Use of Automated Machine Guidance within the Transportation Industry (2018)

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.

REPORT OF THE WORKSHOP ON USE OF AUTOMATED MACHINE GUIDANCE (AMG) WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 10-77 David White, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Civil Engineering Earthworks Engineering Research Center Director 2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4700 Ames, Iowa 50010 515-294-1463 Charles Jahren, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor of Construction Engineering Iowa State University John Hannon, P.E. Associate Professor University of Southern Mississippi Tulio Sulbaran, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor University of Southern Mississippi October 1–2, 2009

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report i Table of Contents Preface ......................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary .................................................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 The Challenge .................................................................................................................................. 1 Workshop Objective and Agenda ..................................................................................................... 1 Breakout Session Process ............................................................................................ 4 Opportunities and Challenges .......................................................................................................... 4 Legal Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 6 Development of 3D Files .................................................................................................................. 6 Accuracy Best Practices and Inputs/Outputs .................................................................................... 8 Bid Item Quantity ............................................................................................................................. 9 Review of Survey Objectives and Questions ................................................................................... 12 Additional Information Gathering .................................................................................................. 13 Facilitator Reports ..................................................................................................... 14 General .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Overall Rankings of Opportunities and Challenges ......................................................................... 21 Technical Breakout Session Results .......................................................................... 25 Legal Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 25 Development of 3D files ................................................................................................................. 26 Accuracy Best Practices and Inputs/Outputs .................................................................................. 34 Bid item quantity ........................................................................................................................... 37 Review of the Proposed Survey Questionnaires ............................................................................. 41 Training Information Request ......................................................................................................... 47 Summary .................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix .................................................................................................................... 49

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report ii Preface This report presents an overview and documentation of the Workshop on Use of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) within the Transportation Industry, held in Altoona, Iowa, on October 1–2, 2009. The NCHRP Project 10-77 expert contact group participants of this workshop included earthwork and paving contractors, equipment manufacturers/dealers, software developers, state agencies, and academics. The objective of the meetings was to develop a list of capabilities that must exist and obstacles that must be overcome to facilitate seamless electronic data transfer from the initial surveying to the development of digital terrain models (DTMs) through design and construction to final inspection and verification. The outcomes of this workshop were facilitated by breakout sessions to discuss opportunities and obstacles for ensuring data integrity and quality results for the AMG process and a plenary session to review the findings of previous breakout sessions and identify further opportunities and obstacles by combining knowledge from the breakout sessions.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report iii Acknowledgments The Earthworks Engineering Research Center (EERC) at Iowa State University and the University of Southern Mississippi gratefully acknowledge the Transportation Research Board for providing funding for this workshop through project NCHRP 10-77, Use of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) within the Transportation Industry. Travel support was provided for one state department of transportation participant. Ziegler Inc. provided the facilities for the meetings through coordination with Josh Olson. More than 30 attendees participated in the event. Their efforts are greatly appreciated.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report iv Executive Summary Application of automated machine guidance (AMG) technology to transportation construction projects has the potential to enhance the abilities of state agencies and contractors to deliver transportation construction projects better, faster, safer, and cheaper. For state agencies to more broadly implement this technology, advancements are needed in the following areas: (1) technical procurement specifications for AMG technology, (2) guidance on the use of such technology in construction projects, and (3) strategies for implementing AMG technology into construction techniques. To make advancements in these areas, research project NCHRP 10-77, Use of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) within the Transportation Industry, was initiated and is being performed by the research team members who organized this workshop. Establishing an expert contact group was considered a key strategy for successfully completing this research project. The workshop was organized to assist the research team members in answering the following questions: • What types of software and equipment are currently being used worldwide to implement AMG processes? • What are the legal barriers that may prevent the use of AMG processes, and how can they be mitigated? • What level of training is available to support AMG processes for designers, contractors, and field personnel? Should new training programs be developed? • What challenges exist for development of electronic design models that are needed for AMG processes, and what are the key factors that should be considered? How will quality control and quality assurance be carried out to ensure design file accuracy? How should electronic information be exchanged? • What are the impacts of AMG for earthwork measurement and computation of quantities? What level of accuracy is available for all components of the AMG processes? • What are the key elements of specifications for AMG technologies? Are various levels of implementation required to fit the needs of the various state departments of transportation (DOTs)? • What are the contributing factors to ensure acceptable QA/QC, and how should guidelines be written to ensure adequate final inspection?

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report v • What does the near-future hold for improvements and new developments regarding AMG processes? Details of organized breakout sessions covering the topic areas of (1) legal impacts, (2) development of 3D files, (3) accuracy best practices and inputs/outputs, (4) bid item quantity, (5) review of the proposed survey objectives and questions, and (6) training information requests are presented herein. Based on a complete review of the comments, a top 10 list of challenges/opportunities was developed and is summarized below.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report vi Synthesized and Ranked Priorities – General Session Rank Topics 1 Data: There is a need to improve data management and electronic data exchange formats such as xml and Landxml. These data exchange formats are not sufficiently robust to be appropriate for wide adoption. Improvement of data exchange procedures between design and construction entities is an opportunity for improvement. 2* Training and Education: Training and education is needed for all types of participants, including agency and contractor professional engineers, designers, and field personnel. 2* Standardization: In general, it would be desirable to modernize specifications. Non-standardized AMG specs among states and the lack of standards for software and hardware are hindering the implementation of AMG. Areas for improvement include better definition of project survey control (set and maintain) and development of standard data feedback loops as bases of payment (quantities) for accurate pay estimates. 4 Quality/Improvements: AMG provides opportunities to provide grade checks that cover essentially 100% of the surface. In addition, it is possible to incorporate utilities in models in their as-built locations by referencing them before they are covered. Effective model verification will result in better QC/QA. Procedure error and clash detection will result in a better final product. Other possible benefits include increased productivity and improved industry perception and image due to the use of higher technology solutions. However, to obtain these benefits, it will be necessary to carefully indentify the proper technology for each specific implementation. 5 3D model: By conducting initial discussions with stakeholders early in the project using 3D designs, it is easier to obtain understanding and agreement. Performing virtual construction before actually building results in improved plans and fewer mistakes. Errors become readily apparent during a 3D video fly through. Designers can visualize subgrade and find utility conflicts. An opportunity for this group is to coordinate with the Associated General Contractors Build Information Modeling (AGC/BIM) group that is working on horizontal construction. Software developers have already started developing a horizontal construction version of BIM. 6 Benchmark Case Studies: There is an opportunity to develop a set of case studies that demonstrate the use of AMG through the design and construction process. Contracting authorities and others may be more willing to adopt and encourage the use of AMG after they have read the case studies. 7 Legal Challenges: Requiring licensed surveyors or engineers to perform the conversion of 3D models into machine control files could chill the adoption of AMG technology. The question exists about who is responsible for the design if plans are stamped twice by two different people: the original designer and the person who was responsible for the conversion. Another question is, “What becomes of the legal record of the design?” Can a 3D model be considered to be part of the contract documents? Is it possible to make electronic plans the legal document that represents the design? 8 Safety: Considerable increases in safety are possible because fewer people are working on the ground around the equipment as they set and reference stakes. 9 Real-time Network Support for Virtual Real-time Network to Work for AMG: An opportunity for improvement would be to enhance virtual real-time networks so that they can replace base stations for use with AMG applications. Currently, signal latency issues compromise the accuracy to such an application. 10 AMG Applications for Subgrades/Paving/Overlays: There are some unique challenges and unique opportunities for AMG applications on subgrades, paving and overlays. *Note: equal number of votes.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 1 Introduction The Challenge Automated machine guidance (AMG) links sophisticated design software with construction equipment to direct the operation of the machinery with a high level of precision, improving the speed and accuracy of the transportation construction process. Application of AMG technology to transportation construction projects has the potential to enhance the abilities of state agencies and contractors to deliver transportation construction projects better, faster, safer, and cheaper. Key obstacles, however, that need to be addressed to better implement AMG technology include development and transfer of three dimensional (3D) electronic files, general lack of knowledge in subject matter, overcoming of legal barriers, and documenting of the impact of AMG technology in terms of benefits and liabilities. Three primary outcomes are needed to overcome these obstacles: (1) widely accepted technical procurement specifications for AMG technology, (2) guidance on the use of such technology in construction projects, and (3) implementation strategies for AMG technology. The workshop summary in this report contributes directly to the needed outcomes of the NCHRP 10-77 research project1. To provide participants for the workshop, an expert contact group was established that included representatives from equipment manufacturers, software developers, hardware developers, contractors, and state DOTs. A complete list of the participants is provided in the Appendix. Workshop Objective and Agenda The objective of the workshop was to develop a list of capabilities that must exist and obstacles that must be overcome to facilitate seamless electronic data transfer from the initial surveying to the development of the digital terrain models (DTMs) through design and construction to final inspection and verification. The workshop commenced at 1:30 PM on October 1 and ended at 11:00 am on October 2, 2009. The meeting was held at the Ziegler, Inc. Caterpillar construction equipment dealership facility, 1500 Ziegler Dr. NW, Altoona, Iowa 50009 (just north and east of Des Moines). Key elements of the agenda included the following: 1 NCHRP 10-77 - Use of Automated Machine Guidance (AMG) within the Transportation Industry http://144.171.11.40/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2504

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 2 • An introductory plenary session • Several breakout sessions to discuss opportunities and obstacles for ensuring data integrity and quality results for the AMG process • Subsequent plenary sessions to review the findings of previous breakout sessions and identify further opportunities and obstacles by combining knowledge from the breakout sessions • Review of the proposed survey questionnaires The complete detailed agenda is provided in the Appendix. To start the event, participants were introduced and the research team communicated that the goals of the workshop were to develop a list of capabilities that must exist and obstacles that must be overcome to facilitate seamless electronic data transfer from the initial surveying to develop DTMs through design and construction to final inspection and verification. The introductory presentation slides to communicate the information are provided in Figure 1.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 3 Figure 1. Introductory slides.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 4 Breakout Session Process There were several breakout sessions, group sessions, and requests for feedback over the two days of the workshop, which covered the following topic areas: • Opportunities and challenges - Three groups in earthwork - One group in paving/subgrades • Technical topics - Legal impacts - Development of 3D files - Accuracy best practices and inputs/outputs - Bid item quantity • Review of the proposed survey objectives and questions - Contractors (two groups) - Hardware/software vendors - Designers For each breakout session, the facilitators described the topic for discussion and provided direction and information on questions to be answered. A description of each session topic is provided below. Opportunities and Challenges This session preceded the technical topic breakout sessions and focused on identifying broad ranging challenges and opportunities for more effectively implementing AMG technologies for transportation construction projects. Cross-disciplinary breakout groups were formed representing groups for planning, design, procurement, construction, and maintenance. Separate groups for earthwork and subgrade/paving were also established. Each group was given the task of brainstorming to develop lists of opportunities and challenges from their own perspectives. Each breakout group then presented their opportunities and challenges to the large group, and gaps were filled in to cover perspectives not covered in the breakout group. Once all of the breakout session results were presented, like-items were combined to target the top 5 to 10 key opportunities and challenges. Prioritization of the items was done by voting. After prioritization was completed, the list was evaluated in terms of low-effort versus high-effort items. Presentation slides to communicate the process are provided in Figure 2.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 5 Figure 2. Breakout session instructions.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 6 Legal Impacts For this session, the participants were asked to identify any legal issues with AMG and specifically the sharing of electronic engineered data (EED) that they had experienced personally or knew about second-hand from reliable sources. One of the goals of this research project was to “form specific conclusions regarding the sharing of digital data and how this ‘information exchange’ can be practically performed in the framework of individual state statutes.” Participants were asked to provide a brief description of each instance where legal issues were discovered or exist and to categorize the issue/error according to the list below: 1. Construction design approval (stamping plans) 2. Precedence of the contract documents when ambiguous or conflicting (2D drawings, 3D drawings, and specifications, special provisions) 3. Change management (after 2D drawings are issued) 4. Synchronization of electronic data 5. Liability issues—design warranty/errors and omissions 6. Issues with signed liability waivers (for use of EED) 7. Indemnification of public entities 8. Intellectual property issues (copyright) 9. Alignment/conflict with existing trade union contracts 10. Other (?) Development of 3D Files The goal of this breakout group was to identify opportunities and challenges in the development of 3D models for AMG. In an effort to allocate a comparable amount of time to different elements of this very broad topic, the session was divided into three segments, each limited to about 15 minutes. Each segment supports a particular NCHRP 10-77 Project Task (1, 2, and 3). Segment 1 - Review of Worldwide Literature, Survey, and Barriers For this segment, participants were asked four questions. Question 1-1 was to identify documents that provide information, good practices, lessons learned, implementation, etc. of 3D model development in the transportation industry (i.e., documents in their DOTs, presentations attended, articles read). A form was provided for participants to identify (1) title of the publication, (2) source of the publication, and (3) name of the participant making the suggestion.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 7 Question 1-2 asked the participants to suggest current or desirable 3D model software capabilities that would facilitate the implementation of AMG within the transportation industry. A form was provided for them to identify (1) 3D model software capability, (2) current [C] or desirable [D] source of the publication, (3) name of the participant making the suggestion, and (4) group ranking. Question 1-3 asked the participants about perceived (and/or real) benefits and challenges to implement 3D model software to support the implementation of AMG within the transportation industry. A form was provided for them to identify (1) perceived benefits and challenges, (2) benefits [B] or challenges [C], (3) name of the participant making the suggestion, and (4) group breakout session ranking. Question 1-4 asked the participants to identify who owns the 3D model and what is the liability of sharing the 3D model to support the implementation of AMG within the transportation industry. A form was provided for them to identify (1) ownership and/or liabilities of shared 3D models, (2) name of the participant making the suggestion, and (3) group ranking. Segment 2 - 3D Model Development/Software Training For this segment, the participants were asked one question. Question 2-1 asked the participants to suggest possible training opportunities for 3D model development/software to support AMG in the transportation industry (i.e., workshop, seminar, symposium, certificate, etc.). A form was provided for them to identify (1) title of the training, (2) objectives of the training (list between 3 and 5 specific objectives), (3) training duration in hours, (4) name of the participant making the suggestion, and (5) group ranking. Segment 3– Current Best Practices and Input / Output Accuracy For this segment, the participants were asked two questions. Question 3-1 asked the participants to share current best practices and/or challenges to develop 3D models to support AMG in the transportation industry (i.e., documents in their DOTs, presentations attended, articles read, etc.). A form was provided for them to identify (1) best practices and/or challenges to develop 3D models, (2) best practice [B] or challenges [C], (3) name of the participant making the suggestion, and (4) group ranking. Question 3-2 asked the participants to list accuracy differences/challenges between the input data in the 3D models and the output data to support AMG in the transportation industry. A form was provided for them to identify (1) accuracy challenges of 3D models, (2) name of the participant making the suggestion, and (3) group ranking.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 8 Accuracy Best Practices and Inputs/Outputs This session was divided into four segments. The participants were asked to recall instances where AMG accuracy was compromised. This could be a case where rework was necessary or where the problem was remedied before rework was necessary (a near miss—or even a far miss—if the problem was detected soon enough). The results were to be categorized according to the list below: 1. Errors in setting up the control network 2. Inaccuracy in the preconstruction survey used to develop the digital terrain model 3. Errors in the design 4. Errors that result from faulty software 5. Errors that result from faulty hardware 6. Limitations to the accuracy of positioning method (GPS, total station, or laser) 7. Errors transmitting control information from the positioning equipment (GPS, total station receiver, or laser) to the machine hydraulic controls for the ground or pavement engaging equipment 8. Inability of machine hydraulic controls to respond accurately or smoothly to instructions from AMG units (overcorrection, slow response, and other similar problems) 9. Human error in operating hardware, software, and equipment 10. Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/AC process (or false indications of inaccuracy during a QA/QC process) (Note that, in addition to 9, human error could also contribute to 1, 2, 3, and 10.) Segment 1 - Error Participants were asked to discuss and briefly describe where participants think the most opportunities for error exist. Segment 2 – Case History Projects For this segment, the participants were asked to propose projects where the researchers could interview project participants as specified in the following: “Researchers will then interview project participants in each phase of the project in attempt to determine sources of errors. Thus, four to five different participants from each project may be interviewed to cover all phases of the project. During the interviews, researchers will probe to find if human error (as noted in possible sources of error above) might have contributed to the inaccuracy. Researchers

