycles should be identified. This task will be due within two months of approval to proceed. TASK 2. Conduct a literature review and an international search for examples of existing coordinated 3-D mapping protocols and projects involving multiple utilities. TASK 3. Develop detailed procedures that will guide the soft- ware and hardware trials in coordinating among the softwareand hardware providers and the participating utility com- panies or agencies. This information should include who is authorized to collect data for input into the system, the qual- ity assurance/quality control (QA/QC) data verification pro- cedures, the hierarchy of access controls versus accuracy and extent of data provided, response times for incorporation of the data into the system, and so forth. TASK 4. Identify any necessary new standards for data cap- ture, display, or management, and identify the best standards development organization or other agency to develop these standards. TASK 5. Develop hardware and software as necessary to fur- ther develop the system and deploy it for the pilot study. Phase 2: Pilot Study Operation and Reporting TASK 6. Operate the hardware and software in a pilot study mode for one year in a specified geographic area and with agreement among the technology providers, the host agency, and the participating utility companies (see the earlier discus- sion under âScopeâ). TASK 7. Prepare a final report and presentation kit that doc- uments the project and the results of the pilot study. The principal audience of the report is to be other agencies and municipalities that might consider adopting the demonstrated system or similar mapping advances. Funds Available The funds requested from SHRP 2 for this project should not exceed $300,000 for Phase 1 and $1,200,000 for the total proj- ect, including both Phase 1 and Phase 2. (See âNote: Budget Considerationsâ for additional information.) Contract Period A 30-month contract period including review and final edit- ing is anticipated. Note: Budget Considerations It is anticipated that either one or two Phase 1 awards may be made but that only one project is expected to proceed to Phase 2. Also, the funds for Phase 2 will not be released unless satisfactory operating parameters and procedures have been developed and the Phase 1 submittals have been approved by SHRP 2. The budget for Phase 1 may not exceed $300,000. The budget for the total of Phase 1 and Phase 2 may not exceed
72$1,200,000. A detailed budget covering all phases according to the requirements of the SHRP 2 Proposal Manual is required. Project R01-P02: Utility Locating Technology Development Using Multisensor Platforms Objective This project will support the technological development of multisensor approaches to improve the detection and accu- rate locating of buried utilities. The combinations of proposed sensor technologies should be shown to potentially offer sig- nificant advances in utility-detection performance across a wide range of soil types and site conditions. Enhanced utility detection is the primary objective, but productivity issues in commercial use also are important. Preference will be given to the integration and data fusion of sensors using at least two different geophysical phenomena. The project will consider the development of new platforms, as well as the enhancement of existing concepts and designs. Improved coupling methods to assist in identifying known utilities may also be used to improve detection performance. Background Deployment of multiple sensing techniques is necessary in many instances to image various utilities composed of differ- ent materials, depths, conductivity, ground conditions, surface obstacles, and so forth. Covering the same ground more than once with different instruments or techniques is inefficient if one pass with multiple equipment capabilities could achieve the desired outcome. Time constraints, equipment cost, knowl- edge of equipment capability, and operator training may be factors that discourage making the necessary multiple passes using different equipment. Enhanced data interpretation may be obtained on a single pass with a multisensor platform as a result of simultaneous signal processing. Combined with improved coupling techniques, a multisensor platform may lead to better quality interpretation and less expensive produc- tion. The goal of this research is not to just place two or more distinct instruments on a single platform, but by doing so to improve detection ability or production or to lower equipment and training costs. Number of Awards One or two Phase 1 awards may be made. At the end of Phase 1, one multisensor technology is expected to be selected to proceed to Phase 2.Tasks Phase 1: Proof of Concept TASK 1. Prepare an expanded technological development plan across all proposed phases with more detailed development and evaluation milestones. These should amplify the plans pre- sented in the proposal but remain consistent with the proposal plans and schedule. Prototype refinement and testing cycles should be identified. This task will be due within two months of the approval to proceed. TASK 2. Develop a working proof-of-concept prototype of the multisensor platform that can be used in laboratory and controlled field trials (this is not intended to be a market- ready unit). The approximate dimensions of the proposed sensor platform and the anticipated means of deployment (for example, hand carried, push cart, or powered cart) should be disclosed in the proposal. It is anticipated that pro- posers may have existing versions of multisensor platforms either in commercial use, prototype development, or the research stage. The proposal should disclose how the pro- posed technological developments would improve on the existing technological development. Devices can have any combination of passive detection or active signal generation. Proposers are encouraged to provide test data to show the current capabilities of the proposerâs technology. Such test data should be verified by an independent agency with expertise in utility locating technologies. It is important that sufficient technical information be provided in the proposal to allow the technical reviewers to assess the likelihood of sig- nificant advances over current technology. The proposers should also demonstrate familiarity with existing multi- sensor platform research (for example, the U.K. Mapping the Underworld initiative and commercial developments in the public domain). TASK 3. Participate in controlled site testing of the detection capabilities of the platform developed under Task 2. The util- ity and soil conditions to be tested are shown in Table 7.1. The test results will be used to assist in the selection of the platform that will continue to Phase 2. A depth range for the test has been given because the actual field test will record the accuracy of the depth prediction pro- vided by the equipment within the range shown. If the pro- poser does not believe that these depths are attainable with their proposed solution, then alternate figures should be pro- vided for the higher value in each depth range. In addition to the results provided after signal processing and interpretation, the raw signals received from the sensors must be recorded and provided.
