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.
6 C H A P T E R 2 A literature review was conducted to analyze the methods in which the STAs and other engi- neering and construction firms conduct as-built operations. Not much academic literature has put the focus on as-built processes for highway construction projects; therefore, the literature review effort mainly focused on STAsâ published manuals. Information of interest included the entity responsible for as-built development, the methods used to capture and record as-built information, the platforms used to establish as-built plans, the information recorded on as-built plans, the accuracy and usefulness of as-built plans, the format and location in which as-built plans are stored, and the use of as-built plans after they are approved. As-Built Practices in State Transportation Agencies A web review of all 50 STAs was conducted to summarize the state of the practice regard- ing as-built procedures for each STA. Forty-two STAs had publicly available documented as-built related practices and requirements in their manuals or specifications. The final synthe- sis included as-built information from 17 STA specifications, 28 construction manuals, seven design manuals, and eight other manuals and guides found on 38 STA websites. Figure 1 depicts which online publication contained descriptions of the as-built processes for each of the 38 STAs. The data summarized in the following table are based on publicly available STA guidelines (accessed between December 2017 and February 2018), and may not necessarily describe current practices (i.e., it is possible that current practice at some STAs is not consistent with a published as-built process). For example, it is unlikely that STAs are still archiving as-built information on microfiche. Table 1 summarizes each STAâs as-built practices and lists the processes used to record as-built information for all 33 STAs in which this information was provided in their publicly available manuals. The entity that develops as-builts for STAs was grouped into one of the following categories: in-house completed as-builts, in-house or design consultantâcompleted as-builts, contractor- completed as-builts, or in-house or contractor-completed as-builts. Thirty-five state manuals identified the entity responsible for developing their as-builts. The categorical breakdown was as follows: 23 STA manuals have in-house employees creating as-builts, seven have in-house personnel or design consultants creating as-builts, three have contractors creating as-builts, and two STAs list in-house personnel or the contractor creating as-builts. Results are displayed in Figure 2. While only five STA manuals assign the contractor as the lead for as-built development, 19 manuals have the contractor developing some type of as-built drawings even though they are not identified as the party responsible for as-built development. Most of these additional Review of State DOT Literature on the As-Built Process
Review of State DOT Literature on the As-Built Process 7 Figure 1. STA manual detailing as-built practices. STA Entity Responsible for As-Built Development As-Built Development Process Format of Stored As- Builts Storage Location of Completed As- Builts AK Project Engineer Updated by hand and either copied to Mylar or used to redraft original drawings. Hard-copy prints AZ Construction Administrator and As- Built Designer One of three ways: (1) updated by hand and scanned to PDF, (2) updated electronically, or (3) updated by hand and transcribed electronically using MicroStation or Adobe. PDF Repository of Online Archived Documents (ROAD) CA Resident Engineer and the District Design Unit or a Consultant Full-sized drawings updated by hand or by a field computer-assisted drafting (CAD) system, then transferred to original CAD files by design unit or consultants. TIFF file and microfilm Document Retrieval System CO Project Engineer Copy of original plans revised using MicroStation, Redline Software, or similar software. Hard-copy prints and electronic Electronic copies are retained by the resident engineer and hard copies are distributed. CT Chief Inspector and/or Designer District management decides how as-builts are developed and by whom. PDF ProjectWise DE Resident Engineer/Project Supervisor Updated by hand with a red pencil. These plans are used to update original construction plans. Hard-copy prints FL Project Personnel and the District Finals Estimate Office or Consultant Updated electronically; project personnel mark changes in red, while the overviewer makes comments in green. PDF Electronic Document Management System Table 1. STA as-built practices. (continued on next page)
8 Development and Use of As-Built Plans by State Departments of Transportation STA Entity Responsible for As-Built Development As-Built Development Process Format of Stored As- Builts Storage Location of Completed As- Builts LA Project Engineer Updated by hand with red pen or pencil. Hard-copy prints ME Electronic E-Plans archive on Maine DOT intranet page MD Project Engineer Updated by hand in green. May be scanned if all groups agree. Hard-copy prints or electronic if approved MI Resident/Delivery Engineer Updated by hand with black ink or in CAD. PDF ProjectWise MN Project Engineer Updated by hand in ink. Microfilm MS Project Engineer Half-sized plans are updated with red ink. Hard-copy prints MO Resident Engineer Need to be updated using MicroStation. If MicroStation is not used, black ink or Mylar pencils must be used. CD MT Hard-copy prints or electronic Montana DOT Central Office if