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 9 will also ask interviewees to list practices that are helpful in maintaining accuracy. The results of the interviews will be recorded for later analysis.” Segment 3 – Accuracy Checks Participants were asked to propose local projects where participants can spot check for accuracy. Note that GPS, total station, and laser are all required. Researchers proposed to identify construction projects that can share QA/QC information that compares actual AMG results with intended results. Furthermore, researchers will conduct their own spot check surveys of local AMG projects so they can develop a better understanding of how the QA/QC information was collected on other projects and to provide a check against the shared QA/QC information. As QA/QC information is obtained, researchers will ensure that balance is maintained among types of positioning methods and types of construction equipment. Comparisons will be made between the accuracy estimated by the mathematical model and the accuracy found by this part of the investigation. Segment 4 – Specifications Participants were asked to provide points of contact for holders of information concerning hardware, software, and construction equipment accuracy specifications for AMG. The researchers plan to contact manufacturers of hardware, software, and construction equipment to obtain specifications on the accuracy of each component. Separate information will be obtained for each type of major positioning method (GPS, total station, and laser) for various types of construction equipment (e.g., bulldozers, excavators, motor graders, and pavers). Next, mathematical models will be developed to predict the combined system accuracy by knowing the component accuracy. Separate estimates of accuracy will be created for each major positioning method and each major type of equipment. Bid Item Quantity For this session, several segments were developed for the participants to consider. Overall, the participants were asked to point out best practice situations where quantity development, tracking, and payment were enhanced by the use of the technology associated with AMG. This enhancement could be while any of the following processes were executed alone; however, the research team is especially interested in examples where information and data are electronically transferred from one process to the other and where this transfer enhanced quantity development, tracking, and payment. Less than completely successful implementations were also of interest, especially if they serve as good case studies on which to make improvements. Subgrade and paving construction, as well as total station and laser positioning, were included in the discussion.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 10 Segment 1 - Identifying Solutions The following processes were listed for consideration, and the participants were asked to describe each of the best practices and provide a point of contact where more information can be obtained: 1. Initial data collection (development of DTMs) 2. Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D) 3. Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example, providing offsets between pavements and subgrades, delineating areas where equipment operation is excluded, and correcting inconsistencies that are not problematic for design models but are problematic for AMG) 4. Model conversion to AMG format 5. Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download) Segment 2 - Modifications For this segment, the participants were asked how the processes above (numbered 1 to 5) should be modified to better describe subgrade and paving construction and/or the use of laser or total station positioning. Segments 3/4/5/6/7 – Improvements to Benefits and Liabilities The participants were asked how the following statements of benefits and liabilities could be improved: • (3) Initial data collection (development of DTMs): - Benefits: Existing surfaces are accurately portrayed and can be passed ahead in the AMG process with high fidelity. - Liabilities: There may be possibly higher upfront costs for equipment and highly trained personnel and a possible inability to make gut-level checks for data collection errors. • (4) Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D): - Benefits: Existing surfaces information has higher fidelity, and earthwork volumes can be computed “on the fly” as the 3D model is developed. Various layers and volumes that represent various bid items and various costs can be collected and categorized during the design process. Designed surfaces are accurately portrayed and can be passed ahead in the AMG process with high fidelity. Some types of design errors are obvious when the 3D model is inspected visually.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 11 - Liabilities: There may be possibly higher upfront costs for software, hardware, and highly trained personnel and a possible inability to make gut-level checks for some types of design errors. Downstream personnel may be critical of design personnel for alternative designs that were not used and documented in unused parts of the model. Designers may consider inspection of the details of the design process by downstream personnel to be too invasive of their professional autonomy. • (5) Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example, providing offsets between pavements and subgrades, delineating areas where equipment operation is excluded, and correcting inconsistencies that are not problematic for design models but are problematic for AMG): - Benefits: The constructor may discover possible design improvements or design errors during the enhancement process, saving time and money during construction. The constructor may develop a better understanding of how to construct the project as the design model is enhanced. The constructor could improve construction productivity and safety by adding exclusions zones for equipment and methods to track equipment usage during construction. - Liabilities: There may be possibly higher upfront costs for equipment and highly trained personnel and a possible inability to make gut-level checks for design errors or construction enhancement errors. There may also be a possibility of passing undetected errors from the previous sub-process to the next sub-process. • (6) Model conversion to AMG format: - Benefits: It may be possible to develop automatic load counts and infer earthwork or pavement volume or tonnages moved by equipment by on- board weight detection. Data collection methods could be developed that infer current elevations of partially completed projects by knowing current equipment elevations. This information may be used to monitor current earthwork volumes for partial payment. - Liabilities: There may be possibly higher upfront costs for equipment and highly trained personnel and a possible inability to make gut-level checks for design errors or construction enhancement errors. There is also the possibility of passing undetected errors from the previous sub-process to the next sub-process. • (7) Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download): - Benefits: QA/QC personnel can use DTM and the final design model to automatically locate test and display results. Elevations of existing surfaces can be obtained quickly and modeled in 3D in order to estimate current earthwork and pavement volumes or tonnages for partial

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 12 payments. Quality information is processed along with volume information to ensure that partial payments are made for earthwork or pavement that meets quality requirements. - Liabilities: There may be possibly higher upfront costs for equipment and highly trained personnel and a possible inability to make gut-level checks for data collection errors. If a proper data collection and documentation strategy is not developed, QA/QC personnel could be overwhelmed by data overload. Segment 8 – Missing information This segment asked participants to identity what was missed because the previous analysis was performed at a process-by-process level. What insights can be gained by considering the benefits and liabilities for all of the processes taken together? Review of Survey Objectives and Questions The research team is developing questionnaires that will be used to conduct a worldwide survey of transportation agencies, software vendors, equipment vendors, and contractors to identify the types of software and equipment currently being used to implement AMG processes. The survey will cover current 3D modeling software capabilities; types of electronic files that are submitted to contractors (e.g., dgn, dwg, dtm, tin, and LandXML), when these files are made available to the contractors (e.g., pre-bid or post-award); and equipment capabilities and reliability. The survey will also document the perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG processes. With approval from the NCHRP 10-77 project panel, the survey will be deployed to the following groups of respondents: • Transportation agencies—Planning functional area • Transportation agencies—Design functional area • Transportation agencies—Procurement (bids/tenders) functional area • Transportation agencies—Construction functional area • Transportation agencies—Legal counsel • Industry—GPS/CAD software vendors/providers • Industry—GPS hardware vendor/providers • Industry—Heavy equipment manufacturers On day two of the workshop, the participants were asked to review the survey content and provide feedback. Two contractor groups, one 3D modeling group and one hardware and software vendor group, were formed to provide four breakout groups. The proposed survey content was discussed by breakout sessions groups and the

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 13 results reported to the entire group for discussion. Drafts of the surveys are provided in the Appendix. Additional Information Gathering In addition to the facilitated breakout sessions, the research team collected additional information on two topics by asking participants to fill out forms during breaks and transitions times. These methods were used to assist with the literature search and to identify training opportunities. Review of Literature The workshop participants were provided a list of literature and specifications developed by the research team for review. Participants were asked to review the list and provide feedback on missing documents and, in particular, any existing specifications. A list of the specifications and documents collected is provided in the Appendix. Training Information Request The participants were asked to submit information on training opportunities for AMG technologies. A training opportunity card was used to collect information (Figure 3). Figure 3. Training opportunity card.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 14 Facilitator Reports General Detailed comments recorded during the breakout session are presented in the following for all four general breakout groups. Following the group breakout sessions, the results from all sessions were presented to the larger group and discussed. Next, the participants voted for the highest priority challenges and opportunities. The research team then synthesized common topic areas and combined votes to develop a prioritized list. Tables 1 through 3 list the results from the various stages of this analysis process. The outcome was a top ten list of focus areas for AMG. Breakout Group 1-1, Opportunities and Challenges – David White (Facilitator), Heath Gieselman (Recorder) Challenges • Smith- Mind set of customer is that minimum thickness must be maintained, but agency does not want to pay for overrun (area vs. volume calc), and an assurance must be given to the agency • MATT-Contractor needs to know location, design, and yield • Preconstruction planning/survey cost and time constraints • ACC vs. PCC differences, pay by gravimetric or volumetric • ACC vs. PCC QA differences • There is no tool available to calculate yield in 3D • Value engineering is not considered • Data overload to operators from the machine • Additional costs and effort are required • With the feedback from AMG, are skilled operators being lost? Checks/balances are being lost • Specialized operators are needed for each machine • Barriers exist in specifications that do not allow AMG, and specs need to be changed to allow the technology • Quality of design provided to contractor is not always sufficient and rework needs to be done, often at the expense of the contractor (agency responsibility and quality of deliverable needs to increase) • Preparation of subgrade and base for high quality will allow for quality construction at the pavement level • Size of contractor limits access to market • Procedure of design to construction (this addresses many of the issues, and improvement of the process and will lead to an overall improvement):

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 15 preconstruction survey, design optimization, data transfer, design revisions, model validation (QA), defined process to address pay units • Agency, manufacturer, contractor working together • Cost savings/return on investment • Modernization of specifications • Training is needed for operators and agencies* Opportunities • Smith-Overlay market • Tom- The overlay application provides an opportunity to use AMG to be more sophisticated in our approach that goes beyond the profile method. The new method needs new specifications. • Removal of human error, creating a higher quality product • Preparation of subgrade and base for high quality will allow for quality construction at the pavement level • Case studies to show there are price reductions • Complete as-built information for troubleshooting as failures occur • Rapid/efficient construction • Safety • Environmental benefits • Construction quality • Reduced life-cycle costs • Reduction of machine wear • Standard architecture • Increased perception/image of the construction industry* • Benchmark case study* • *Quickly able to act on Breakout Group 1-2, Opportunities and Challenges - John Hannon (Facilitator/Recorder) Challenges • Initial decision of stakeholders early to 3D • Checking model 2D geometry for “blind-spots” • Getting the model approved by professional designer (stamp) • Model version changes • Determination/understanding/communication of the model as contract document • Defining the setting and maintenance of project survey control • Level of accuracy of control network (as a business process)/consistency of reference framework

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 16 • AMG educational competencies of P.E.s and agency field personnel • Stakeless productivity gains of contractors being realized by agencies • Real-Time network support for virtual reference stations (latency)/virtual reference station real-time network to work for AMG • Format for sharing 3D model • QA/QC verification procedures • Solar flare season forecast for next few years can disrupt GPS system Opportunities • Error and clash detection • No third-party integrators • Less rework and conflict between stakeholders • Sharing as-built data back through the model • Data feedback loop as quantity ”basis of payment” for more accurate pay estimates • Savings on purchases of base-stations: virtual reference station real-time network to work for AMG Breakout Group 1-3, Opportunities and Challenges - Charles Jahren (Facilitator), Adam Dubree (Recorder) Topics Most Important • Opportunity as design is built to capture what is actually built, particularly utilities and knowing where they were actually placed • Send deliverables to contractors, 3D design so we don’t have to transition 2D to 3D and how big of an issue it is in the DOT. Goal: design to construction seamlessly. • Challenge: The issue with designing 3D for designers. Plan sheets vs. design. • Transition from ink to CAD to make life easier, but haven’t made the step to 3D. Opportunity is 3D design. This is because errors can be found and increase quality. • 3D design - Improve plans - 2D to 3D can cause a ton of transition errors - Problem is thinking about subgrade to actually designing the subgrade; to tie in all the levels of the road into one - If you can virtually construct first you can avoid errors from subgrade to surface. - DOT’s criteria is the surface, but the actual construction involves it all, even huge utility conflicts

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 17 - 2D utilities are almost impossible to detect, but with 3D you can almost clash-control - Possible collaboration with horizontal BIM • Modeling systems that include subgrade information such as Microstation and Autocad 3D civil • Challenge: There will always be constructability errors, but a transition from a 3D DOT model will help in the transition • Look deep into shrinkage and swell and how that works with the 3D • Opportunity: Mitigate construction claims; would be more about such quantities • Opportunity: Accelerate acceptance of the technology within the DOTs. The improvements of how DOT dollars are used?? DOTs idea of what’s in it for me • Higher level of transportation service for same amount of money • Don’t pay for the design twice - Engineer design (2D) SELLING POINT FOR DOT - Design conversion (3D) • Acceptance of data is beginning to progress; not really relying on checking as built • Possibility to accept machine data for QC less QA surveying • AMG provides 100% grade • Challenge: Legal issues that licensed surveyors, Kentucky and California, have to do the automated machine grade, and then who is responsible? • Other legal issue has to do with the paper plans being the legal document, with the exception of Florida • Who is responsible for the design when the plan is stamped twice by different people? • What document actually becomes the legal design? • Opportunity to integrate the utility location that we are actually putting in the ground before it’s buried and then are putting into the model of the design • One thing to figure out is the different quality levels of information that we are receiving. How do we know what is quality level D as opposed to quality level A, and the connection between contractor and operator? • Issues with troubleshooting to make sure that everything is functioning correctly with the GPS unit and that technical support is available • I.e., Technology guys don’t understand the machine and the machine guys don’t understand the technology • How do we improve the usability? • Cat machine and Trimble machine and even Topcon are not actually seamless. There is a difference of file types. • Challenge: Electronic data exchange formats are not as robust. Just because you say you have compatibility doesn’t necessarily mean that you truly are compatible.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 18 • The community connection: Trimble-connected community is a big plus for a lot of the jobs. Also, communication to the operator is a nice feature. • Wirelessly update designs without stopping the operation. • Issues with radio distance and satellite issues when you get a satellite spike. You can’t become solely reliant on AMG and still need to have somewhat of an idea of what to do. Terrain issues and possibly radio interference in locations like airports • Non-standardized AMG specs among states • A way to make sure data is accurate and certifiable instead of just a licensed surveyor to stamp off and to ultimately make the 3D model the legal document Breakout Group 1-4, Opportunities and Challenges – Tulio Sulbaran (Facilitator/Recorder) (Note: number sequence below represents comments organized by participant) 2.1 Opportunities Increased productivity Shorter road closures Minimizing impact on traveling public Decrease in cost to owner due to increased productivity and fewer stakes Can potentially incorporate utility as-built into 3D model Reduce amount of “rework” due to placing material to grade the first time 2.2. Challenges Development of precise model What to include/exclude File size requirements Matching grid coordinates/ local coordinate system using GPS Obtaining tight tolerances (both vertically and horizontally) How can owner/consultant verify contractors’ work on stakeless jobs? Cost of systems Amount of time to recover cost 3.1 Opportunities Elimination of operator error Less time, more money, more accurate schedule Minimize rework Safety (reduction in ground personnel) All DOTs have “connected site,” “common ground”

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 19 3.2. Challenges Operator training DOT training Price Consistent format (Trimble, Topcon, etc.) People being willing to change 4.1 Opportunities Standardized training for basic equip. operation (i.e., machines, base stations, equip.) Finding a process to better consolidate of the different data and modeling software Achieving a better understanding within the AMG process of possible vs. impossible expectations of finish product 4.2 Challenges To develop a workforce of trained professionals to work in the AMG field To improve the flow of data from engineering to field To achieve better results in the final construction through like practices, both in engineering and implementation To move a step further a AMG to incorporate remote control 5.1 Opportunities Efficiency Transfer of more electronic info and getting away from paper Takes the liability off of the equipment operator The project can more easily be precisely built to the original vision of the designer Cost savings to every party involved Reduction in traffic interruption to the general public 5.2 Challenges Standardization of information (files formats, frequency of data provided, etc.) Getting the design community to collectively change as a whole to using a standardized format (when designing in 3D) Legal liability in connection with addendum information and plan changes Making sure that no one software/hardware company dictates the information creation and/or flow 6.1 Opportunities Productivity gains for earthmoving (private companies) Less time, fuel, labor, rework Less turn-over for employees

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 20 Machine lasts longer Move on the next job quicker Fewer tax dollars spent (public) Work last longer built Better/more accurate Looks nicer/lasts longer 6.2 Challenges Lack of standards Infrastructure standards (base station/radio/protocols, etc.) Data standards (design software, formats, etc.) Lack of understanding performance Everyone seems to have a product that is promoted as the best, based on what? How was it tested? How do we know and compare (accuracy, density, etc.)? Compared to what? In which applications, with which machines, materials, etc.? 7.1 Opportunities Completion of job faster More accurate finished product Lower cost of construction Improve quality of finished product 7.2. Challenges Getting 3D data in the field Proper application technique by contractor The following are the opportunities and the challenges that the group as a whole identified after having the opportunity to see all individual participants’ ideas. This list corresponds to the results of the Step 2 and Step 3 of this breakout session. Consolidated Group 1-4 Opportunities and Challenges List of Opportunities (RANK 1 most important to 7 less important) 1. Increased productivity (private and public) (operator) 2. Increase safety (workers away from high risk areas) 3. Reduce operating cost – Better use of manpower, equipment maintenance, and operation 4. Less disruption of traffic flow 5. Better final product (quality and durability) 6. Reduce worker turn-over 7. Improve flow of data through the project life-cycle (opportunity/challenge?)