73Soil Pipe 2 in. PVC 2 in. PVC 6 in. PVC 12 in. Steel Depth Clay (conduct. > 4 mmhos/cm) Sand Empty Water Filled Empty Empty 12 in. to 24 in. w 6 in. asphalt X X X 24 in. to 36 in. w/out pavement X X X 48 in. to 60 in. w/out pavement X X X X 72 in. to 96 in. w/out pavement X X 15 ft to 20 ft w/out pavement X X Table 7.1. Utility Types and Soil ConditionsPhase 2: Development of a Prototype TASK 4: Refine the hardware and software technologies in the detection platform and develop rugged equipment suitable for testing under service conditions. Phase 3: Pilot Testing TASK 5: The unit resulting from Phase 2 will be used for test- ing in a variety of utility test beds and field environments that will allow the performance to be compared with earlier tech- nologies. The proposer should propose at least five test loca- tions and include the cost of the testing in the proposal budget, including any test-facility fees. Specific test sites may be noted in the final RFP, and general test sites of the follow- ing conditions should also be included: urban street utility mapping with ground conductivity > 4 mmhos/cm and with high utility density and complexity. TASK 6: The unit will be placed in service with an independent provider of SUE services for six months. The company agree- ing to use the unit in prototype operations for the six-month period should be identified in the proposal. A log showing the productivity of the units and utility mapping performance should be maintained and a report on the performance of the units produced. Costs for maintaining the equipment in work- ing order during this period will be included in the proposal. Funds Available The funds requested from SHRP 2 for this project should not exceed $250,000 for Phase 1 and $500,000 for Phase 2. (See âNote: Budget Considerationsâ for additional information.) Contract Period A 30-month contract period including review and final edit- ing is anticipated.Note: Budget Considerations It is anticipated that either one or two Phase1 awards may be made but that only one multisensor approach may proceed to Phase 2. Also, Phase 2 funds will not be released unless sat- isfactory performance of the Phase 1 working prototype is achieved and the Phase 1 submittals have been approved by SHRP 2. The budget for Phase 1 may not exceed $250,000. The budget for Phase 2 may not exceed $500,000. A detailed budget covering all phases according to the requirements of the SHRP 2 Proposal Manual is required. Project R01-P03: Development of Guidelines for Incorporating Advanced Utility Locating and Characterization Technologies in Transportation Projects Objective This project will develop a set of guidelines to assist trans- portation agencies in planning and contracting for the use of advanced technologies to collect information on utility loca- tion and characterization. The guidelines will help in archiv- ing project utility data (following ASCE Standard 38-02) and in identifying how to assess the risk of unlocated or mislocated utilities to ensure appropriate budget allocations are made. Number of Awards It is anticipated that one award will be made for this project. Tasks TASK 1. Contact transportation agencies, design consultants, utility owners, SUE providers and utility-locating firms to identify key issues and compile best practices specifically con- cerning the use of advanced technologies in the collection and archiving of utility data on transportation projects. Such
74contacts should be designed to build on the information col- lected in previous studies (for example, SHRP 2 Project R01 and SHRP 2 Project R15) rather than duplicate previous information-collection efforts. TASK 2. Prepare a document of guidelines for designers and administrative personnel in transportation agencies. These guidelines should be as prescriptive as possible to guide the reader through the choices to be made (that is, a flow chart leading to a decision or a decision matrix is preferred to a description of issues to be considered). The guidelines, to the extent possible, should be applicable nationally, but variations in the appropriate procedures should be discussed where major differences in administrative practices require different approaches. Demonstrations of improved data capture and data management are being funded under a separate project, and preliminary information from this project should be addressed in the guidelines. Issues to be addressed in the guide- lines include, but are not limited to, the following: ⢠Reasons for accurate and timely utility data collection and the consequences of poor or incomplete data; ⢠Goals of each stage of the utility data collection process and the relationship between the design stages and the type and extent of the utility data collection effort; ⢠Budget allocation amount and timing for utility location and characterization activities; ⢠Guidance on how to specify the experience and equipment requirements for utility data collection providers; ⢠Cost and effectiveness among the different classes of util- ity data collection approaches (that is, SUE versus standard contract locating) and among categories of utility locating equipment [for example, ground-penetrating radar (GPR) versus multisensor platforms or basic electromagnetic locators]; ⢠Guidance should also be included on the costs associated with field inspection processes (for example, confined space entry, traffic control, and so forth); ⢠Supporting data (from previous studies, not original research) on cost-benefit ratios for