not available electronically NE Consultant or Project Manager Full-sized plans are updated with black ink. Half-sized copies are made for districts. Microfilm NV Construction Field Updated by hand with blue ink Hard-copy Hard-copy prints Crew and scanned. prints and electronic are stored in the district and headquarter offices. Bridge project as-builts are stored in Central Records. GA Project Personnel under the supervision of the Construction Manager Updated by hand in red and scanned. Electronic ProjectWise HI Contractor Updated by hand; changes are made with a red pencil and Hard-copy prints notes are made with a blue pencil. ID Resident Engineer or Contractor Plans need to be updated using CAD if CAD was used to prepare the original project plans. PDF File360 Image Database IL Resident Engineer Updated by hand. Microfilm Microfilm Unit IN District Office Hard-copy prints or microfilm Appropriate district office IA Project Engineer Full-sized plans updated by hand or electronic plans updated using Spicer Imagination Software. Hard-copy prints or electronic Records management for hard-copy prints or Electronic Record Management System for electronic plans KS Field Engineer and Bureau Chief of Road Design Updated by hand with black ink and used to update the original tracings. Hard-copy prints District office files KY Section Engineer Updated by hand. Microfilm Department of Library and Archives Table 1. (Continued).
Review of State DOT Literature on the As-Built Process 9 UT Contractor Updated by hand in red and scanned or used to modify the original CAD files. Electronic ProjectWise VT Resident Engineer and Finals Room Supervisor or Their Designee Updated by hand in red ink and scanned or used to modify the original CAD files. Hard-copy prints and CAD or TIFF files Digital Print Room VA Inspector Updated by hand and used to develop CAD files. CAD file Central Office Structure and Bridge File Room WA Project Engineer Full-sized plans updated in red ink. PDF Oracle Content Management System WI Project Leader Updated in red using Adobe Acrobat Professional or PDF DOTView Image Drive equivalent Adobe software. WY As-built summaries must be included in as-built plans. Utility as-builts must go to the district maintenance technician. NJ Resident Engineer and Designer Updated by hand with red pencil, then transferred to project Mylars. Mylars Document Control NM Contractor or Contractorâs Personnel Full-sized plans updated with black ink. Electronic and hard- copy prints if electronic survey data are provided. If not, just hard-copy prints. NY Regional Construction Engineer or Designee and Regional Construction Group Updated by hand and used to develop final as-builts in CAD. PDF ProjectWise ND Project Engineer Updated by hand or electronically with changes made in blue. Microfilm OR Project Manager Updated by hand in red then scanned. PDF FileNet PA Department or Consultant PDF Electronic Document Management System SC Resident Construction Engineer or Contractor Updated by hand or in CAD in red. Hard-copy prints or electronic Plans Library STA Entity Responsible for As-Built Development As-Built Development Process Format of Stored As- Builts Storage Location of Completed As- Builts Table 1. (Continued).
10 Development and Use of As-Built Plans by State Departments of Transportation contractor-created as-builts are for specialty items such as electrical work, irrigation systems, or water and sewer systems. However, Colorado and Connecticut have the contractor develop complete-project as-built drawings to assist the responsible party in completing the official as-builts. Table 2 lists as-builts required to be completed by contractors for corresponding STAs. While as-built plans have been the method used to document changes during construction projects over several decades, the processes and methods used to capture as-built information are continuously changing as new technology emerges. Recently, LiDAR, information model- ing, and GPS technologies have changed the way the transportation industry collects data and develops plans, making them more accurate and detailed. While some construction firms and companies are utilizing these technologies for as-built development according to published manuals, most STAs are not. It is possible that some STAs started using these technologies after the manuals were last updated online. Thirty-three STAs provided information on the method STA Contractor Created As-Builts AL Utilities AK Specialty items such as electric and structures AZ Survey information CA Irrigation systems, prestressed concrete structures, and electrical wiring diagrams CO All changes and deviations CT All changes and deviations FL Intelligent transportation systems (ITS), signals, conduits, and lighting GA Water and sewer facilities IL Electrical work IN Permanent earth-retention systems and wiring diagrams KS Survey information MS Roadway lighting systems and centerline elevations NH Inductive loops NJ Water, sewer, gas, highway lighting systems, ITS, fiber optic cables, and traffic signal systems NC Utilities and buried electrical circuits for roadway lighting systems OR Irrigation systems VA Topographic survey information WA Corrected shop drawings, schematic circuit diagrams, or other drawings necessary to help prepare final as-builts WV Drilled caisson as-builts, as-built utility surveys, and as-built shop drawings Table 2. Contractor created as-builts. N=23 N=7 N=3 N=2 0 5 10 15 20 25 In House In house or Design Consultant Contractor In house or Contractor Figure 2. Entity responsible for as-built development for STAs.