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 21 List of Challenges (RANK 1 most important to 7 less important) 1. Training construction and DOT personnel: Training standardization (technology, equipment, and process) 2. Lack of standards for software and hardware (ISO standard?) 3. Legal liability (what governs electronic/paper): Utility construction 4. Improve flow of data through the project life-cycle (opportunity/challenge?) – (i.e., file format, information, level of detail) 5. Identify the proper technology for a particular implementation 6. Willingness of people to change (from the manufactures, through the DOT, to the contractor) 7. Entrance barrier (i.e., price, knowledge, experience) with equipment, software, design, etc. Overall Rankings of Opportunities and Challenges After the breakout sessions were completed, a representative from each breakout group shared the breakout group’s results with all of the participants and displayed the newsprint posters on which the challenges and opportunities were recorded. Each breakout group selected their 5 to 10 most important opportunities and challenges. Then the facilitators and participants combined like items that were repeated from one breakout group to another. Next, each participant was given 10 self-stick colored dots that could be distributed in any manner across the items that the participant found most compelling. The results of this voting are shown in Table 1. Next, the facilitators synthesized the opportunities and challenges into broader topic areas—in many cases, both opportunities and challenges were grouped into the same category. The broad topic areas were then ranked by totaling the votes assigned to the narrow topic areas that fell under each broad topic. Table 3 represents this configuration. The first five categories—data, training and education, standardization, quality improvements, and 3D models—were closely grouped, each having more than 30 votes. For the sixth category, benchmark case studies, participants asserted that there would be considerable benefit by documenting some case studies about the use of AMG. The eighth ranked category, safety, was included because several participants asserted that the there is a considerable safety benefit of not having surveyors and others on the grade near machinery installing and referencing stakes.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 22 Table 1. List of Results from Voting Exercise – General Session Challenges Topic # Votes Training/agency/contractor 13 Procedure design—construction 9 Modernize specification 6 Data management 1 AMG applications for paving/overlays 4 Quality improvement 1 Electronic data exchange formats (xml, Landxlm – not robust/compatible for wide adoption) 12 Legal challenges: Required license surveyor or engineers to do conversion; who is responsible for design when the plan is stamped twice by different people; what becomes the legal design 15 Making electronic plan the legal document 5 Non-standardized AMG specs among states 1 Initial discussion of stakeholders early in 3D 11 Is model a contract document? 1 Definition of project survey control (set and maintain) 17 Education: Professional engineer; design field-level competencies (agency) 5 Real time network support for virtual real time network to work for AMG 5 QC/QA procedures verification 14 Training issues 16 Lack of standards for software and hardware 9 Need to improve data and information flow 12 Indentify proper technology for specific implementation 1 Opportunities Topic # Votes Industry perception/image 1 Benchmark case studies (construction and design) 23 Wireless update the designs on-board without stopping operations 17 AMG provides 100% grade checks ;incorporate utilities (as-built locations) in models before they covered 8 3D design, do virtual construction before build: improve plans = fewer mistakes; you will be able to see them in video; design and visualize subgrade; find utility conflicts; coordinate AGC/BIM group working on horizontal construction; software developers have this now 21 Quality improvement (O) 1 Error and clash detection 1 Data feedback loop as basis of payment (quantities) accurate pay estimates 1 Increased productivity 4 Safety 12 Better final product 2 Improve data flow 1

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 23 Table 2. Categorized (unranked) Summary – General Session Topic # Votes Training and Education 34 Training/agency/contractor (C) 13 Training issues (C) 16 Education: Professional engineer; design field-level competencies (Agency) (C) 5 Data 35 Data management (C) 1 Electronic data exchange formats (xml, Landxlm – not robust/compatible for wide adoption) (C) 12 Need to improve data and information flow (C) 12 Improve data flow (C) 1 Procedure design—construction (C) 9 3D Model 32 Initial discussion of stakeholders early in 3D (C) 11 3D design, do virtual construction before build: improve plans = fewer mistakes; you will be able to see them in video; design and visualize subgrade; find utility conflicts; coordinate AGC/BIM group working on horizontal construction; software developers have this now (O) 21 Legal Challenges 21 Legal challenges: Required license surveyor or engineers to do conversion; who is responsible for design when the plan is stamped twice by different people; what becomes the legal design (C) 15 Is model a contact document? (C) 1 Making electronic plan the legal document (C) 5 Standardization 34 Modernize specifications (C) 6 Non-standardized AMG specs among states(C) 1 Lack of standards for software and hardware (C) 9 Definition of project survey control (set and maintain) (C) 17 Data feedback loop as basis of payment (quantities) accurate pay estimates (O) 1 Quality/Improvements 33 Quality improvement (O) 1 AMG provides 100% grade checks; incorporate utilities (as-built locations) in models before they covered (O) 8 Better final product (O) 2 QC/QA procedures (effective model verification) (C) 14 Quality improvement (C) 1 Error and clash detection (O) 1 Increased productivity (O) 4 Industry perception/image (O) 1 Indentify proper technology for specific implementation (C) 1 AMG Applications for Paving/Overlays (C) 4 Benchmark Case Studies (Construction and Design) (O) 23 Safety (O) 12 Real-time Network Support for Virtual Real-time Network to Work for AMG (C) 5

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 24 Table 3. Synthesized and Ranked Priorities – General Session Topic # Votes Item Vote Rank 1. Data 35 ⎯ Data management (C) 1 Electronic data exchange formats (xml, Landxlm – not robust/compatible for wide adoption) (C) 12 Need to improve data and information flow (C) 12 Improve data flow (C) 1 Procedure design—construction (C) 9 2. Training and Education 34 ⎯ Training/agency/contractor (C) 13 Training issues (C)* 16 4* Education: Professional engineer; design field-level competencies (agency) (C) 5 2. Standardization 34 ⎯ Modernize specifications (C) 6 Non-standardized AMG specs among states (C) 1 Lack of standards for software and hardware (C) 9 Definition of project survey control (set and maintain) (C)* 17 3* Data feedback loop as basis of payment (quantities) accurate pay estimates (O) 1 4. Quality/Improvements 33 Quality improvement (O) 1 AMG provides 100% grade checks; incorporate utilities (as-built locations) in models before they covered (O) 8 Better final product (O) 2 QC/QA procedures (effective model verification) (C) 14 Quality improvement (C) 1 Error and clash detection (O) 1 Increased productivity (O) 4 Industry perception/image (O) 1 Indentify proper technology for specific implementation (C) 1 5. 3D Model 32 ⎯ Initial discussion of stakeholders early in 3D (C) 11 3D design, do virtual construction before build: improve plans = fewer mistakes; you will be able to see them in video; design and visualize subgrade; find utility conflicts; coordinate AGC/BIM group working on horizontal construction; software developers have this now (O)* 21 2* 6. Benchmark Case Studies (Construction and Design) (O)* 23 1* 7. Legal Challenges 21 ⎯ Legal challenges: Required license surveyor or engineers to do conversion; who is responsible for design when the plan is stamped twice by different people; what becomes the legal design (C)* 15 5* Is model a contact document? (C) 1 Making electronic plan the legal document (C) 5 8. Safety (O) 12 ⎯ 9. Real-time Network Support for Virtual Real-time Network to Work for AMG (C) 5 10. AMG Applications for Paving/Overlays (C) 4 Note: (O) = opportunity; (C) = challenge

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 25 Technical Breakout Session Results The technical breakout session are summarized in the following sections. Legal Impacts John Hannon (Facilitator/Recorder) • Precedence of contract documents=> see Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina • Many agencies are requiring a licensed surveyor to approve the DTM. • In Peoria, Illinois, the operators union would not let the members retrofit the contractor’s equipment with AMG systems. Therefore, the contractor had to hire a non-member service technician for the retrofit. • Unions have provided AMG training in Dayton, Ohio. • In California, a professional engineer (P.E.) is exposed to liability if a non- professional is utilized in the creation of the DTM. • In Kentucky, there are reports of the P.E. licensing board restricting the use of DTM models unless approved by a professional. • In North Carolina, a DTM issued by an agency can be released to the contractor but not a third party unless approved by a P.E. The licensing board has been challenged on this issue in court. • In North Carolina, a licensed surveyor is required for construction layout. • Building the DTM should not be considered a design function. • Agencies/DOTs are concerned about changes in the DTM from the stamped/approved design. • If paper plans have precedence, then the contractor will either build or compare the DTM to a DTM built from 2D, then compare with the agency-provided DTM (comparing 3D to 3D is fast, comparing 2D to 3D is slow). • Existing process of design changes should govern (compensable with time added). • Land surveying is by statute performed under the supervision of a registered land surveyor (RLS), but when it comes to digital data, this is problematic because the statutes are silent.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 26 Development of 3D files Tulio Sulbaran (Facilitator/Recorder) The charge of this group was to list Opportunities Challenges of 3D model development for AMG. Process used: Step 1- Individually answer one question 1.a Opportunities 1.b Challenges Step 2- Brainstorm as a group - Combine add/delete at the end of each question Step 3- Continue to next question Result of the Breakout Session The following is the form that was provided to all participants, and the corresponding answers for each question were the product of step 1 and 2 of this breakout session. Introduction The overall goal of this breakout group is to identify opportunities and challenges in the development of 3D models for AMG. In an effort to allocate a comparable amount of time to different elements of this very broad topic, the session has been divided into three segments, each limited to no more than 15 minutes. Each segment is also supporting a particular NCHRP 10-77 project task. Segment 1 - 5:25pm – 6:10pm – Review of Worldwide Literature, Survey, and Barriers Supported Tasks Task 1. Critically review the worldwide literature on the relevant use of AMG technology. The review shall consider such sources as state transportation agencies, trade publications, and the AASHTO Technology Implementation Group (TIG). Task 2. Prepare a detailed plan for the conduct of a worldwide survey of state transportation agencies, software vendors, equipment vendors, and contractors to determine what types of software and equipment are currently being used to implement AMG processes. The survey shall cover, at a minimum, current drafting and design software capabilities; types of electronic files that are submitted to contractors (e.g., dgn, dwg, dtm, tin, and LandXML), when these files are made available to the contractors (e.g., pre-bid or post-award); and equipment capabilities and reliability. The survey shall also document the perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG processes. Upon approval of the plan by the NCHRP, conduct the survey.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 27 Task 3. Identify any current legal barriers that may prevent the use of AMG processes, either by state transportation agencies or contractors, including electronic file use disclaimers, organized labor issues, and state statutes. Question 1-1: Ask the participants to suggest documents that provide information, good practices, lessons learned, implementation, etc. of 3D model development in the transportation industry (i.e., documents in their DOTs, presentations attended, articles read): Title of the publication Source of the Publication Name of the Participant Making the Suggestion Electronic File Conversion ENR 5 3D Shift for DOTs ENR 5 Cascade Project, West Des Moines Machine Control Conf. 2009 Zeigler 2 T-REX Project, Denver, Colorado Internet 2 Utility Construction Project, Kiewit Nice Presentation on Internet 2 Site Prep Magazine Web/Print 4 Machine Control Online.Com Group Bentley.com Group Technology and White Paper Web 3

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 28 Question 1-2: Ask the participants to suggest current or desirable 3D model software capabilities that would facilitate the implementation of AMG within the transportation industry: 3D Model Software Capability Put [C] for Current or [D] Desirable Name of the Participant Making the Suggestion Fix translation issues from CAD software to machine control software D 2 Training of users to use full potential of software D 2 Integration between surface design/survey/utilities/ environmental/GIS/drainage D 2 Software speak same language with field software equipment D 5 Training P.E.s to understand 3D models/design D 5 Tighter integration/compatibility testing between design and machine software D 4 “Bust” detection/visualization features D 4 Common standards for LandXML/TransXML D/C 4 Automatic validation of CAD to machine file transfer D 3 Back work compatibility/capability D 2 Libraries of file type conversation (perhaps open source) D 4

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 29 Question 1-3: Ask the participants about perceived (and/or real) benefits and challenges to implementing 3D model software to support the implementation of AMG within the transportation industry: Perceived Benefits and Challenges Put [B] for Benefits or [C] for Challenges Name of the Participant Making the Suggestion P.E. shift to 3D Design C 5 Share accurate info across the industry B 5 Adoption of good 3D modeling practice across industry C 4 “Usability” of complex 3D design tools for (terminology, etc.), “non-experts” C 4 DOT acceptance of accuracy of 3D technology training across the DOT organization C 3 Document and create baseline B 3 It is a black box, 3D design will fix everything C 2 Training, Training, Training C 2 $ Why should designers get paid more $ for design? Current practices have too many holes in plans, overpaid C 2 3D design creates better engineering B/C Group Decrease in engineering time B Group Decrease in the data transfer B Group Decrease in the construction time B Group Decrease claims and overruns B Group Decrease the cost to client B Group Increase the quality of the product B Group Route optimization C Group Decrease environmental impact (i.e., ability to avoid sensitive areas) B Group Reduce safety risk B Group Improve constructability and usability of the infrastructure B Group

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 30 Question 1-4: Ask the participants about who owns the 3D model and what is the liability of sharing the 3D model to support the implementation of AMG within the transportation industry: Ownership and/or Liabilities of Shared 3D Models Name of the Participant Making the Suggestion Clients retains ownership/liability but freely distributes to (bidding ) contractors 4 Designer then client ownership/liability 2 Contractor ownership/liability 5 P.E. owned, same as 2D ownership/liability 3 The issue is a shift of job responsibility (job security!) Group Designers are aware that mistakes are possible in drawings, but they are currently fixed by experienced surveyors. However, with the implementation of 3D design and AMG, that experienced surveyor will not be there to fix the problem. Group

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 31 Segment 2 - 6:10pm -6:25pm – 3D Model Development/Software Training Supported Task Task 4. Identify and review current AMG training opportunities (e.g., literature and courses). Training opportunities should include all aspects of the AMG process, including model creation, grade control establishment and calibration, and field inspection procedures. Question 2-1: Ask the participants to suggest possible training opportunities on 3D model development/software to support AMG in the transportation industry (i.e., workshop, seminar, symposium, certificate, etc.): Title of the Training Objectives of the Training (List between 3 and 5 specific objectives) Training Duration in hours Name of the Participant Making the Suggestion User conferences Sharing experiences 16 2 DOT-led classes What they want as a product deliverable 40 2 Contractor-led classes What they really need as a product deliverable 40 2 Trimble dimensions Data model, design, user 2 3 On-line web-based training Basic 8 hours Intermediate 24 Expert 40 8/24/40 3 Vendor (reseller training programs) Good design practices troubleshooting, “bug fixing” of models Data “streamlining” Design for drivability 40 4 3D design for AMG Introduction Course to 3D Design 24 5 Seminar Software workshops + Seminars 2-3 days 5 Learn from the experts Advanced training for DOTs by current modelers 24 5

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 32 Segment 3 – 6:25pm – 6:35pm – Current Best Practices and Input/Output Accuracy Supported Task Task 5. Identify the current best practices and the challenges associated with the development of a project design model that is suitable for use by AMG technology. Identify the key factors that should be considered during the preparation of design models. Identify best practices for performing quality assurance and quality control on design models, by both the transportation agency and the contractor. Task 7. Develop estimates of the current accuracy of all components of the AMG process (modeling software, positional system equipment, construction equipment, and inspection equipment) and compare those estimates to actual field accuracies of AMG. Identify key factors that contribute to the accuracy. Question 3-1: Ask the participants to share current best practices and/or challenges to develop 3D models to support AMG in the transportation industry (i.e., documents in their DOTs, presentations attended, and articles read, etc.): Best Practices and/or Challenges for Developing 3D Models Put [B] for Best Practice or [C] for Challenges Name of the Participant Making the Suggestion Understand the current construction practices C 2 Understanding good design practices, anyone can make a design fit C 2 Understand what data you are working with – accuracy/quality source C 2 Quality survey data 3 Standardized layers/color/naming standards B 4 Mandatory “fly-through” prior to shrink-wrap of models B 4 3D during design modeling B/C 5 Create model first/plan second B/C 5 Another P.E. model form design: two sets of eyes for QC B 5

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 33 Question 3-2: Ask the participants to list accuracy differences/challenges between the input data in the 3D models and the output data to support AMG in the transportation industry: Accuracy Challenges of 3D Models Name of the Participant Making the Suggestion Triangular irregular network (TIN) models vs. alignments for accurate roading vs. “bulk” earthworks (suitability) 4 Alignments, unconnected lines, TIN models 3

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 34 Accuracy Best Practices and Inputs/Outputs David White (Facilitator), Adam Dubree (Recorder) Dependency of accuracy determines what method you would use. For example, if you are looking at a +- .5”, then there is no issue with using GPS. On the other hand, if you are looking at a +-.02”, then why not use a total station or an augmented station? An issue is the variation of different working environments, such as the difference of milling or grading or even differences in materials such as soil or clay. You can’t take the GPS as an out-of-the-box item. Are there red flags for operation errors, such as speed or valve pressure? Another issue is the quality checks using different software, i.e., Topcon vs. Trimble vs. CAT, because the software reads the models differently. There are issues of calibration. And there needs to be rover calibration, but, at the same time, does the different software read differently and show different results? Frequency and Magnitude of Error • #3. (not necessarily daily but frequent) Errors in design • (not necessarily daily but frequent) Limitations to the accuracy of positioning method (GPS, total station, laser) Pushing • #8. Inability of machine hydraulic controls to respond accurately or smoothly to instructions from AMG units • Human error in operation hardware, software and equipment (HUGE ISSUE TO CONSIDER) Project Duration • #4. Errors that result from misuse of software • Errors that result from actual misuse of hardware • #8. Inability of machine hydraulic controls to respond accurately or smoothly to instructions from AMG units • Failure to ID inaccuracies during QA/QC process (These discrepancies have a lot to do with project size.)