different utility data col- lection practices, including SUE; ⢠Proper management of utility data updates during the design and construction process; and ⢠Proper data archiving so that the information does not become lost to future projects in the same area. TASK 3: Prepare a 2â3 hour training session kit that consists of Microsoft PowerPoint presentations and supporting ma- terial, suitable for use in transportation agency and design personnel training sessions on the guidelines. The presen- tation should be annotated using the notes feature to guide future presenters of the course and provide additional detail.TASK 4. Prepare a 10â20 minute Microsoft PowerPoint pre- sentation for use in explaining the purpose and rationale for the guidelines to transportation executives and conference audiences. The presentation should be annotated using the notes feature to guide future users of the presentation and provide additional detail. TASK 5. Demonstrate the course and the executive presenta- tion at a venue to be agreed on by the project officer and the project team. This should be scheduled to allow revisions to be made based on feedback from the audience and SHRP 2 reviewers. Funds Available The funds proposed for this project should not exceed $75,000. Contract Period A 14-month contract period including review and final edit- ing is anticipated. Project R01-P04: Innovation in Smart Tagging of Buried Utility Systems Objective This project provides for research and development of hard- ware and software that support the âsmart taggingâ of buried utility systems during the initial installation of new pipelines or when a utility is exposed during excavations. Smart tag- ging refers to systems that provide either active or passive electromagnetic tags that can be attached to pipes, placed beside pipes, or incorporated into the manufacture of new pipes. Smart tags should have the capability to store infor- mation concerning the key characteristics of a utility pipe and should be updatable as the pipe is inspected, repaired, and so forth. Number of Awards One or two Phase 1 awards may be made. At the end of Phase 1, one smart-tagging technology is expected to be selected to proceed to Phase 2. Tasks Phase 1: Initial Proof of Concept TASK 1. Prepare an expanded technological development plan across all proposed phases with more detailed develop- ment and evaluation milestones. These should amplify the
75plans presented in the proposal but remain consistent with the proposal plans and schedule. Prototype refinement and testing cycles should be identified. This task will be due within two months of the approval to proceed. TASK 2. Perform literature research, simulation, and labo- ratory and field testing of candidate technologies for the proposed smart-tagging system to develop the technical capabilities of the proposed system. Key issues to be consid- ered include the maximum burial depth of the sensors, the proposed system for long-term use or replacement of sensors (and an energy provision if an active sensor is proposed), the data storage and update capabilities, data security, the anticipated cost of the tags in commercial production, envi- ronmental restrictions, and the method of attachment or association with the pipe or appurtenance that is tagged. A report describing the results of this task shall be submitted for review. Proposals should provide information on the physi- cal makeup and the technical capabilities of the proposed sys- tem versus the anticipated cost to deploy. TASK 3. Develop a precommercial prototype system suitable for proof-of-concept testing that will provide a physical demon- stration of the capabilities of the tag system. The prototype must share similar operating characteristics with a future commercial system in terms of its size and the power of its key components. TASK 4. Conduct proof-of-concept testing in the laboratory and in the field. Burial depths for detection and interrogation of the tags will be very important in terms of the widespread applicability of a smart-tagging system. Table 7.2 indicates the minimum desired performance for a smart-tagging system. Greater potential depth of operation is of significant benefit, but this must be balanced against sensor cost and placement considerations. If the proposer believes that greater depths, which are a highly desirable outcome, are attainable with their proposed solution, this should be specified in the proposal. Likewise, if these depths are considered unattainable with the proposed solution, then alternate figures should be provided in the pro-Soil Clay (conduct. Depth > 4 mmhos/cm) Sand With 6 in. asphalt pavement 24 in. 48 in. Without pavement 36 in. 60 in. Table 7.2. Minimum Desired Performance for a Smart-Tagging Systemposal for the expected maximum depths of operation. The results of the testing in this task will be used as a component in the selection of the technology that is funded for Phase 2. Phase 2: Refinement and Field Testing TASK 5. Refine the hardware and software technologies in the proposed system and develop a set of sensors sufficient for field testing with an agency or utility. The number of tags to be pre- pared and used in testing shall be specified in the proposal. TASK 6. The precommercial prototypes shall be used for con- trolled testing as a system with one or more agencies or utili- ties that will allow information to be collected on performance, ease of use, and so forth. The proposer should propose at least one agency or utility that has agreed