Civil Integrated Management (CIM) for Departments of Transportation, Volume 2: Research Report (2016)

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.

2016 N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 831 Civil Integrated Management (CIM) for Departments of Transportation Volume 2: Research Report William J. O’Brien Bharathwaj Sankaran Fernanda L. Leite Nabeel Khwaja Ignacio De Sande Palma The UniversiTy of Texas aT aUsTin Austin, TX Paul Goodrum Keith Molenaar Guillermo Nevett Joshua Johnson The UniversiTy of Colorado BoUlder Boulder, CO Subscriber Categories Administration and Management • Data and Information Technology • Construction Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide inter- est to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- tiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of specialists in high- way transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transporta- tion departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR), and each year SCOR’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors and the Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the Acad- emies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 831, VOLuME 2 Project 10-96 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-37572-6 Library of Congress Control Number 2016952341 © 2016 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AuTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research team wishes to thank the many people who have supported this research, not the least of which are the members of the NCHRP Project 10-96 panel. The panel provided invaluable feedback for focusing the broad topic of CIM to lead to a usable guidebook for departments of transportation. We have had assistance with data collection and useful feedback from individuals too numerous to list from DOTs, private industry, and Crossrail. This project truly reflects the wisdom and experience of the community engaged in CIM implementation. CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 831, VOLuME 2 Christopher Hedges, Interim Director, Cooperative Research Programs Andrew C. Lemer, Senior Program Officer Sheila Moore, Program Associate Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Kami Cabral, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 10-96 PANEL Field of Materials and Construction—Area of Specifications, Procedures, and Practices William A. Moore, Massachusetts DOT, Boston, MA (Chair) Edward J. “Jeff” Carpenter, Washington State DOT, Olympia, WA Kelly E. Farlow, Professional Engineering Consultants, Lawrence, KS Richard M. Hewitt, Florida DOT, Deland, FL R. Raymond Issa, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL Danny L. Kahler, Kahler Engineering Group, Richardson, TX William S. Pratt, Connecticut DOT, Newington, CT Ivan Ernesto Ramirez, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Walnut Creek, CA Katherine A. Petros, FHWA Liaison Frederick Hejl, TRB Liaison

F O R E W O R D NCHRP Report 831: Civil Integrated Management (CIM) for Departments of Transportation, Volume 1: Guidebook, and Volume 2: Research Report, present guidance for state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other agencies for adopting and applying practices and tools entailing collection, organization, and management of information in digital formats about a highway or other transportation construction project. The business of facility production and management is moving rapidly toward all-digital practices, driven by the increasing availabil- ity, accuracy, and affordability of digital formats and advances in design technology and in-field positioning that use these formats. Much of the leadership for development and adoption of CIM practices has come from construction contractors, but DOTs and other transportation agencies stand to realize significant benefits from increased adoption of CIM. CIM can serve all project stakeholders, consistently providing appropriate, accurate, and reliable informa- tion from the asset’s initial planning through its in-service maintenance. The guidance and background information presented in this two-volume report will be helpful to DOT staff and others responsible for the agency’s project development and delivery activities. The term civil integrated management has been adopted in recent years to encompass an assortment of practices and tools entailing collection, organization, and management of infor- mation in digital formats about highway or other transportation construction projects, that is, “horizontal construction.” The term derives from similar practices used in production of building structures—vertical construction—under the umbrella term building information modeling (BIM), so called because these practices entailed generation and management of digital representations of physical and functional characteristics of places. Traditional prac- tices for project delivery and physical asset management have relied on analog display and archiving methods—notably drawings, plans, printed specifications, and traditional survey methods—and required practitioners to mentally visualize in three and four dimensions (that is, space and time) what was represented by flat graphics. In recent years, increasingly sophisticated digital technologies enable computation to supplement or replace imagina- tion. Formerly separated activities of facility design, construction, operation, and mainte- nance increasingly can be integrated to support effective life-cycle management. Construction contractors have embraced BIM and CIM practices that help them estimate and control costs, manage job sites, and increase the quality of their products. Designers and facility managers likewise derive benefits from the increased ability to avoid conflicts among facility components and ensure that specifications are correct and met in the field. CIM can serve all project stakeholders (for example, owner, operator, constructor, designer, surveyor, planner, and operations or asset manager) by consistently providing appropriate, accurate, and reliable information throughout an asset’s life cycle. By Andrew C. Lemer Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

CIM practices have been successfully used in a number of notable projects, but they are not yet widely adopted in transportation projects of all scales. Neither the benefits nor the costs and management risks associated with adoption of CIM are as yet well understood. The objective of NCHRP Project 10-96, “Guide for Civil Integrated Management (CIM) in Departments of Transportation” was to develop a guide to CIM that would assist DOT managers to (a) assess their agency’s use of digital information in project delivery and subsequent asset management; (b) improve project quality and more effectively control costs through increased reliance on digital project delivery and asset management; (c) identify the particular opportunities, ben- efits, obstacles, and costs for their agency through increased reliance on digital project delivery and asset management; and (d) identify practical strategies for increasing reliance on digital project delivery and asset management. The research was intended to draw on practices in vertical construction, case studies, and other experience of transportation agencies at various levels of reliance on digital project delivery and asset management. The research was conducted by a team led by the University of Texas at Austin. The research team reviewed the literature and current practices in design and construction to characterize the current state of CIM practice and document the information flows typi- cal in transportation-project delivery. Through this work and interviews with representative practitioners, the research team formulated guidance for transportation agency staff on how to consider effective mechanisms for adoption and expanding application of CIM. Useful background information from the research team’s work is presented in the Research Report (Volume 2) that accompanies the Guidebook (Volume 1).

C O N T E N T S 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Readers’ Guide 3 Chapter 2 Literature Review 3 2.1 Overview of CIM Tools and Functions 3 2.2 CIM Trends and Strategies—A Global Perspective 12 Chapter 3 Research Objective 13 Chapter 4 Methodology 14 Chapter 5 CIM State of Practice at DOTs— Agency and Project Surveys 14 5.1 Survey Data 22 Chapter 6 CIM Case Studies 23 6.1 Case Study 1: CTDOT—Rotary Upgrade Project 26 6.2 Case Study 2: Kiewit I-70 and Pecos Bridge Case Study 28 6.3 Case Study 3: Relocation of KY7 in Elliott County 32 6.4 Case Study 4: NYSDOT Kosciuszko Bridge Project 34 6.5 Case Study 5: MDOT I-96 Reconstruction Project 36 6.6 Case Study 6: MassDOT Fore River Bridge Replacement Project 39 6.7 Case Study 7: Crossrail Ltd. CIM Case Study 50 6.8 Cross-Case Analysis and Lessons Learned 56 Chapter 7 CIM Implementation Framework— Formulation and Validation 56 7.1 Validation Process—Consolidated Summary of Comments and Recommendations 60 Chapter 8 Conclusion 61 References 63 Acronyms 65 Appendix A Agency Survey Questionnaire 73 Appendix B Project Survey Questionnaire 81 Appendix C Interview Guide for Case Studies 84 Appendix D Case Study Questions Format_V1 88 Appendix E Validation Survey Questionnaire