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 35 Random • #1. Errors in setting up the control network (Is the control permanent or a temporary or a combination of the two?) • #2. Inaccuracy in the preconstruction survey used to develop the DTM (You can never have enough information to build the project 100%, unless you measure every square inch.) Seldom • #10. Failure to ID inaccuracies during QA/QC process • These discrepancies have a lot to do with project size. If used correctly, negatives decrease. Operators need to be aware of proper procedures. Comments on categorizes: • #6. Does this include satellite coverage issues? • #7. Generally not too many issues. Does this question mean a line-of-sight issue? • #8. Might be a situation where new calibration is required or a valve change is required to link with how machine is being used (i.e., speed) • #10. Does this include differences resulting from different interpretations to generate models? • #11. (New item) Sensor/technology/system limitations (i.e., pushing beyond the limits of the equipment) Brief Description of Each Instance Where Accuracy was Compromised (provide participant name, if possible, for follow-up questions) Category Number Owner and contractor not using the same model “never seen a set of plans that asked for 2/100th accuracy, 1/10 or 8/100 +/- (most of the time)” Human error – follow wrong line on screen, forget overcut protect was off. Had changed vertical guidance, operator would catch most mistakes if they ran cross-section view instead of plan view. 1 Operator has wrong vertical offset – make color map of different offsets for each site. Blade wear incorrect – unchecked for long time. Rover checked being machine (not checked every day) Faulty hardware – warning message on screen – repair/replace broken part. Inability to keep fixed GPS solution, high PDOP (SP?)/vertical accuracy (more than a 1/10th) intermittent 2

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 36 90% I exchange, but we buy new or hire repair; 10% hire Ziegler, I try to keep one of everything in my truck: cords and, if available, machine parts (SV5/GCS6/10/11) Design – office: looking at model in 3D on computer, comparing model to paper plans – some things you fix, others you ask designer to repair 3 Field – comparing model to surveyor’s stakes; have surveyor stake center of road, building corners. Breaks across a few stations, etc. with design and actual elevations Field – machine “draws” over rough spots in model. Structures/tie-in points/existing gravel of edge of job not matching model to real world $$$ Base goes down/nothing works on-site (if foreman has not staked some); GPS on machine goes down – machine still can move dirt, rover could stake, machine downtime to repair is lost production (rain day/late day/weekend) Rover goes down – machine still works The following table format was suggested for summarizing findings for this discussion: Source of Error (#) Frequency Detection Mitigation Daily Seldom Project Duration Random 1 √ 2 √ 3 √ 4 5 6 7 8 √ √ 9 √ 10 √ √ 11 √

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 37 Bid item quantity Charles Jahren (Facilitator/Recorder) Segment 1 • Projects with private owners such as developers are more advanced in using and taking advantage of data file sharing, because much of the construction is done under a design-build delivery system where there is a higher degree of integration among the owner, designer, and constructor. This reduces barriers to file sharing and discussions between the designer and constructor. In some cases, GPS surveying is used to confirm, cross-check, and correct aerial survey information. • Examples in transportation are scarce because the project life-cycle is long. Original surveying for current projects may have been done several years ago, before AMG was contemplated. • Aggregate quarry stripping projects in Iowa are good examples of how earthwork quantities can be effectively tracked. Earthmovers are often contracted to remove overburden from quarry areas. In the past, disputes over earthwork quantities have been problematic on a regular basis. GPS surveying has improved the situation considerably. GPS surveys are taken at these times: - Preconstruction - After top of rock elevation is established (usually the top of rock is fairly flat, so rock only had to be exposed in a few places in order to provide a reasonable estimate of the amount of overburden to be removed) - Before each progress payment is made • Topos for borrow pits for Indiana DOT • Landfills. Clay liners’ thickness must be proven to be sufficient in order for operators to be assured that they are operating within regulations. GPS surveying and AMG construction are used to establish this proof. • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had a job in Sioux City, Iowa, where AMG was used and efforts were also made to track earthwork quantities. Jason Billerbeck will serve as the point of contact if more information was needed. • Cascade Avenue in West Des Moines, Iowa, serves as a local best practice transportation project where 3D modeling and AMG were combined as seamlessly as possible. Several of the workshop participants from Iowa were involved in this project. Segment 2 No participant comments were collected on this segment of the breakout session.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 38 Segment 3 No specific input from the expert contact group was collected. Segment 4 Comments provided by the expert contact group are as follows: • There is agreement that design errors are often caught in the process of developing 3D models. This is a big advantage!! • A liability is that it is hard to estimate the cost of developing the 3D model. For example, traditional design cost estimating is done by estimating the number of plan sheets. How do you estimate the cost of using a method that does not produce plan sheets? • Change “downstream” personnel to “subsequent” personnel • Higher upfront costs can be offset when users engage the full power of the software. For example, it is usually possible to tie the surface drainage features to the profile grade. Therefore, if the profile grade changes, all surface drainage features automatically change with it. • Training is important, and management must accommodate training costs. Segment 5 • There is confirmation that upfront costs for equipment and personnel are higher. However, it is easy to recapture this cost by reducing material waste by having surfaces on grade more consistently. (Others added agreement during the plenary session.) • Some may prefer to allow field people to add offsets in the field. • Participants indicated that it is helpful to have the design to provide the actual subgrade width. Segment 6 • Being able to do this will be attractive for state highway authorities (SHAs). They will trust the results more by combining these measures with intermediate topos. Although there is some risk in doing this, the SHAs take on risk in any case. Segment 7 Other items added during the expert contact group discussion were as follows: • Confirming that it is good for operators to get off their machine once in a while and make sure things are OK.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 39 • Some contractors double check GPS elevations with other GPS elevations. It is better to double check GPS using a completely different method, such as total station or laser. • On some jobs, intermediate payments are determined in this way. • People need to know how to collect the break points; this requires training. • Contracting authorities can save personnel time by having contractors do intermediate topos; however, the SHA will have to learn to read the reports. • Rather than having contractors provide GPS equipment for the contracting authority to use, it is better to specify that the contractor will provide an operator who will take measurements when and where requested. Sometimes it is too hard to train people for occasional GPS use for QA purposes. • It was noted that the City of Chicago provided intermediate topos on the O’Hare Airport project. Segment 8 This discussion took place right after participants finished discussing Segment 1, and it generated the most interest of any of the subsequent segments 2 through 7. One of the most important points discussed is that it is important that the original data collection survey be executed properly in order to develop the TIN for the preconstruction surface. Of particular concern is that the data be collected by surveyors that work over the entire area collecting all necessary break points in such a way that the information can be used, even if the intended road alignment changes. Alternatively, a less effective method is to lay out the road alignments and then take cross-sections at every 50 or 100 ft. If this is done, the survey is of little value in the alignment changes during design. Also, surveyors may miss important break points between cross-sections. This can be improved if the cross-sections’ density is increased; however, even the most dense cross-section scheme will not be as satisfactory as a good survey that is specifically executed to produce a good TIN. Another important item to consider is how the quality of a TIN may be affected by the process in which it is developed. It is possible to use an original survey that is based on cross-sections and use the information to develop a TIN. When this is done, the resulting TIN may appear to the casual observer to have the same quality as a TIN that was developed with a survey that was properly executed to develop a TIN. However, the cross-section-based TIN will likely have several inaccuracies because break lines and other important features were not capture because they were between or outside cross-section locations. TIN users should always question how the TIN was originally developed and be skeptical of any TIN that was developed based on information from cross-sections.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 40 One important question that should be considered is, “How should the quality of a TIN model be specified?” This needs to be communicated so that designers, contractors, and owners can have predictability about what a TIN model can be expected to deliver and how much effort is required to develop it. Several other points were made during the discussion: • It will be a challenge for transportation agencies to respond quickly to the needs of AMG projects because the project life-cycle is relatively long in comparison to private projects. Many designs on the shelf now and ready for construction were surveyed using the cross-section approach. Redoing the surveys would be extremely time consuming, and is likely to be impractical. However, to properly prepare for AMG, the correct type of initial survey must be executed from the start. It is difficult to change approaches in the middle of the project life-cycle. • If repeated topos are to be taken for progress payments, go back to the same coordinates each time a new topo is taken. • Cross-section-based TINs are especially unsatisfactory when around ramps, gore areas, and other such special areas. • Some jobs are created using outdated software packages, and the new packages are not backwardly compatible. • If there are problems with AMG elevations, consider the possibility that there may be small errors in the original survey that are within tolerance but cause unsatisfactory results with AMG. • For linear jobs, consider the possibility that discrepancies between the curvature of the earth and a Cartesian coordinate system may be problematic. • Consider how accurate a survey is in comparison to earthwork shrink and swell changes. Uncertainty in this area may overshadow uncertainty from other sources. • If cross-sections are used, pick up key points such as beginnings and endings of retaining walls, PCs, PIs, PTs, beginning and endings of ditches, and super- elevation transitions. • Note that if the information density in 3D files is too great, the file might not fit on the computers on the equipment. Careful consideration is required to include the right information without including too much. • South Carolina specifies cross-sections at 3 ft to 10 ft, depending on the design speed and rate of curvature. • Find out if software uses a prismoidal formula if cross-section calculations are performed. The prismoidal approach will be more accurate than the average end area. • Think about tolerances carefully. Don’t compare quantities taken with +/- 0.1 surveying with quantities taken with +/- 0.02 surveying.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 41 Review of the Proposed Survey Questionnaires The results of the review of the survey questionnaires are provided in the following sections. Breakout Group, Contractor Survey Review, Charles Jahren (Facilitator/Recorder) • How long will it take for respondents to fill out? • Think about how many questions per page, 10 min. • Any questions that would be especially difficult or time consuming to answer? • General comments on survey. • Seems like we don’t care what they think unless you use it? Find out why they don’t use it. • Don’t we care about private work? We get more and better information from private work. • Ask what percentage is private vs. public. • If people are not using it, is it because: Agencies put up too many barriers • Question 11. Participant indicated that all DOT work has to be reverse engineered DOT plans. All private work can be transferred electronically. • Get tick box on size of company, $ volume, or number of employees. Do we have number of systems deployed? • Provide a method to forward survey to colleagues. • Need to have a way for someone like Kiewit to respond to specialized questions; determine which type of questions the person could answer first. • Have a “not part of my job” answer. • Need a box for any additional questions or case studies. • Need an explanation of how it will be used and opportunity of survey results. • A two- or three-minute video to introduce it would be OK. • Question 2. Does this really matter? May not be relevant.. • What kind of equipment are you using it on? It could be that the company only has a sonic system. • Question 3 and 4. Give some choices to begin with. • Question 6 gives a way to collect data from private projects also. Give % of public and private work. Maybe do a separate question from both public and private work. • After Question 6, go to “Why not?” questions. • On private side, ask about how data is received. QA will be different. Give as built-as model. Public does its own QA and does not want surface model. • Ask: do they usually use contractor or agency QA/QC? How much spot checking is done by agency? Respondent would have to respond in different terms for different agencies.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 42 • Question 9. How are you going to use this question? Depends on the size of job. One big job that lasts for two years will skew data. Maybe better to ask what % of work is AMG? Suppose a company has one finish blade that does all jobs in an area. How do you interpret that? How many AMG machines on each site? How many projects are touched by AMG? Do they use AMG from the beginning so they don’t make mistakes in the beginning and don’t have to clean up mistakes? • Question 12. List specific state or agencies to help lit review. • Question 14. Clean up list a bit. Gerhard Pilcher will email a new list. Have hot links to definitions of certain terms. Companies have only one type of software. • Question 19. How often do they share back the surface to owner? Usually only to show that the final product is within tolerance. • Question 21. If the DOT provided DTM, then they are responsible. If contractor built it from paper plans, then contractor is responsible. The answer will depend on who built the DTM and what job they are on. Job-specific. How often do you accept DTM from agency? Private/public. • Question 23. Are you willing to share any lessons learned? • Question 26. Comment: Gerhard, mass grading by time period, road grading by distance. • Question 27. List training opportunities • Question 28. List training opportunities • Question 31. Add original control network to the choices. • Question 34. Add safety to ranking? Is there a way to quantify $ savings? Can contractors give their idea of where they save their client $. To what extent is savings passed on? Add contract schedule compression (less time on project contractor vs. less time with road out of service). Breakout Group, Survey Contractors, David White (Facilitator), Heath Gieselman (Recorder) • Question 6. If answer no, asked them to comment on why. • Question 9. One reviewer noted: If you are utilizing AMG, are you bidding jobs utilizing AMG? (a) Yes, (b) No • Question 15. Confusing question to some. Break this question into two separate, more focused, questions: 1.What can you work with currently; 2. What do you need – (a) surface 2D/3D, (b) line work, (c) top of pavement vs. top of subgrade, etc.? • Question 17. Need to be more specific, because some use one brand for GPS and another for laser, etc. • Question 18. An additional question following Question 17 might be, why do you use that specific brand? (a) cost, (b) tolerances, (c) regionally supported, etc. • Question 25. Probably need to distinguish between QA and QC? • Question 28. Is this synonymous with “machine” or different?

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 43 • Question 34. Answer (d) as-built documentation. Group indicated that these are not applicable because done with independent topo, not AMG results. • Question 40. The group considered this one of three super-critical questions. The contractors felt like the number was probably around 20% and suggested a 5% increment. They also think that having this info will be extremely helpful for the state DOTs as motivation to move forward. (Question 41 similar in terms of rated importance) Breakout Group, Survey Software/Hardware Discussion, John Hannon (Facilitator), Adam Dubree (Recorder) Software Vendors • Where are the DOTs with adopting the 3D software, and why are they just dabbling? • What design standards do the DOTs use today? • One of the challenges is that everybody is trying to do their own thing and there needs to be consistency and standards to incorporate more than just the DOTs, but agencies on the national level. • In the old days, reports went from planning to design and then there would be the design phase. • Today, as the surveyor steps out on the job, that information is what is used for the design. • What’s your process and logic for this software, and how are they applied and why? Hardware Vendors • Issues of accuracy • What is the standard for accuracy among DOTs - Normal work, AMG, incentives to contractors??? - Are accuracy standards realistic? - What’s the value of the accuracy standards we are driving toward?  Whether it be eyeballed or down to the .01”, as long as it rides true, is it ok?  Depending upon what task is being performed, should it depend on the accuracy?  What’s the value of the accuracy for the specific task? - Just because we have better tools, does that mean we are actually building better roads? - Driving cost to have a higher expected piece of machinery. - What’s the point of diminishing return in cost? - How do you verify the accuracies?