to cooperate in the testing of the tag system, and the cost of the testing must be included in the proposal budget. Funds Available The funds requested from SHRP 2 for this project should not exceed $300,000 for Phase 1 and $700,000 in total for both phases combined. (See âNote: Budget Considerationsâ for additional information.) Contract Period A 30-month contract period including review and final edit- ing is anticipated. Note: Budget Considerations Only one smart-tagging approach is expected to proceed to Phase 2. Also, the funds for Phase 2 will not be released until satisfactory performance of the Phase 1 working prototype is achieved and the Phase 1 submittals have been approved by SHRP 2. The budget for Phase 1 may not exceed $300,000. The combined total budget for Phase 1 and Phase 2 may not exceed $700,000. A detailed budget covering all phases accord- ing to the requirements of the SHRP 2 Proposal Manual is required. Project R01-P05: Education and Training for Utility Locating and Characterization Technologies Objective This project will develop education and training materials for agencies on the capabilities and availabilities of utility locating and characterization technologies. It will develop
76education and training materials on the costs and benefits associated with the deployment of state-of-the-practice and advanced technologies for utility locating and characteriza- tion. Materials will include discussions on necessary equip- ment technician qualifications. A parallel project (R01-P03) is developing guidelines for incorporating such technologies in transportation projects and on the general cost-benefit implications of the use of subsurface utility engineering approaches. Number of Awards It is anticipated that one award will be made for this project. Tasks TASK 1. Conduct a literature search for educational and training materials on utility locating and characterization technologies, and update existing literature searches to cover recent technological innovations. TASK 2. Contact manufacturers of advanced technologies for utility locating or characterization for examples of the cost- benefit of deploying their technologies. The results provided should be checked with the agency that uses the services. Address stakeholder expectations for utility locating equip- ment. Request public domain use of simulations, videos, and so forth to be used for educational and training purposes. TASK 3. Develop educational and training materials to explain the key principles behind the use of utility locating and char- acterization technologies, and the qualifications of its opera- tors. This may include simulations, presentation graphics, and case study results. Confirm that all materials used are available for public domain use, with copyright releases obtained as necessary. Address the influence of site and ground conditions and interference from other utilities or structures when dis- cussing equipment capabilities. TASK 4. Prepare a 10-hour training session kit that consists of Microsoft PowerPoint presentations and supporting ma- terial that is suitable for transportation agency and design per- sonnel and for use as a module in related educational courses at universities and technical colleges. The presentation should be annotated using the notes feature to guide future presenters of the course and to provide additional detail. Course materi- als should be constructed so that methods can be explained in principle with minimal advanced mathematics but with addi- tional presentation materials available to offer a more detailed explanation to advanced audiences.TASK 5. Prepare an annual technological update based on Task 1 that will provide transportation agencies and highway design personnel with an annual summary of advances and findings with respect to utility locating and characterization technologies. The update should be less than 10 pages long in publication format and should be suitable for stand-alone distribution or use as a paper in conference proceedings. TASK 6. Demonstrate the training course at a venue to be agreed on by the project officer and the project team. This should be scheduled to allow revisions to be made based on feedback from the audience and SHRP 2 reviewers. Funds Available The funds proposed for this project should not exceed $125,000. Contract Period A 27-month contract period including review and final edit- ing is anticipated. Project R01-P06: Innovation in the Location of Deep Utility Pipes and Tunnels Objective This project will support the research and development of locating technologies that target deep utilities currently un- detectable by surface-based approaches. Such technologies may include, but are not limited to, alternative or novel surface- based approaches, direct-path detection methods deployed from inside an existing deep utility, or cross-bore techniques based on adjacent boreholes. Project Background Deep utilities are a particularly difficult problem for detec- tion. Utilities are increasingly placed deeper as the near- surface space becomes crowded and utility-construction techniques become more capable. The existing surface tech- niques for utility detection have become ineffective due to signal-to-noise ratio factors, masking of deeper utilities by shallow ones, the presence of groundwater, and other geologic issues. Deep utilities, when encountered during construction, are generally costly to relocate or repair. Number of Awards It is anticipated that one award will be made for this project.