Review of State DOT Literature on the As-Built Process 11 N=5 N=7 N=15 N=5 N=5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Microfilm Hard-Copy Prints Electronic Multiple Formats Required Varying Format Options Figure 4. Format of stored as-builts for STAs. N=21 N=8 N=4 0 5 10 15 20 25 Hand-Drawn Hand-Drawn or Electronically Electronically Figure 3. Method used to record as-built information for STAs. used to record as-built information (Figure 3). According to publicly available STA guidelines, 21 STAs still require the initial set of as-built plans to be developed by hand. Several STAs then scan or copy these initial as-builts to electronic files such as PDF or CAD (computer-assisted drafting). Eight STAs allow as-built to be developed manually or electronically, and only four STAs require as-builts to be developed electronically from the beginning. Results are displayed in Figure 3. The format in which as-builts are stored for various STAs was also examined. Thirty-seven states documented how their agency stores completed as-builts. The formats were categorized in one of the following: microfilm, hard-copy prints, or electronically stored plans. The categorical break- down was as follows: five STAs store as-builts as microfilms, seven store as-builts as hard copies, 15 store as-builts electronically, five require more than one form of as-builts to be stored, and five provide options for as-built storage. A visual representation of the results can be found in Figure 4. Ten STAs that store as-built plans electronically require they be stored in PDF format. The location in which as-built plans are stored relates to the format in which they are stored. The majority of the STAs that are storing as-built plans electronically are storing them in electronic
12 Development and Use of As-Built Plans by State Departments of Transportation document management systems (EDMSs), while storage locations for the other formats vary by STA. As-built storage formatting and location for STAs can be found in Table 1. In order for as-builts to be useful beyond their creation, it is imperative to identify informa- tion about the project that will be needed by operators, maintenance crews, and others in the future. To accomplish this, it is ideal that individuals or entities who will maintain the facility or infrastructure have a say in what will be included in the as-built plans (Whyte et al. 2016). Several STAs mention in their manuals and specifications what information should be recorded on their as-built drawings. Common required revisions to be recorded on as-built plans throughout STAs include the following: â¢ Changes in horizontal and vertical alignment; â¢ Grade revisions; â¢ Corrections and adjustments to stationing; â¢ Changes in typical sections; â¢ Utility locations, depths, elevations, offsets, and clearances; â¢ Changes to right-of-way lines, distances, and markers; â¢ Changes to drainage structures such as length, flow line elevation, station or offset dimen- sions, sizes, thicknesses, and types of inlets and manholes; â¢ Location and elevation of monuments, benchmarks, freeway fences, and gates; â¢ Locations and dimensions of all structures; and â¢ Foundation elevations and subsurface structural details. As-Built Practices in Comparison with Private Industry The information provided in STA construction manuals, design manuals, and specifications gave insight into how as-builts should be developed and how and where they should be stored. However, there is little to no mention of the handover of the as-built plans from their develop- ers to their potential users or how they are used after completion. The process of developing and storing as-builts according to guidelines, and accessing them several years down the road when needed, may not be an issue with hand-drawn as-builts developed according to agency standards. However, with changing technologies, there is a need for proper communication and handover techniques between as-built developers and end users. A review of private-industry as-built practices offered insight on the importance of communication between as-built devel- opers and end users during the as-built development process. It also provided information on the potential for 3-D technologies, such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) and LiDAR, in the as-built development process (Randall 2011). No STA listed the use of these technologies in its publicly available manuals and guidelines. As technology improves and as-builts become digital and more detailed, the handover process will also be more detailed. The transfer of as-built data will require âattention to sequence, tim- ing, passing technique and communication within a time-constrained window of opportunityâ (Whyte et al. 2016). Improving the transfer of as-built information will enable owners, opera- tors, maintenance workers, and any others who will need the as-built information in the future to better manage and maintain the infrastructure. This can require meetings with all current and future project teams to discuss the handover procedure and what data each group needs at the end of construction. The handover phase must be planned and practiced before it arrives (Whyte et al. 2016). Utah is an example of an STA that practices this handover method. Contractors and engineers engage in a preconstruction conference in which the engineer clearly defines what he or she expects on the as-builts for the particular project. Without proper and planned transfer, information is likely to be lost or misinterpreted.