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 44 • What are the machine standards to qualify them capable of GPS? • What’s the process for building? • What’s the process for DTMs? • What’s realistically works for everybody? - What standard or best practice can unite everybody as a whole? - Is it a design, engineer, or AMG process? • Determining the actual sensor to be used is a huge thing to figure out. • When you begin to chase these accuracies, you need to look at the materials, contractors, quality of work, etc. before you just blame the hardware. • Are your expectations different with the new technologies in the field, as opposed to the specs? - Ask DOTs what the standards they are held to. - On the flip side, ask the contractors what standards are they expected. • How can one point condemn a single piece of points? How many measurements should be taken, and which measurements should be used? • Why not take these measurements all the way down to the subgrade? • What is the new process to build the road and not a new way to implement AMG? • DOTs: This is your requirement, but why is it your requirement? What is the basis for these? How did you derive these? With the new technology, should this be the requirements? • Tell us what you want and we will produce depending upon what instrument we need to use. This puts less on the agencies. • How far do the agencies need to go with the specs? - Whether it’s machine, grade, technology, etc. • What are the standards? • What application? • How are the standards upheld? • What are the standards held to upon the contractor? • How are the standards checked in the field? Breakout Group, Survey Design Discussion, Tulio Sulbaran (Facilitator/Recorder) The charge of this group is to modify, delete, and/or add possible questions to the worldwide survey that will be targeting DESIGN agency. Process used Step 1- Individually, each participant reads survey questions 8:15–8:25 Step 2- Discuss the survey as a group

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 45 Result of the Breakout Session: Consolidated group feedback regarding the survey target to DESIGN agency: • Terms are not the same among the stakeholders of the project. For instance, 1- most people associate DTM with original terrain, but not everybody. So, perhaps spell out or add a glossary (i.e., What is 3D design?) (early in the document) that defines the terms used in the survey. • Identify the results from the AASHTO Geometric Design Committee Survey (done electronically and close about in August) regarding the standard data exchange file format (TRANSxml). • Question 11. Answers B and C are duplicated. • Question 8. Suggest including the following applications: - Land Development Desktop - Civil3D - GeoPak - Terramodel - Inroads - Carlson - EaglePoint - Caice - Other (text box) • Question 9. Suggest adding the following file formats: - .dtm - Leica format? - Topcon format? - CAT own format? • Question 4. Is there value in this question? This is time-dependent? But new construction is easier? Perhaps add to the question, what are the expectations for the next 5 to 10 years? • Question 5. Modify to “CAD drafting standards” (remove processes). If the answer is B or C, then add a question 5a, “Is there a formal QA/QC program to ensure that the standards are followed (yes/no/I don’t know)?” • Question 12. Eliminate “(i.e., GEOPAK Modeler)” • Question 13. Eliminate “calculated” • All the questions that start with “IF” should be divided into two questions, one that asks “Does… ? (y/n)” and then one that asks “If yes, the question.” • Question 12. Change “DTM” to “design DTM” • Question 14. Change “DTM” to “design DTM” • Question 16/17. Restate the question. What is the intent of the question? What is this 5 feed? Surface model? During the design? Perhaps eliminate questions 16/17 and substitute with:

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 46 - “How are your 3D models created?” • The cross-section is created first and then the 3D model. • The 3D model is created first and then the cross-sections are generated. • Question 18. Change to ranges, perhaps <25%, 25%-49%, 50%-74%, 75% or more • At the beginning of the survey, it should be explicitly indicated that we are talking about the 3D design model. Get rid of DTM. • Question 20. Answer “No” could be due to many reasons. So, perhaps a follow-up question should be added with the following choices: - Liability concerns - Matter of policy - Model does not exist - Budgetary constrains • Question 22. Add an option “Finish Gradebook,” change “3D surfaces” to “3D triangles,” and change “if your agency shares DTM” to “if your agency shares electronic data.” • Question 27. Add a question after 27 such as, “Should there be a change in DESIGN CHANGE standards and policies to accommodate for AMG?”

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 47 Training Information Request The information provided in Table 4 is a summary of the training information collected during the workshop. Table 4. Summary of training opportunities Provider Title Follow up Point of contact Su rv ey in g an d po sit io ni ng e qu ip m en t m an uf ac tu re rs a nd d ea le rs De sig n so ft w ar e de ve lo pe rs a nd d ow n ch an ne l s al es a nd tr ai ni ng p ar tn er s Eq ui pm en t M an uf ac tu er s a nd D ea le rs In de pe nd en t P ro fe ss io na l T ra in er s Tr ad e As so cia tio n Tr ad e U ni on U ni ve rs ity o r C ol le ge (f or cr ed it) U ni ve rs ity o r C ol le ge (n on cr ed it) Cl as sr oo m o r o ns ite O nl in e sy nc hr on ou s ( in st ru ct or o r g ro up pa ce ) O nl in e as yn ch ro no us (S el f P ac ed ) Co m pu te r B as ed T ut or ia ls Pa pe r b as ed tu to ria ls Bo ok s, p am ph le ts a nd o th er lit er at ur e Comments API Surveying, Inc John Simmons (618) 478-9000 www.APISurvey .com X X Gomaco University Leica and Gomaco Training Week for Machine Guidance on Gomaco Machine Dennis Claussen of Gomaco X X X X X Timble Online and Software Demo Dick Pope X X X X X Wisconsin Operating Engineers Union Search on Wisconsin Operation Engineers X X Expert Contact Group member describes this as a "top notch training program that includes AMG TopCon danwiese@star equip.com X X Hands on GPS/Machine Control Training Program Bentley Microstation/Geopak/I nroads Training dtmsolutions. com X X Van Pelt, Brian (1) Basic Road Modeling, (2) Advance Road Modeling, (3) 2D to 3D Electronic File Conversion Brian@3Dsurfac esolution.com X X Vanderohe, Alan vanderohe@cen turytel.net X X X Has presentation materials TopCon TopCon University danwiese@star equip.com X X X Prerecorded tutorial system Several (see next cell to the right Bentley Lean, Bentley Institute, User groups (IDDEA.GRG/FLUG.org) , Autodesk University X X X X X X X Generally, colleges and universities are not as current with the software, so asking in asking them to train users, software training is key. Vendors and owners of software are better suited to providing ongoing training. Type of Provider Delivery method

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 48 Summary A workshop was held among approximately 30 members of the NCHRP 10-77 expert contact group. A combination of breakout sessions, general sessions, and participant input via paper forms were conducted to provide information on the following: • Top opportunities and challenges • Legal impacts • Development of 3D files • Accuracy best practices and input/outputs • Bid item quantities • Literature • Training opportunities In addition, the expert contact group reviewed copies of the proposed survey objectives and questions and provided input. By meeting the workshop attendees, the researchers and the expert contact group cemented relationships that will facilitate several necessary actives in the near future: • Develop lists of potential survey respondents and following up to ensure that that there are an adequate number of responses • Identify useful case history examples • Identify best practices for a variety of activities • Provide detailed information as necessary The participants found the short overnight format (afternoon of the first day to mid- morning of the second day) to be manageable with regard to travel schedules and other commitments. The research team wishes to thank the participants for their part in having a successful workshop.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 49 Appendix Information provided in the Appendix includes the following: - Workshop Agenda - Invitation Letter and Meeting Location - List of Participants - Literature Review Summary - Draft Survey Questionnaires - Photos of the Event

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 50 Agenda Automatic Machine Guidance Workshop NCHRP 10-77 Iowa State University University of Southern Mississippi Des Moines, Iowa, Thursday Oct 1st through Friday Oct 2nd. Meeting Location: Zeigler Incorporated 1500 Ziegler Dr NW Altoona, IA 50009, (515) 957-3800 Contact: Josh Olson Hotel Information Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites 165 Adventureland Drive NW Altoona, 50009 (515) 967-1855 ASK for "AMG" block of rooms THURSDAY OCTOBER 1ST 1:30 to 2:15 PM Welcome session. • Introductions (Dave White) • Workshop objectives (Dave White) • Procedure for listing and ranking opportunities and challenges (Chuck Jahren) 2:15 to 2:30 PM Break 2:30 to 3:30 PM Breakout session (Chuck Jahren) • 3-4 breakout groups • Each groups develops o 5 to 10 opportunities o 5 to 10 challenges 3:30 to 4:30 PM General session—Break out results (Chuck Jahren) • Each group presents results • Vote on opportunities and challenges to provide ranking • Break time included during voting 4:30 to 5:00 PM General session – Ranking results (Chuck Jahren) • Announce rankings • Instructions for next break out session. 5:00 to 6:00 PM Breakout sessions– Technical topics • Legal Implications (John Hannon) • Development of 3D. (Tulio Sulbaran) • Earthwork Calculations (Chuck Jahren) • Accuracy (David White) 6:00 to 7:00 PM Supper at conference location • Fill out training opportunity forms 7:00 to 8:00 PM General session—Breakout results (Chuck Jahren) • Each group presents results • All participants make additions and improvements Adjourn for evening [continued over or next page]

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 51 FRIDAY OCTOBER 2ND 7:15 to 8:00 AM Breakfast • Fill out literature review forms 8:00 to 8:15 AM General session—instructions for survey review (John Hannon) 8:15 to 9:15 AM Breakout sessions—survey review • Review survey objectives • Review survey questions • Suggestions for targeting respondents 9:15 to 9:30 AM Break 9:30 to 10:30 AM Closing general session • Survey review results (John Hannon 30 min) • Conference summary (David White 30 min) Conference Adjournment

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 52 Invitation Letter Automatic Machine Guidance Workshop. NCHRP 10-77 Iowa State University University of Southern Mississippi Des Moines, Iowa, Thursday Oct 1st through Friday Oct 2nd. The workshop will commence at 1:30 PM on October 1st and will end by 11:00 am on October 2nd. We will accommodate late arrivals and early departures as necessary to allow individual participants to attend by leaving their origin in the morning of October 1st and returning by the evening of Oct 2nd. The meeting will be held at 1500 Ziegler Dr NW, Altoona, IA 50009, (515) 957-3800 (just north and east of Des Moines). The agenda includes the following: • An introductory plenary session; • Breakout sessions to discuss opportunities and obstacles for ensuring data integrity and quality results for the AMG process; • A second plenary session to review findings of previous breakout sessions and identify further opportunities and obstacles by combining knowledge from the breakout sessions. The detailed agenda will be provided at the workshop. Welcome and general introductory session: Participants will be introduced and the research team will communicate that the goal of the conference is to develop a list of capabilities that must exist and obstacles that must be overcome in order to facilitate seamless electronic data transfer from the initial surveying to develop DTMs through design and construction to final inspection and verification. First breakout session: Participants will be assigned to breakout groups as follows. The topic areas represent sub processes in the AMG process. 1. Initial data collection (development of DTMs) 2. Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D) 3. Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example: providing offsets between pavements and subgrades, delineating areas where equipment operation is excluded, and correcting inconsistencies that are not problematic for design models but are problematic for AMG), 4. Model conversion to AMG format 5. Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download) Participants will list capabilities that must exist and obstacles to developing those capabilities in each breakout area. Capabilities and obstacles will be listed, categorized, and ranked before the breakout group returns to the next plenary session. Closing plenary session: A plenary session follows where breakout groups will share the results of their discussions. Some capabilities and obstacles will be cross cutting and not detectable at the breakout group level. The facilitator will work with the entire group or representatives of the entire group to identify such crosscutting capabilities and obstacles. The required capabilities and obstacles to be overcome will be summarized.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 53 Meeting Location: 1500 Ziegler Dr NW, Altoona, IA 50009, (515) 957-3800 Contact: Josh Olson Hotel Information: Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites 165 Adventureland Drive NW Altoona, 50009 (515) 967-1855 ASK for "AMG" block of rooms

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 54 NCHRP 10-77 Workshop Participant List NAME Company Phone Email 1 Bil lerbeck, Jason Peterson Contractors 319-345-2713 jbil lerbeck@petersoncontractors.com 2 Braddy, Katherine Caterpil lar 309-578-7049 Braddy_Katherine_C@cat.com 3 Brenner, Mark GOMACO 712-364-3347 markb@gomaco.com 4 Bush, John Kewit 773-917-2202 john.bush@kiewit.com 5 Cackler, Tom CPTech Center 515-294-3230 tcackler@iastate.edu 6 Clabaugh, Curtis Wyoming DOT 307-777-4086 curtis.clabaugh@dot.state.wy.us 7 Corcoran, Paul Caterpil lar 309-578-7049 corco@verizon.net 8 Dahlinger, Jerry Guntert & Zimmerman 209 599 6131 Gdahlinger@guntert.com 10 Dubree, Adam Univ Southern Mississippi 815-383-1818 adam.dubree@usm.edu 11 Gothard, Tony Kiewit 773-917-2202 anthony.gothard@kiewit.com 12 Hannon, John USM 601-266-5550 john.hannon@usm.edu 13 Hilgendorf, Tim Kiewit 208-897-5017 timothy.hilgendorf@kiewit.com 14 Hoeft, Tim Ziegler Inc. 952-885-8256 Tim.Hoeft@zieglercat.com 15 Jahren, Charles Iowa State University 515-294-3829 cjahren@iastate.edu 16 Johnson, Corey Bentley 515-460-4824 corey.johnson@bentley.com 17 Klein, Kevin GOMACO 712-364-3347 klein@gomaco.com 19 Mazur, Chris Leica Machine Control Division 440-364-5330 Chris.Mazur@leicaus.com 20 Morrison, Matthew Leica Machine Control Division 616 821-1812 matthew.morrison@leicaus.com 21 Nicholson, Kent Iowa DOT 515-239-1586 kent.nicholson@dot.iowa.gov 22 Olson, Josh Ziegler Inc. 515-957-3910 joshua.Olson@zieglercat.com 23 Pilcher, Gerhard H.B Rowe & Co 336-786-8318 gerhardp@hbrowe.com 24 Pope, Dick Trimble Navigation Limited 973-245-5576 Dick_Pope@Trimble.com 25 Rasmussen, Terry Caterpil lar 309-494-6321 Rasmussen_Terry@cat.com 26 Runyon, Grant Fox Contractors 260-747-7461 grunyon@foxcontractors.com 27 Shell, Dan Corell Contracting 515-221-9669 dshell@corellcontractorinc.com 28 Smith, Gordon ICPA 515-963-0606 gsmith@iowaconcretepaving.org 29 Soar, Karl Hexagon Measurement Tech 44-2476-355768 karl.soar@hexagon-machine-control.com 30 Stoeckel, Kristian Caterpil lar 309-494-4258 Stoeckel_Kristian_M@cat.com 31 Subaran, Tulio USM 601-266-6401 tulio.sulbaran@usm.edu 32 Tometich, Tim McAninch 515-267-2500 ttometich@mcaninchcorp.com 33 Van Pelt, Brian 3D Surface Solutions 515-462-5730 brian@3dsurfacesolutions.com 34 Vanderohe, Alan University of Wisconsin-Madison 608-635-2096 vonderohe@centurytel.net 35 Wiese, Dan Starr Equipment 319-350-1941 danwiese@starequip.com 36 White, David Iowa State University 515-294-1463 djwhite@iastate.edu

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 55 DOT Specifications Obtained by Study AASHTO • Requirements for Electronic Data to be Supplied to Construction (6/04/2007) COLORADO DOT • Pilot Project Special Provision: Revision of Section 625 Survey Control of Grading by GPS of RTS Methods (11/3/2008) • Review of New Specification of Specification Change: Survey Control of Grading Global Positioning System (GPS) and Robotic Total Station (RTS) Methods (9/05/2008) Caltrans • Standard Specifications: State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Department of Transportation (5/2006) • Project Delivery Acceleration Toolbox: Improvements to the Project Delivery Process (11/2008) • Amendments to the Standard Specifications (5/2006) • EZ Guide (2006) IOWA DOT • Iowa Department of Transportation: Developmental Specifications for Global Positioning System Machine Control Grading (9/18/2007) MINNESOTA DOT • Minnesota Department of Transportation office of Land Management Surveying and Mapping Section Photogrammetry Unit, Special Provisions for: Group 3: Digital Terrain Model/Digital Elevation Model Products and Services (7/01/2001) • Office of Land Management Photogrammetric Unit GPS/RTK Accuracy & Procedure Report Concerning Ground Control for Aerial Photography (2005) • Surveying and Mapping Manual (6/20/2007) • Test Profiles for Digital Terrain Models (8/01/2001) • District Check List (10/10/2005) • Division II Construction Details • MC File Types to the Contractor (3/24/2009) • Standard Specifications for Construction (2005) NEW YORK STATE DOT • Revisions to Section 105-10, Survey and Stakeout (9/07/06) • Revision to Standard Specifications: Section 105-10, Survey and Stakeout; (4/03/06) • Section 625, Survey Operations, Row Markers & Permanent Survey Markers WISCONSIN DOT • Construction and Materials Manual 7.10 Construction Surveying-General (11/2006) • Construction and Materials Manual 7.18 GPS Machine Guidance (11/2006) • Construction Staking Subgrade, Item 650.4500 [Workshop Participant: Are you aware of any additional U.S. or International literature regarding AMG?]