77Tasks TASK 1. Prepare an expanded technological development plan with more detailed development and evaluation mile- stones. These should amplify the plans presented in the pro- posal but remain consistent with the proposal plans and schedule. Technological refinement and testing cycles should be identified. This task will be due within two months of the approval to proceed. TASK 2. Perform literature research, simulation, and labora- tory and field testing of candidate technologies to detect deep utilities to develop the desired technical capabilities of the proposed system. Key issues to be considered include the util- ityâs size and material type, its distance from the surface or distance from boreholes or utility pipes used for detection, and the time and cost expected for the detection process. Limitations of the host (the detector or receiver travel pipe) utility pipe material or size will be an important considera- tion. The proposed technological development may be based on enhancements of existing technologies or methodologies or on innovative technologies or methodologies. A report providing the results of this task will be submitted for review. TASK 3. Conduct proof-of-concept testing in the field and compile data on the techniqueâs detection effectiveness, deployment, equipment required, costs, and so forth. Funds Available The funds requested from SHRP 2 for this project should not exceed $400,000. Contract Period A 30-month contract period including review and final edit- ing is anticipated. Project R01-P07: Development of External Soil Void Detection Technologies Objective This project will support the development of new technologies or the enhancement of existing technologies to locate and char- acterize external soil voids from within a buried pipe or culvert. Number of Awards It is anticipated that one award will be made for this project.Tasks TASK 1. Prepare an expanded technological development plan with more detailed development and evaluation milestones. These should amplify the plans presented in the proposal but be consistent with the proposal plans and schedule. Techno- logical refinement and testing cycles should be identified. This task will be due within two months of the approval to proceed. TASK 2. Perform literature search, simulation, and labora- tory and field testing of candidate technologies to detect external soil voids to develop the technical capabilities of the proposed system. Key issues to be considered include the range of pipe sizes in which the technology can be deployed, restrictions on the pipe materials that allow void detection, the extent of pipe cleaning required, the need for direct or close contact to the pipe wall, and the ability to incorporate the detection technology in conjunction with other pipe inspection systems. TASK 3. Develop a working proof-of-concept prototype of the void detection system that can be used in laboratory and con- trolled field trials. This is not intended to be a market-ready unit. The proposal should disclose the approximate dimen- sions of the proposed detection equipment and the proposed speed of operation along the pipe. It is anticipated that pro- posers may have existing versions of void detection technolo- gies either in commercial use, prototype development, or the research stage. The proposal should disclose how the pro- posed technological developments will improve on the cur- rent technology. Proposers are encouraged to provide test data to illustrate the capabilities of their technology. Such test data should be verified by an independent agency. It is impor- tant that sufficient technical information be provided in the proposal to allow the technical reviewers to assess the likeli- hood of significant advances over current technology. The proposers should also demonstrate familiarity with existing void detection research and commercial developments in the public domain. TASK 4. Conduct proof-of-concept testing in the field and compile data on the detection effectiveness of the technique, the deployment time, equipment required, costs, and so forth. The proposal should identify a utility company or an agency that is willing to cooperate in the field testing and should include the cost of the testing in the proposal budget. Funds Available The funds requested from SHRP 2 for this project should not exceed $300,000.