Review of State DOT Literature on the As-Built Process 13 The timing of the handover is arguably the most important aspect of the handover procedure. If the handover process is not given adequate time, mistakes are more likely to be made. Ideally, the physical act of handing over as-built data can only occur once the task or project is complete and all information has been updated. However, the buildup for handover needs to begin during the design phase. This involves continuously updating plans and digital data to the as-built con- dition throughout the project. If changes to the project are not recorded until the end, as-builts are often rushed and mistakes are likely to be made (Whyte et al. 2016). Fourteen STAs require as-built plans to be maintained throughout the project duration. Another major challenge in data handover is the accuracy and completeness of the data. In the past, as-built plan development has been a manual process that is error prone (Abdel-Monem and Hegazy 2013). As-builts often consist of hundreds of plan drawings with unknown accuracy (Randall 2011). However, it is essential that as-built data be accurate and of high quality for them to be trusted and used in decision making. Because of the potential for inaccuracies, data and as-builts information are often not used even when available (Whyte et al. 2010). For example, an Olympic Delivery Authority grounds work and services manager said, when asked about trust in data for built infrastructure, âUnless youâre really on top of it, once the data is no longer trusted people stop using it and then it just is a waste, completely falls awayâ (Whyte et al. 2016). Few STAs mentioned required accuracy of as-built plans, and most had vague descriptions (e.g., âThe as-built plans should be carefully and accurately preparedâ). The Connecticut Department of Transportation requires field personnel to receive training from engineers before they can develop electronic as-builts to ensure accuracy, high quality, and consistency. Technology advancements will assist with the improvement of quality and accuracy of as-builts in the future. BIM is a 3-D representation of physical and functional features of a facility. As of 2011, nearly half of the architecture, engineering, and construction sector was using BIM. It has been noted to have several benefits over traditional 2-D designs, such as in improving life-cycle management of buildings. Laser scanning technologies perform thousands of measurements per second of the 3-D coordinates of a designated area. The 3-D surface models created by these scans are much more accurate than traditional surveys. By combining BIM with laser scanning technologies, as-built conditions can be accurately captured and fully represented in the 3-D model, and updated as the project progresses. At project completion, the project site needs to be scanned and transferred to the as-built BIM file to assist with facility management (Randall 2011). Another potential technology to be used for as-built development is Interactive Voice Response (IVR). A case example was performed to analyze the technology and suggest next steps to be taken in order to implement the technology in a larger dimension (Abdel-Monem and Hegazy 2013). The IVR system collected data about the project from supervisors on a daily basis or more frequently if initiated by the supervisor. The system calls the supervisors at the end of the workday and asks if any work has been completed. Based on the response of the supervisor, the system asks follow-up questions, such as the percentage of the expected daily work that was completed, and allows the supervisor to leave comments. The system will then send an e-mail to the project e-mail account with the information recorded during the phone call. Finally, a reporting tool will log all communication and update the schedule. For this case example, Ifbyphone, Microsoft Office, and Microsoft Project were used as the IVR system, e-mail tool, and scheduling tool, respectively. Individuals who participated in the case example stated the system was easy to use, had high sound quality, and was practical. However, they also mentioned the potential issues of the impact of construction noise on sound quality and there being less time to think about answers when being asked questions over the phone. This case example used the IVR system to track project progress; however, next steps of the project included adding as-built information, such as changes to materials and dimensions to the IVR system (Abdel- Monem and Hegazy 2013).