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 56 Literature on AMG Collected to Date AGC/DOT Subcommittee on Emerging Technologies. (2008, January). Proposal for use of Electronic Engineering Data in Construction. AGPS Inc.- Advanced Geo Positioning Solutions Inc.- Home. (n.d.). . Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://www.agpsinc.com/. Alsobrooks, B. (n.d.). Introduction of 3D Technology & Machine Control Systems. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/JBI%20GPS%20Machine%20Control-6-28-04.pdf. Bhat, C. R., Sivaramakrishnan, S., & Bricka, S. (2004). Conversion of Volunteer-Collected GPS Diary Data into Travel Time Performance Measures: Literature Review, Data Requirements, and Data Acquisition Efforts. Research Report, Research and Technology Transfer Section/Construction Division P.O. Box 5080 Austin, TX 78763-5080. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/0_5176_1.pdf. Brown, C. (2008). GPS and Related Topics. Presented at the Construction Engineers' Conference 2008. Brown, C. (n.d.). GPS in Construction TODAY. Brown, C. (n.d.). The Use of GPS in the Department of Transportation. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/Brown_GPS%20presentation.pdf. Ciccarone, R. (2009, January). TRB Regenerating Digital Terrain Data for use with Contractor's Equipment. Presented at the TRB's annual meeting, Washington DC. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/Ciccarone_Transportation%20Research%20Board %20-%203.pdf. Compare GPS Products. (n.d.). . Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://www.greatlakesinter- drain.com/Machine_Control_Systems/GPS_Product_Comparison.htm. CTC & Associates LLC WisDOT Research & Communication Services. (n.d.). GPS in Construction Staking. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/tsrgpsstaking.pdf. Dillingham, J., Jensen, T., & Schulist, N. (2007). Best Practices – Machine Control Evaluation. Final, St. Paul, Minnesota. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/Best%20Practices%20- %20Machine%20Control%20Evaluation_Final%20Report%20%28Mn%20DOT%2 9.pdf. Engst, A. C. (2009). GPS Accuracy Could Start Dropping in 2010. TidBITS. Retrieved September 14, 2009, from http://db.tidbits.com/article/10276. Erik, C., Darrell, H., & Dan, B. (2000, April). Global Positioning System (GPS) Inventory Standards. Oregon Department of Transportation, Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/gps_standards.pdf.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 57 GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM Significant Challenges in Sustaining and Upgrading Widely Used Capabilities. (2009). GAO-09-325 Global Positioning System. GPS Machine Control. (n.d.). . Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://www.gpsandmachinecontrol.com/. GPS/GIS Inspection and Analysis Tools for Highway Construction GPS Data Interface with SiteManager. (n.d.). . Florida. Retrieved from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Construction/Engineers/Research/FDOT%20GPS_ GIS%20Schema.pdf. GPS-Enabled Land Development Tools. (n.d.). . Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/Sitework/gps-tools. Grandia, C. (2006, November 27). GPSing Saves Second Guessing. Midwest Contractor, (November), 6-8. Hampton, T. (2005, October 3). 3D Grade Control Puts Designers Right in the Operator’s Seat. Engineering News Record. Retrieved from http://www.dot.state.mn.us/caes/files/pdf/enr_3D_grade_control_10_05.pdf. Hampton, T. (2006, April 10). Awards of Excellence. Engineering News Record. Retrieved from http://www.mcaninchcorp.com/ENR_04_10_2006_v6.pdf. Hannon, J. J. (2007). NCHRP Synthesis 372 Emerging Technologies for Construction Delivery. Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/nchrp_syn_372.pdf. Hannon, J. J. (2008). NCHRP Synthesis 385 Information Technology for Efficient Project Delivery. Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/nchrp_syn_385.pdf. Hiremagalur, J., Kin, K. S., Lasky, T. A., & Ravani, B. (2008, November 14). Testing and Performance Evaluation of Fixed Terrestrial 3D Laser Scanning Systems for Highway Applications. TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/09-1995.pdf. HNTB. (2004, March). Survey-Grade GPS Reference Station Technology for the Missouri DOT. HNTB Corporation. Retrieved from http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:aVyOT8fCRx8J:scholar.google.com/&hl =en. Index of /NCHRP. (n.d.). . Retrieved September 14, 2009, from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/. Jenkins, P. (2005). GPS/RTK Accuracy & Procedure Report Concerning Ground Control for Aerial Photography. Retrieved from http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/bureaus/mis/gis/gps_accuracy.pdf. Jonasson, S., Dunston, P. S., Ahmed, K., & Hamilton, J. (2002). Factors in Productivity and Unit Cost for Advanced Machine Guidance. JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, (September/October 2002). Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/mc_unit_costs.pdf. Land Surveys Interim Guidelines for the use of U.S. Customary Units. (2005, March 1). . Retrieved from

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 58 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geometronics/SurveysManual/Land%20Surve ys%20Interim%20Guidelines.pdf. Lasers GPS Machine Control Specialists. (n.d.). . Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://www.rockymountainlasers.com/index.php. Machine Control Online - Advancing the Positioning Industry - Home. (n.d.). . Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://machinecontrolonline.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1 /. 'Moving Dirt’s Machine Control Update. (2008). Kerville's Moving Dirt Magazine, (January), 14. NYSDOT. (2007). Summary of Information Learned From 2007 Projects Using Automated Construction & Inspection technologies. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/GPS_Summary%20for%202007%20Tech%20Proje cts.doc. O’Connor, M., Elkaim, G., & Parkinson, D. B. (1995). Kinematic GPS for Closed-Loop Control of Farm and Construction Vehicles. Palm Springs, CA: Stanford University. Priority, Market-Ready Technologies and Innovations Global Positioning System (GPS) Surveying. (n.d.). . US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from http://tig.transportation.org/sites/aashtotig/docs/GPS%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf. Priority, Market-Ready Technologies And Innovations High-Definition 3D Surveying. (2008). Additionally Selected Technologies 2008. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/HD%203D%20surveying%20fact%20sheet%20pk. pdf. Professional Surveyor GPS Machine Control - News/Current Issues Messages. (n.d.). . Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://www.profsurv.com/forum/Professional%20Surveyor%20Magazine%20 Discussion/NewsCurrent-Issues/GPS-Machine-Control-3049.aspx. Proposal for Use of Electronic Engineering Data in Construction. (2008). . Proposal, AGC/DOT Subcommittee on Emerging Technologies. Reed, J. A. (2004, October 15). Office of Engineering and Technology Declares Geophysical survey Systems, inc. Request for a Waiver of Part 15 to be a "Permit- But-Disclose" Proceeding for Ex Parte Purposes. Retrieved from http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3262A1.doc. Rybka, R. (2006). New Technologies for Better Highways. Government Engineering, (May-June). Retrieved from ttp://www.govengr.com/ArticlesMay06/highways.pdf. Sadler, D. (n.d.). Automated Machine Guidance GPS and Machine Controls that can Assist in Construction Accuracies and Efficiencies. Presented at the 2009 FDOT/FTBA Construction Conference. Retrieved from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Construction/download/ConstConf09/Sadler_Aut omatedMachineGuidance.pdf.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 59 SCS900 Site Controller Software: Installing and Using the PC Emulator. (2008, October 15). . trimble.com. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/HH_SprtNote_SCS900_Emulator.pdf. Semones, P. (2004). Using State Plane and Project Datum Coordinates (Second.). Kentucky. Retrieved from http://transportation.ky.gov/design/survey/projdatum.pdf. Stansell, T. (2006, February 16). Dual-Use GPS. Presented at the Rocky Mountain Section of the ION. Retrieved from http://www.rms-ion.org/Presentations/Dual- Use%20GPS.pdf. Street, D. (2006, September 12). Business Advantages of Using 3D Technologies Using Technologies. Presented at the 2006 IHEEP Conference. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/IHEEP%20091206%20Presentation_Street_INSP. pdf. Streett, D. (2006a, December 6). Business Advantages of Using Electronic Engineering Data. Presented at the AGC/DOT Technical Conference. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/AGC%20120506%20Electronic%20Engineering% 20Data.pdf. Streett, D. (2006b, December 6). Survey Changes in Construction. Presented at the AGC/DOT Technical Conference. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/AGC%20120506%20Survey%20Changes%20in%2 0Construction.pdf. Taylor, D. (2006, March 21). Machine Guidance for Highway Construction. Presented at the 2006 Construction Engineers Conference, North Carolina. Retrieved from http://www.ncdot.org/doh/Operations/dp_chief_eng/constructionunit/CEC2 006/pdfs/GSTaylor.pdf. The Integrated Construction Site. (2005). Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/const_bulletin_ic_site_08_05.pdf. Toines, R. (2006, November). Accugrade Production Study. Retrieved from http://www.bentleyuser.dk/Documents/Foreningen/Gl.%20arrangementer/A arsmode%202008/E7%20Machine%20Control%20II%20- %20Production%20Study.pdf. Vonderohe, A. (2007). Implementation of GPS Controlled Highway Construction Equipment. Final, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/Vonderohe2007Apr01.pdf. Vonderohe, A. (2008). Implementation of GPS Controlled Highway Construction Equipment Phase II. WisDOT Project ID: 0657-32-24 CMSC: 2006 WO 1.8. Final, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from http://jjhannon.com/NCHRP/Vonderohe2008Jan.pdf. Vonderohe, A., Brockman, K., Whited, G., & Zogg, J. (2008). DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFICATION FOR GPS-MACHINE-GUIDED CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY SUBGRADE. TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 60 Draft Survey Questionnaires The following are draft survey questions which were utilized in the workshop for feedback from the Expert Panel members. The surveys have since been edited to incorporate information gained at the workshop. NCHRP 10-77 Draft Survey Questions-CONTRACTORS Task (2). Prepare a detailed plan for the conduct of a worldwide survey of state transportation agencies, software vendors, equipment vendors, and contractors to determine what types of software and equipment are currently being used to implement AMG processes. The survey shall cover, at a minimum, current drafting and design software capabilities; types of electronic files that are submitted to contractors (e.g., dgn, dwg, dtm, tin, and LandXML), when these files are made available to the contractors (e.g., pre-bid or post award); and equipment capabilities and reliability. The survey shall also document the perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG processes. Upon approval of the plan by the NCHRP, conduct the survey. Task (5). Identify the current best practices and the challenges associated with the development of a project design model that is suitable for use by AMG technology. Identify the key factors that should be considered during the preparation of design models. Identify best practices for performing quality assurance and quality control on design models, by both the transportation agency and the contractor. I. Initial data collection (development of DTMs) II. Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D) III. Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example: providing offsets between pavements and subgrades, delineating areas where equipment operation is excluded, and correcting inconsistencies that are not problematic for design models but are problematic for AMG), IV. Model conversion to AMG format V. Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download) OBJECTIVE of Survey: (Public Works Construction) A. Extent of experience with AMG (projects/years) B. Who creates DTM for AMG? C. How much of DTM work is reverse engineering? D. What software is used to create DTM? E. What hardware is used for AMG? F. What file formats are required for DTM? G. What datasets/file formats are agencies sharing? H. How is training accomplished (DTM/Operators/Field)?

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 61 I. How is liability mitigated? J. Greatest risks with AMG? K. Greatest Benefits with AMG? L. How is accuracy/quality controlled? M. If Union or Open Shop, does AMG affect contract requirements with union? (SHOULD THIS SURVEY HAVE THE OPTION TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS? My opinion is yes) (SHOULD THIS SURVEY DISCLOSE RESULTS TO-DATE AFTER THE USER COMPLETES? Probably decided by NCHRP Oversight Panel, but can entice users to complete questionnaire) ____ 1. Please state the name of your company: (text box) 2. Please state the primary type of your company: a. Prime Contractor b. Sub Contractor c. Consultant 3. Please state the name of your functional unit: (text box) 4. Please state the name of your functional role: (text box) 5. What is the trade-labor position of your company (U.S Only)? a. Closed shop (union membership required) b. Agency shop (union membership optional-dues req) c. Merit Shop/Open Shop (union membership optional) 6. Does your company utilize Automated Machine Grading (AMG) in publics works projects? a. Yes b. No=>BRANCH to Thanks, Goodbye 7. Which agencies allow you to perform AMG? a. Text box 8. How many years has your company utilized AMG in both private and public works projects? a. Less than 2 years b. More than 2 years c. Less than 5 years d. More than 5 years 9. Approximately how many AMG projects does your company complete each year? a. Text box

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 62 10. Who creates Digital Terrain Models (DTM) to enable AMG for your company? a. In-house technician(s). b. 3rd-party consultant c. Owner/agency: capture w/text box d. Other: 11. What percentage of the DTMs created for your company are completely reversed engineered from paper plans and drawings? a. 100% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% d. 0-25% e. 0 12. If your owner-agency allows GPS Automatic Machine Grading and Staking technology on projects, how is quality control (tolerances) specified? a. Via existing Standard Specifications b. Via additional specifications in Supplemental Special Provisions, Special Provisions, or Interim Specification. c. Not Sure. d. Other 13. If your owner-agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, WHEN does the exchange occur? a. With the Bidding documents. b. With the Contract documents. c. After contract is executed and a pre-construction meeting has occurred. d. Other: (text box) 14. If Electronic Engineered Data (EED) is received from the owner , which of the following datasets are typically shared? (check all which apply) a. None. b. Slope stake notes c. Mass points and/or break lines d. Alignment e. Partial 3D design model (e.g. without intersection detail) f. Full 3D design model. g. 3D Surfaces h. Graphics. i. Storm and Sanitary. j. Other (text box) 15. What file formats are the shared datasets distributed by the agency? (array) Top=>.dgn-.tin-.ttm-.dwg-.landXML-.dxf-ascii(text)-other a. None. b. Slope stake notes c. Mass points and/or break lines

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 63 d. Alignment e. Partial 3D design model (e.g. without intersection detail) f. Full 3D design model. g. 3D Surfaces h. Graphics. i. Storm and Sanitary. 16. If you create your own DTM, which software application do you use? a. Terramodel b. XYZ c. Other 17. What equipment brand do you utilize for GPS Base Station, Radio, and Rover? (array) a. Leica b. Top-Con c. Trimble d. Other: (text box) 18. What equipment brand do you utilize on your grading equipment? a. Leica b. Top-Con c. Trimble d. Other: (text box) 19. When an agency shares EED with your company for AMG, do you share EED back (i.e., as-built)? a. Usually b. Rarely c. Never d. Other: (text box) 20. When an agency shares DTM models with your company, what medium is used for the exchange: (check all that apply) a. N/A b. The files are shared via a secure network. c. The files are shared via a non-secure network. d. The files are shared via floppy/CD media. e. The files are shared via DVD media. f. The files are shared via flash storage media. g. Other: (text box) 21. Who is primarily responsible for ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract documents? a. Contractor b. Consultant on subcontract to the contractor c. Agency d. Consultant on subcontract to the agency e. Other: (text box) 22. How are design changes handled after the original DTM model has been issued?