78Contract Period A 28-month contract period including review and final edit- ing is anticipated. Project R01-P08: Test Facilities and Test Protocols for the Performance Classification of Utility Detection Technologies Objective This project will support the use, further development, or cre- ation of test facilities for the independent assessment of utility locating technologies. The project will create a set of utility detection equipment that will cover a wide range of common detection scenarios, and it will provide test facilities that will assess what classifications the utility locating technologies meet. Classifying the tested performance of utility locating equipment will allow equipment to be selected more cost- effectively according to the difficulty of a utility locating task. Number of Awards It is anticipated that one award will be made for this project. Tasks TASK 1. Prepare a proposed set of about 10 utility detection capability classifications based on the type of pipe or cable detected, the need to impress a signal on the pipe or cable for detection, the soil conditions, the depth of detection, and so forth. This should allow the full range of existing equipment to fall into at least one equipment classification. Advanced equipment would likely cover a variety of classifications. TASK 2. Contact equipment manufacturers, associations, and others to discuss the proposed set of classifications and receive input. Prepare an updated set of recommended clas- sifications for locating-equipment capabilities. TASK 3. Prepare designs and cost estimates for the creation or enhancement of controlled-condition utility locating test facil- ities. Familiarity with existing national and international test facilities should be demonstrated in the proposal. Issues to be considered include buried utility types (pipes and cables), soil types, ground surface conditions (presence of pavement or rough ground), depths and diameters included, utility layout complexity, and ability to control soil-moisture content. TASK 4. Construct the test facilities following approval by SHRP 2.TASK 5. Conduct evaluation tests on at least five equipment types that cover a broad range of utility detection needs as described by the classification system developed in Tasks 1 and 2. Manufacturers should approve the classifications under which their equipment should be tested. Tentative agreement from manufacturers to participate in the testing program should be documented in the proposal. Funds Available The funds requested from SHRP 2 for this project should not exceed $300,000. Contract Period A 28-month contract period including review and final edit- ing is anticipated. Project R01-P09: Development of Internal Pipe Cross- Sectional Deformation Monitoring Systems Objective This project will support the development of new technolo- gies or the enhancement of existing technologies capable of characterizing and tracking the cross-sectional deformation of buried pipes and culverts over their service life through internal measurements. Number of Awards It is anticipated that one award will be made for this project. Tasks TASK 1: Prepare an expanded technological development plan with more detailed development and evaluation milestones. These should amplify the plans presented in the proposal but be consistent with the proposal plans and schedule. Techno- logical refinement and testing cycles should be identified. This task will be due within two months of the approval to proceed. TASK 2: Perform literature research, simulation, and labora- tory and field testing of the proposed technology. Some key issues to be addressed in the proposal include the range of pipe sizes in which the technology can be deployed, the accuracy and repeatability of measurements at a single cross section, the ability to properly register measurements against each other that were made at different times along the pipe so that changes in cross-sectional dimensions can be inferred, any restrictions
79on pipe materials that can be measured, the extent of pipe cleaning required, and the ability to incorporate the detection technology in conjunction with other pipe inspection systems. TASK 3. Develop a working proof-of-concept prototype of the cross-sectional measurement system with associated software that can be used in laboratory and controlled field trials (this is not intended to be a market-ready unit). The proposal should disclose the proposed dimensions of the detection equipment and the speed of operation along the pipe. It is anticipated that proposers may have existing versions of cross-section measure- ment technologies in commercial use, prototype development, or in the research stage. The proposal should disclose how the proposed technological developments will improve the current status of the technological development. Proposers are encour- aged to provide test data to show the current capabilities of the proposersâ technology. Such test data should be verified by an independent agency. It is important that sufficient technical information be provided in the proposal to allow the technical reviewers to assess the likelihood of significant advances overcurrent technology. The proposers should also demonstrate familiarity with existing cross-sectional measurement research and commercial developments in the public domain. TASK 4. Conduct proof-of-concept testing in the field and compile data on the techniqueâs accuracy and effectiveness, the time for deployment, equipment required, costs, and so forth. The proposal should identify a utility or agency that is willing to cooperate in the field testing and should include the testing in the proposal budget. Funds Available The funds requested from SHRP 2 for this project should not exceed $300,000. Contract Period A 28-month contract period including review and final edit- ing is anticipated.