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 64 a. N/A b. A new model with corrections is issued to the contractor. c. The contractor is notified and is responsible for making the changes in its version of the model. d. Other (text box) 23. Has your company been involved in any ‘claims for equitable adjustment’ or arbitration associated with shared electronic design and/or DTMs? a. Yes b. No 24. In your opinion, the sharing of EED: a. Increases the likelihood of claims/change orders. b. Decreases the likelihood of claims/change orders. c. Has no effect on the likelihood of claims/change orders. d. No opinion. 25. How do your construction personnel perform QA/QC when Automated Machine Grading is in process? a. N/A b. Grade checking with GPS rover c. Grade checking with Total Station collector d. Grade checking with laser technology e. Other: (text box) 26. At what intervals do your construction personnel perform QA/QC when Automated Machine Grading is in process? a. N/A b. By Time period (weekly, daily, hourly) (array-flex labels) c. By Distance (station, feet, intersection) (array-flex labels) d. Other: text box(?) 27. How do your field personnel receive primary training for the required software? a. Our company trains internally. b. 3rd-party consultants.. c. The hardware/software vendors train as part of purchase agreement. d. N/A e. Other: (text box) 28. How do your field personnel receive primary training for the required hardware? a. Our company trains internally. b. 3rd-party consultants.. c. The hardware/software vendors train as part of purchase agreement. d. N/A e. Other: (text box) 29. If your company performs Automated Machine Grading on construction projects, please rate the following (array)( Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, No Opinion) a. Automated machine grading compresses the construction schedule.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 65 b. Automated machine grading exposes errors in design in sufficient time not to require re- work. c. Automated machine grading is more accurate than conventional methods. d. Receiving EED from owner-agency exposes them to increased liability. e. Sharing EED with contractors contributes to cooperation with the owner-agency. 30. In your opinion, rate the following factors as to their influence on the accuracy of DTMs: (array- flex label)(1=very important, 2, 3,4=not important) a. Number of original data points in DTM. b. File types of datasets shared. c. Number of data translations between software applications (iterations of imports/exports). d. DTM constructability review. 31. In your opinion, rate the following factors as to their influence on the accuracy of AMG: (array- flex label)(1=very important, 2, 3,4=not important) a. File size of DTM(s). b. DTM constructability review. c. Training/competency of model builder(s). d. Training/competency of field personnel (rovers-checkers). e. Training/competency of equipment operators. f. Training/competency of owner-agency inspectors. g. In field QA/QC program/procedures. h. Other: (text box) 32. If your company utilizes union labor, does AMG affect contract requirements with union? a. Yes b. No c. Will find out at next collective bargaining. d. N/A 33. In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors with AMG? (array-flex label)(1=highest risk, 2, 3,4=lowest risk) a. Lack of cooperation by agency inspectors b. High initial investment in equipment-lack of ROI data c. Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internal) d. Level of training required to implement (internal) e. Dependence upon 3rd-party consultants for DTM creation f. Other: (text box) 34. In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors with AMG? (array-flex label)(1=highest benefit, 2, 3,4=lowest benefit) a. Labor savings b. Project Schedule compression c. Avoidance of rework-re-grading d. Accuracy of grading (tolerances) e. Accuracy of Pay Item calculation f. As-built documentation

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 66 g. Other: (text box) 35. Is there interest in more complete data collection, such as capturing streams of machine position data along with [possibly] compaction data? [AKA, the connected job site?] a. Yes b. No c. Other: (text box) 36. Can we follow up with you via telephone? a. Yes-Name, phone number (text box) b. No.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 67 NCHRP 10-77 Draft Survey Questions-CONTRACTORS Task (2). Prepare a detailed plan for the conduct of a worldwide survey of state transportation agencies, software vendors, equipment vendors, and contractors to determine what types of software and equipment are currently being used to implement AMG processes. The survey shall cover, at a minimum, current drafting and design software capabilities; types of electronic files that are submitted to contractors (e.g., dgn, dwg, dtm, tin, and LandXML), when these files are made available to the contractors (e.g., pre-bid or post award); and equipment capabilities and reliability. The survey shall also document the perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG processes. Upon approval of the plan by the NCHRP, conduct the survey. Task (5). Identify the current best practices and the challenges associated with the development of a project design model that is suitable for use by AMG technology. Identify the key factors that should be considered during the preparation of design models. Identify best practices for performing quality assurance and quality control on design models, by both the transportation agency and the contractor. VI. Initial data collection (development of DTMs) VII. Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D) VIII. Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example: providing offsets between pavements and subgrades, delineating areas where equipment operation is excluded, and correcting inconsistencies that are not problematic for design models but are problematic for AMG), IX. Model conversion to AMG format X. Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download) OBJECTIVE of Survey: (Public Works Construction) N. Extent of experience with AMG (projects/years) O. Who creates DTM for AMG? P. How much of DTM work is reverse engineering? Q. What software is used to create DTM? R. What hardware is used for AMG? S. What file formats are required for DTM? T. What datasets/file formats are agencies sharing? U. How is training accomplished (DTM/Operators/Field)? V. How is liability mitigated? W. Greatest risks with AMG? X. Greatest Benefits with AMG? Y. How is accuracy/quality controlled? Z. If Union or Open Shop, does AMG affect contract requirements with union?

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 68 (SHOULD THIS SURVEY HAVE THE OPTION TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS? My opinion is yes) (SHOULD THIS SURVEY DISCLOSE RESULTS TO-DATE AFTER THE USER COMPLETES? Probably decided by NCHRP Oversight Panel, but can entice users to complete questionnaire) _____ 1. Please state the name of your company: (text box) 2. Please state the primary type of your company: a. Prime Contractor b. Sub Contractor c. Consultant 3. Please state the name of your functional unit: (text box) 4. Please state the name of your functional role: (text box) 5. What is the trade-labor position of your company (U.S Only)? a. Closed shop (union membership required) b. Agency shop (union membership optional-dues req) c. Merit Shop/Open Shop (union membership optional) 6. Does your company utilize Automated Machine Grading (AMG) in public works projects? a. Yes b. No=>BRANCH to Thanks, Goodbye 7. Which agencies allow you to perform AMG? a. Text box 8. How many years has your company utilized AMG in both private and public works projects? a. Less than 2 years b. More than 2 years c. Less than 5 years d. More than 5 years 9. Approximately how many AMG projects does your company complete each year? a. Text box 10. Who creates Digital Terrain Models (DTM) to enable AMG for your company? a. In-house technician(s). b. 3rd-party consultant c. Owner/agency: capture w/text box d. Other: 11. What percentage of the DTMs created for your company are completely reversed engineered from paper plans and drawings? a. 100% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% d. 0-25% e. 0

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 69 12. If your owner-agency allows GPS Automatic Machine Grading and Staking technology on projects, how is quality control (tolerances) specified? a. Via existing Standard Specifications b. Via additional specifications in Supplemental Special Provisions, Special Provisions, or Interim Specification. c. Not Sure. d. Other 13. If your owner-agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, WHEN does the exchange occur? a. With the Bidding documents. b. With the Contract documents. c. After contract is executed and a pre-construction meeting has occurred. d. Other: (text box) 14. If Electronic Engineered Data (EED) is received from the owner , which of the following datasets are typically shared? (check all which apply) a. None. b. Slope stake notes c. Mass points and/or break lines d. Alignment e. Partial 3D design model (e.g. without intersection detail) f. Full 3D design model. g. 3D Surfaces h. Graphics. i. Storm and Sanitary. j. Other (text box) 15. What file formats are the shared datasets distributed by the agency? (array) Top=>.dgn-.tin-.ttm-.dwg-.landXML-.dxf-ascii(text)-other a. None. b. Slope stake notes c. Mass points and/or break lines d. Alignment e. Partial 3D design model (e.g. without intersection detail) f. Full 3D design model. g. 3D Surfaces h. Graphics. i. Storm and Sanitary. 16. If you create your own DTM, which software application do you use? a. Terramodel b. XYZ c. Other 17. What equipment brand do you utilize for GPS Base Station, Radio, and Rover? (array) a. Leica b. Top-Con c. Trimble d. Other: (text box)

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 70 18. What equipment brand do you utilize on your grading equipment? a. Leica b. Top-Con c. Trimble d. Other: (text box) 19. When an agency shares EED with your company for AMG, do you share EED back (i.e., as-built)? a. Usually b. Rarely c. Never d. Other: (text box) 20. When an agency shares DTM models with your company, what medium is used for the exchange: (check all that apply) a. N/A b. The files are shared via a secure network. c. The files are shared via a non-secure network. d. The files are shared via floppy/CD media. e. The files are shared via DVD media. f. The files are shared via flash storage media. g. Other: (text box) 21. Who is primarily responsible for ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract documents? a. Contractor b. Consultant on subcontract to the contractor c. Agency d. Consultant on subcontract to the agency e. Other: (text box) 22. How are design changes handled after the original DTM model has been issued? a. N/A b. A new model with corrections is issued to the contractor. c. The contractor is notified and is responsible for making the changes in its version of the model. d. Other (text box) 23. Has your company been involved in any ‘claims for equitable adjustment’ or arbitration associated with shared electronic design and/or DTMs? a. Yes b. No 24. In your opinion, the sharing of EED: a. Increases the likelihood of claims/change orders. b. Decreases the likelihood of claims/change orders. c. Has no effect on the likelihood of claims/change orders. d. No opinion.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 71 25. How do your construction personnel perform QA/QC when Automated Machine Grading is in process? a. N/A b. Grade checking with GPS rover c. Grade checking with Total Station collector d. Grade checking with laser technology e. Other: (text box) 26. At what intervals do your construction personnel perform QA/QC when Automated Machine Grading is in process? a. N/A b. By Time period (weekly, daily, hourly) (array-flex labels) c. By Distance (station, feet, intersection) (array-flex labels) d. Other: text box(?) 27. How do your field personnel receive primary training for the required software? a. Our company trains internally. b. 3rd-party consultants.. c. The hardware/software vendors train as part of purchase agreement. d. N/A e. Other: (text box) 28. How do your field personnel receive primary training for the required hardware? a. Our company trains internally. b. 3rd-party consultants.. c. The hardware/software vendors train as part of purchase agreement. d. N/A e. Other: (text box) 29. If your company performs Automated Machine Grading on construction projects, please rate the following (array)( Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, No Opinion) a. Automated machine grading compresses the construction schedule. b. Automated machine grading exposes errors in design in sufficient time not to require re- work. c. Automated machine grading is more accurate than conventional methods. d. Receiving EED from owner-agency exposes them to increased liability. e. Sharing EED with contractors contributes to cooperation with the owner-agency. 30. In your opinion, rate the following factors as to their influence on the accuracy of DTMs: (array- flex label)(1=very important, 2, 3,4=not important) a. Number of original data points in DTM. b. File types of datasets shared. c. Number of data translations between software applications (iterations of imports/exports). d. DTM constructability review. 31. In your opinion, rate the following factors as to their influence on the accuracy of AMG: (array- flex label)(1=very important, 2, 3,4=not important)

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 72 a. File size of DTM(s). b. DTM constructability review. c. Training/competency of model builder(s). d. Training/competency of field personnel (rovers-checkers). e. Training/competency of equipment operators. f. Training/competency of owner-agency inspectors. g. In field QA/QC program/procedures. h. Other: (text box) 32. If your company utilizes union labor, does AMG affect contract requirements with union? a. Yes b. No c. Will find out at next collective bargaining. d. N/A 33. In your opinion, what are the greatest risks for contractors with AMG? (array-flex label)(1=highest risk, 2, 3,4=lowest risk) a. Lack of cooperation by agency inspectors b. High initial investment in equipment-lack of ROI data c. Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internal) d. Level of training required to implement (internal) e. Dependence upon 3rd-party consultants for DTM creation f. Other: (text box) 34. In your opinion, what are the greatest benefits for contractors with AMG? (array-flex label)(1=highest benefit, 2, 3,4=lowest benefit) a. Labor savings b. Project Schedule compression c. Avoidance of rework-re-grading d. Accuracy of grading (tolerances) e. Accuracy of Pay Item calculation f. As-built documentation g. Other: (text box) 35. Is there interest in more complete data collection, such as capturing streams of machine position data along with [possibly] compaction data? [AKA, the connected job site?] a. Yes b. No c. Other: (text box) 36. Can we follow up with you via telephone? a. Yes-Name, phone number (text box) b. No.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 73 NCHRP 10-77 Draft Survey Questions-PLANNING (AGENCY) Task (2). Prepare a detailed plan for the conduct of a worldwide survey of state transportation agencies, software vendors, equipment vendors, and contractors to determine what types of software and equipment are currently being used to implement AMG processes. The survey shall cover, at a minimum, current drafting and design software capabilities; types of electronic files that are submitted to contractors (e.g., dgn, dwg, dtm, tin, and LandXML), when these files are made available to the contractors (e.g., pre-bid or post award); and equipment capabilities and reliability. The survey shall also document the perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG processes. Upon approval of the plan by the NCHRP, conduct the survey. XI. Initial data collection (development of DTMs) XII. Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D) XIII. Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example: providing offsets between pavements and subgrades, delineating areas where equipment operation is excluded, and correcting inconsistencies that are not problematic for design models but are problematic for AMG), XIV. Model conversion to AMG format XV. Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download) OBJECTIVE of Survey: A. How prevalent is GPS utilized in agency surveying (initial)? B. How prevalent is GPS utilized in agency surveying (control layout)? C. What Networks are the surveyors using? D. How accurate do the surveyors perceive GPS networks to be vs. conventional? E. What equipment are the surveyors using? F. How accurate do the surveyors perceive GPS equipment to be? G. What datasets do the surveyors forward to the Design Functional Area? H. What formats are the datasets forwarded to the Design Functional Area? I. Does GPS surveying promote 3D Digital Terrain Modeling? 1. Functional Role/Job Title? 2. How would you describe most of your agency’s survey work the past few years? a. New construction routes b. Retrofit of existing routes c. Other A. How prevalent is GPS utilized in agency surveying (initial)? 3. Does your agency utilize GPS surveying in the planning function? a. No b. Yes-in some District offices. c. Yes-in all districts. d. Do not know.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 74 4. IF your agency utilizes GPS for initial surveying, which of the following data is collected utilizing GPS? a. Terrain surfaces b. Alignment geometry c. Cross-Sections d. Terrain features e. Structure locations f. Other 5. Which technology is most utilized in collection of topographic data? a. Conventional surveying (Total Stationing and staking) b. GPS c. Photogrammetric d. Other 6. GPS is utilized in out functional unit for: a. Positioning photogrammetric targets. b. Positioning section corners. c. alignments d. topographic features e. secondary control for design B. How prevalent is GPS utilized in agency surveying (control layout)? 7. Is GPS utilized when projects are control-staked for contractors? a. Always when signal available. b. Occasionally c. Never. 8. When projects are control-staked WITHOUT GPS for contractors (Centerline, Offsets, Grade Sheets), how many times (iterations) are the points interpolated from 2D paper plans? a. More than twice. b. More than 5 iterations. c. More than 10 iterations. d. Other 9. The design survey data used for project control is: a. digital/electronic b. interpolated c. other 10. Does your survey software merge horizontal and vertical alignment data for control-stakeout? a. yes b. no c. other C. What Networks are the surveyors using?

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 75 11. If your agency utilizes GPS for surveying, which of the following reference control technologies are utilized? a. Real-Time Kinematics (RTK) b. High Accuracy Reference Networks (HARN) c. National Spatial Reference System/Continuously Operating Reference Stations (NSRS/CORS) d. Other 12. Does your agency perform real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS Surveying? e. Yes f. No 13. Does your agency have Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS Surveying Specifications? g. Yes h. No D. How accurate do the surveyors perceive GPS networks to be vs. conventional? 14. In your opinion, How accurate is the initial topographic data collected? a. Very accurate (range) b. Mildly Accurate (range) c. Low Accuracy (range) d. Not accurate (range) 15. How old typically is the topographic data used for control? a. Old surveys (range) b. Photogrammetry (range) c. Other 16. Rank your perception of accuracy between the following technologies for the collection of topographic data: a. Conventional surveying (Total Stationing and staking) b. GPS c. Photogrammetric d. Other E. What equipment are the surveyors using? 17. Does you agency mix equipment from various GPS survey manufacturers? a. yes b. no 18. What vendors supply your GPS survey equip? a. Trimble b. TopCon c. Leica d. Other F. How accurate do the surveyors perceive GPS equipment to be? 19. How is CALIBRATION of survey equipment...?

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 76 a. Rotation b. Scaling c. Translation d. Coordinates of the azimuth 20. What level of accuracy does your GPS equipment typically obtain Horizontally? a. 2cm or less b. greater than 2cm c. other 21. What level of accuracy does your GPS equipment typically obtain Vertically? a. 2cm or less b. greater than 2cm c. other G. What datasets do the surveyors forward to the Design Functional Area? 22. What Software is used in used in collecting and forwarding data from the previous question? a. Trimble GPSBase b. ? c. ? d. Other 23. Which of the following datasets are forwarded to the Design function by your agency’s Planning function in digital format? a. All in a DTM b. Surface Layer Elevations c. Selected Terrain Features d. Right-of-Way boundaries e. Center-Line Control f. Transition Control g. Structure Locations h. Other 24. When project horizontal control is forwarded to your agency’s Design Function, which of the following is included (check all that apply)? i. HARN/CORS monument locations. j. Horizontal datum, Sate Plain Coordinates k. Adjustment factors for grid to localized system l. Grid bearing and distances from monuments m. Vertical datum for elevations n. Points used to establish baseline o. Coordinates and graphic location of azimuth pairs p. Localized coordinates for the beginning and ending stations q. Horizontal and vertical data r. Localized Coordinates s. Horix and vert adjustment data t. Geoid model definition

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 77 u. Adjustment and error summary v. Control point information w. Observations used to produce a site localization x. Written descriptions/text files H. What formats are the datasets forwarded to the Design Functional Area? 25. Which FILE FORMATS of the following datasets are forwarded to the Design function by your agency’s Planning function in digital format? (Expand to multiple questions for each dataset or matrix) a. All in a DTM (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other) b. Surface Layer Elevations (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other) c. Selected Terrain Features (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other) d. Right-of-Way boundaries (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other) e. Center-Line Control (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other) f. Transition Control (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other) g. Structure Locations (ASCII, LandXML, Terramodel, other) h. Other I. Does GPS surveying promote 3D Digital Terrain Modeling? 26. Does your agency create 3-D Digital Terrain Models (DTM) from surveying in the planning function? a. No b. Yes-in some District offices. c. Yes-in all districts. d. Do not know. 27. When survey data is sent to your agency’s Design Function, please choose any additional information beyond typical which is included: a. Project Horizontal Control Sheets including HARN/CORS references. b. GPS Calibration Equipment c. Baseline Information Uncategorized: 28. If your agency utilizes GPS surveying, which technology is the most intensive for training new/existing personnel? a. Conventional Surveying (Total Stations/staking) b. GPS 29. If your agency utilizes GPS surveying, which tasks have shown the most efficiency in labor (survey man-hours) savings? a. None b. Crew-trips to site are lessened. c. Conventional survey crews are more productive. d. Reduction in data collection time of instruments. e. Weather delays are lessened.

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 78 f. Other. 30. Does your agency have standardized procedures for the collection of GPS survey data? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure 31. In your opinion, compared to conventional surveying, what are the advantages of using GPS technology? a. The overall process is faster b. GPS requires less labor c. GPS requires less training of personnel d. GPS is more accurate e. Other

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 79 NCHRP 10-77 Draft Survey Questions-PROCUREMENT/CONSTRUCTION (AGENCY) Task (2). Prepare a detailed plan for the conduct of a worldwide survey of state transportation agencies, software vendors, equipment vendors, and contractors to determine what types of software and equipment are currently being used to implement AMG processes. The survey shall cover, at a minimum, current drafting and design software capabilities; types of electronic files that are submitted to contractors (e.g., dgn, dwg, dtm, tin, and LandXML), when these files are made available to the contractors (e.g., pre-bid or post award); and equipment capabilities and reliability. The survey shall also document the perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG processes. Upon approval of the plan by the NCHRP, conduct the survey. Task (5). Identify the current best practices and the challenges associated with the development of a project design model that is suitable for use by AMG technology. Identify the key factors that should be considered during the preparation of design models. Identify best practices for performing quality assurance and quality control on design models, by both the transportation agency and the contractor. XVI. Initial data collection (development of DTMs) XVII. Model development for design purposes (preferably 3D) XVIII. Model enhancement for construction purposes (for example: providing offsets between pavements and subgrades, delineating areas where equipment operation is excluded, and correcting inconsistencies that are not problematic for design models but are problematic for AMG), XIX. Model conversion to AMG format XX. Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download) OBJECTIVE of Survey: A. What datasets are received from Design Function? B. Is agency sharing Electronic Engineering Data (EED) with contractors? Perception-Should agency share EED with contractors? C. When is agency sharing EED with contractors? Perception-when should agency share EED with contractors? D. Should costs be absorbed or Pay Item? E. Does agency have AMG specifications, directives, special provisions? F. How is liability for design errors in EED and version change handled? Perception-how should liability be handled? G. Who is responsible for creation of machine readable DTM? Perception-who should be responsible for creating DTM? H. Are inspectors using GPS/Total Station/Laser technology? I. Are inspectors using DTMs? J. Do DTMs make earthwork pay item calculations more efficient/accurate? K. Is training available for contractors/agency? L. Does a typical contract require the contractor to provide agency personnel with the means to electronically check grades?

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 80 M. Is there interest in more complete data collection, such as capturing streams of machine position data along with [possibly] compaction data? [AKA, the connected job site?] (SHOULD THIS SURVEY HAVE THE OPTION TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS? My opinion is yes) (SHOULD THIS SURVEY DISCLOSE RESULTS TO-DATE AFTER THE USER COMPLETES? Probably decided by NCHRP Oversight Panel, but can entice users to complete questionnaire) _____ 1. Please state the name of your agency: (text box) 2. Please state the name of your functional unit: (text box) 3. Please state the name of your functional role: (text box) 4. Does your agency share Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors for Automated Machine Grading? a. Yes (QUESTIONS BRANCH FROM HERE) b. No (QUESTIONS BRANCH FROM HERE) IF NO 5. In your opinion, which areas should a guidance specification in public works agencies address? a. GPS Machine Guidance b. Construction GPS Subgrade Staking c. Both GPS Machine Guidance and Construction Subgrade Staking d. Procedures for sharing EED. e. Not Sure f. Other 6. Regarding contractor GPS Automated Machine Guidance , how should public works agencies specify this technology for construction projects? a. Mandate for all projects b. Mandate for specific projects c. Allow on all projects d. Allow on specific projects e. Not sure f. Other 7. Regarding contractor GPS Subgrade Staking, how should public works agencies specify this technology for construction projects? a. Mandate for all projects b. Mandate for specific projects c. Allow on all projects d. Allow on specific projects e. Not sure

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 81 f. Other 8. A Digital Terrain Model(DTM) is required to perform GPS Machine Guidance and GPS Subgrade Staking. Some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. In your opinion, who should be primarily responsible for creation of the DTM? a. Contractor b. Consultant on subcontract to the contractor c. Agency d. Consultant on subcontract to the agency e. Other 9. A Digital Terrain Model(DTM) is required to perform GPS Machine Guidance and GPS Subgrade Staking. Some of this data is generated agencies in the design process. In your opinion, who should be primarily responsible for ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract documents? a. Contractor b. Consultant on subcontract to the contractor c. Agency d. Consultant on subcontract to the agency e. Other 10. A Digital Terrain Model(DTM) is required to perform GPS Machine Guidance and GPS Subgrade Staking. Some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. In your opinion, should public works agencies share this data with contractors? a. Yes b. No c. Not Sure d. Other 11. If the contractor is allowed to utilize GPS Automated Machine Grading and/or Subgrade Staking by utilization of its own Digital Terrain Model (DTM), should the contractor share this data with public works agencies? a. Yes b. No c. Not Sure d. Other 12. If public works agencies allow GPS Automatic Machine Grading and Staking technology on projects, how in your opinion should quality control (tolerances) be specified? a. Via existing Standard Specifications b. Via additional specifications in Supplemental Special Provisions, Special Provisions, or Interim Specification. c. Not Sure. d. Other 13. Some agencies with GPS AMG/Staking specifications are requiring contractors to share equipment and even train agency personnel during the course of the project. If public works

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 82 agencies allows GPS Automatic Machine Grading and Staking technology on projects, should a separate Bid Item be included in the Proposal/Contract? a. Yes b. No c. Not Sure 14. If public works agencies elect to share Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors in order to efficiently deliver projects and project quality, how should the agency's liability (for errors in the DTM) be limited? a. Not an issue if there is no sharing. b. Liability Waiver included as part of the contract documents. c. Not sure. d. Other. 15. If public works agencies elect to share Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, WHEN, in your opinion, should the exchange occur? a. With the Bidding documents. b. With the Contract documents. c. After contract is executed and a pre-construction meeting has occurred. d. Other: (text box) IF YES 16. Which areas does your agency's AMG specification address? a. GPS Machine Guidance b. Construction GPS Subgrade Staking c. Both GPS Machine Guidance and Construction Subgrade Staking d. Procedures for sharing EED. e. Not Sure f. Other 17. Regarding contractor GPS Automated Machine Guidance , how does your agency's AMG specification address this technology for construction projects? a. Mandate for all projects b. Mandate for specific projects c. Allow on all projects d. Allow on specific projects e. Not sure f. Other 18. Regarding contractor GPS Subgrade Staking, how does your agency's AMG specification address this technology for construction projects? a. Mandate for all projects b. Mandate for specific projects c. Allow on all projects d. Allow on specific projects e. Not sure

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 83 f. Other 19. A Digital Terrain Model(DTM) is required to perform GPS Machine Guidance and GPS Subgrade Staking. Some of this data is generated by public works agencies in the design process. Does your agency share this data with contractors? a. Yes b. No c. Not Sure d. Other 20. If the contractor is allowed to utilize GPS Automated Machine Grading and/or Subgrade Staking by utilization of its own Digital Terrain Model (DTM), does the contractor share this data back to your agency? a. Yes b. No c. Not Sure d. Other 21. If your agency allows GPS Automatic Machine Grading and Staking technology on projects, how is quality control (tolerances) specified? a. Via existing Standard Specifications b. Via additional specifications in Supplemental Special Provisions, Special Provisions, or Interim Specification. c. Not Sure. d. Other 22. Some agencies with GPS AMG/Staking specifications are requiring contractors to share equipment and even train agency personnel during the course of the project. Does your agency provide a separate Bid Item for AMG or GPS Staking in the Proposal/Contract? a. Yes-AMG b. Yes-GPS Staking c. No d. Not Sure 23. If your agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors in order to efficiently deliver projects and project quality, how is the agency's liability (for errors in the EED) limited? a. Not an issue if there is no sharing. b. Liability Waiver included as part of the contract documents. c. Not sure. d. Other. 24. If your agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, how does your agency provide the 'Engineer's Stamp' of approval on digital models or datasets. a. Only the paper drawings are stamped and they govern. b. We have no method of approving the digital data. c. Electronic signatures. d. Other: (text box)

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 84 25. If your agency shares Electronic Engineered Data (EED) with contractors, WHEN does the exchange occur? a. With the Bidding documents. b. With the Contract documents. c. After contract is executed and a pre-construction meeting has occurred. d. Other: (text box) 26. If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, what datasets are exchanged? (check all which apply): a. None. b. Slope stake notes c. Mass points and/or break lines derived from the 2D plans d. Alignment e. Partial 3D design model (e.g. without intersection detail) f. Full 3D design model. g. 3D Surfaces h. Graphics. i. Storm and Sanitary. j. Electronic contract documents. k. Other (text box) 27. If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, what file formats are exchanged? (check all which apply): a. .dgn b. .tin c. .ttm d. .dwg e. .landXML f. .dxf g. Other: (text box) 28. If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, what medium is used for the exchange: (check all that apply) a. N/A b. The files are shared via a secure network. c. The files are shared via a non-secure network. d. The files are shared via floppy/CD media. e. The files are shared via DVD media. f. The files are shared via flash storage media. g. Other: (text box) 29. A Digital Terrain Model(DTM) is required to perform GPS Machine Guidance and GPS Subgrade Staking. Some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. Who is primarily responsible for creation of the DTM? a. Contractor b. Consultant on subcontract to the contractor c. Agency d. Consultant on subcontract to the agency

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 85 e. Other 30. A Digital Terrain Model(DTM) is required to perform GPS Machine Guidance and GPS Subgrade Staking. Some of this data is generated by agencies in the design process. Who is primarily responsible for ensuring the DTM conforms to the contract documents? a. Contractor b. Consultant on subcontract to the contractor c. Agency d. Consultant on subcontract to the agency e. Other 31. If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, are the contractors involved in the QA/QC process? a. N/A b. No-contractors must make any corrections to the DTM at their own risk. c. Yes-if contractors discover errors, we have a process of incorporating the corrections back into the design/DTM model. d. Other: (text box) 32. If your agency shares DTM models with contractors, how are design changes handled after the original model has been issued? a. N/A b. A new model with corrections is issued to the contractor. c. The contractor is notified and is responsible for making the changes in its version of the model. d. Other (text box) 33. Has your agency been involved in any ‘claims for equitable adjustment’ or arbitration associated with shared electronic design and/or DTMs? a. Yes b. No BRANCH BACK 34. Do your field inspectors have use of GPS rovers? a. Yes, on most projects. b. Yes, on selected projects. c. No. d. Other. 35. Do your field inspectors have use of any of the following? a. Total Station data collectors b. Laser positioning equipment c. Handheld computers (for use in field) d. Tablet computers (for use in field) e. Other: (text box)

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 86 36. Does a typical contract involving AMG require the contractor to provide agency personnel with the means to electronically check grades? a. Yes b. No c. Other: (text box) 37. Do your field inspectors have access to 3D Terrain Models (DTMs)? a. Yes, on most projects. b. Yes, on selected projects. c. No. d. Other. 38. How do your construction inspectors perform QA/QC when Automated Machine Grading is in process? a. N/A b. Grade checking with GPS rover c. Grade checking with Total Station collector d. Grade checking with laser technology e. Other: (text box) 39. If your construction inspectors utilize 3D Terrain Models (DTMs) in the field, do you have any data or feedback to support the following statements? a. Errors and omissions are more easily discovered. b. Pay item calculations are more efficient. c. Pay item calculations are more accurate. d. N/A e. Other: (text box) 40. If your construction inspectors utilize 3D Terrain Models (DTMs) in the field, how do they receive training for the required software and hardware? a. Our agency trains internally. b. The contractor trains the inspectors as part of contract/bid item. c. The hardware/software vendors train the inspectors as part of purchase agreement. d. N/A e. Other: (text box) 41. If your agency allows Automated Machine Grading on construction projects, please rate the following (array)( Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, No Opinion) a. Automated machine grading compresses the construction schedule. b. Automated machine grading exposes errors in design in sufficient time not to require re- work. c. Automated machine grading is more accurate than conventional methods. d. Sharing EED with contractors exposes the agency to liability. e. Sharing EED with contractors contributes to cooperation with the contractor. 42. Is there interest in more complete data collection, such as capturing streams of machine position data along with [possibly] compaction data? [AKA, the connected job site?] a. Yes

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 87 b. No c. Other: (text box) 43. Can we follow up with you via telephone? a. Yes-Name, phone number (text box) b. No. Welcome help with further questions addressing: • ‘Model conversion to QA/QC format (usually rover download)' • when these files are made available to the contractors (e.g., pre-bid or post award); • equipment capabilities and reliability. • perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG processes. • Identify the current best practices and the challenges associated with the development of a project design model that is suitable for use by AMG technology • key factors that should be considered during the preparation of design models. • Identify best practices for performing quality assurance and quality control on design models, by both the transportation agency and the contractor

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 88 Selected Pictures NCHRP 10-77 Automated Machine Guidance Workshop Altoona, Iowa October 1-2, 2009 Picture 1: Due to the excellent relationship between the Research Team and industry, Ziegler graciously provided their facility to host the workshop Picture 2: Cat legacy equipment in the entrance of Ziegler facility

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 89 Picture 3: Welcome Session. The participants were debriefed regarding the project objective and workshop dynamic Picture 4: Breakout discussion with small active group sharing opportunities and challenges regarding Automatic Machine Guidance moderated by a member of the research team

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 90 Picture 5: Representative of a breakout group presents to all members of the workshop a summary of the discussion that was produced by the small group Picture 6: Representative of a breakout answering questions regarding the summary results

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 91 Picture 7: Participants of the workshop walking around the meeting room voting for the most important opportunities and challenges of Automatic Machine Guidance Picture 8: Resulting raw votes received for the most important opportunities and challenges of one group

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 92 Picture 9: Resulting raw votes received for the most important challenges summarized by another team Picture 10: Processed votes of opportunities and challenges for Automatic Machine Guidance presented to all participants of the Workshop (Day 2)

NCHRP 10-77 October 1–2, 2009—Workshop Report 93 Picture 11: AMG Workshop participants