3 D Modeling For Utility Space Planning Utility
- Slides: 32
3 D Modeling For Utility Space Planning & Utility Clash Analysis on Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway 2019
The Challenge… ▪ Vetting 22 Miles of Freeway ROW For Any & All Utility Related Conflicts ▪ Easement & ROW Constraints ▪ Prior Rights Vs. Non-Prior Rights ▪ Always Considering Public & Worker Safety ▪ Working Within Allotted Budgets ▪ Maintaining Effective Documentation Throughout All Phases of The Process ▪ Sticking to Strict Time Parameters ▪ Effectively Managing Large Quantities of Spatial Data ▪ Being Cognizant of Scope Growth & ‘Betterments’ ▪ Constantly Assigning & Evaluating Priorities ▪ Eliminating or Minimizing Utility Outages to Not Impact Business and Residential Customers ▪ Being Mindful How Work Will be Phased & Constructed ▪ Mitigating Any Possible Construction Delays ▪ Coordinating a Multi-Disciplinary Approval Process ▪ Multi-Agency Permitting ▪ Working with Private & Public Stakeholders ▪ Unforeseen Subsurface Conditions and Unforeseen Utilities ▪ Inter-Organization Coordination ▪ Design Changes & Ever-Changing Construction Prioritizations
SOME BACKGROUND Loop 202 SMF Utility Related Stats ▪ 4 Construction/Design Segments ▪ 384 Individual Utilities Identified Within Corridor ▪ 131 Utility Relocations Avoided ▪ 253 Utility Relocations Performed or Underway ▪ Over 2, 000 Utility Conflicts Identified & Resolved
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SOME BACKGROUND ASCE 38 -02 - Quality Levels- C to A. . . ▪ All Utilities Within Corridor Were Assigned ASCE 38 -02 Quality Level C Designation Initially Quality Level C Quality Level B Quality Level A ▪ Quality Level C, Information Obtained By Surveying And Plotting Visible Above-ground Utility Features (Bluestake, Manholes, Valves, Etc. ) ▪ Quality Level A, Precise Horizontal And Vertical Location Of Utilities Obtained By The Actual Exposure And Subsequent Measurement Of The Exposed Utility How We Got There
SOME BACKGROUND What Defined A Utility Conflict Anyway. . . Subsurface Degree of Separation Matrix
SOME BACKGROUND Different Conflict Types Hard Conflicts vs. Soft Conflicts
SOME BACKGROUND SMF SUE Pothole Process- Field To Finish ▪ Provided Surveyed Layout Of Pothole Locations To Field Crews With Assigned Unique ID’s ▪ Potholes Were Completed ▪ Measure Down Taken And The Pothole Crew Sets A Hard BM, Takes Notes Of The Measure Down Dimension From The Benchmark And Benchmark Offset From Center Of Utility Is Also Noted ▪ Pictures Taken ▪ Benchmark Is Surveyed ▪ Pothole Reports Provided ▪ CAD & GIS File Workups Were Done With The Data
SOME BACKGROUND SMF SUE Potholing- Using Compressed Air Click C 202 P Logo To Play Embedded Video
CLASH IDENTIFICATION METHODS
THE METHODS Conflict Analysis Methods- 2. 5 D Spreadsheet Method ▪ 2. 5 D Conflict Identification And Analysis Method Involved Identifying All Possible Utility Crossing Conflicts Within A CAD File And Designating Each With Individual COGO Points With Unique Identifiers For Future Referencing ▪ A Spreadsheet Was Then Used To Log The Crossing Conflict Parameters Such As Location Within Corridor, Existing Surface Elevation, Proposed Surface Elevations, Crossing TOP And Invert Elevations, Separation Requirements, Spreadsheet Then Highlighted Whether Or Not The Crossing Passed Or Failed The Crossing Analysis.
THE METHODS 2. 5 D Analysis Method- The Spreadsheet
THE METHODS Conflict Analysis Methods- 3 D Space Planning Model ▪ 3 D Conflict Identification And Analysis Method Involved Using A Variety Of Different Information Sources To Correctly Represent A 3 D Makeup Of The Utility That Is Correctly Geospatially Located For Maximum Accuracy ▪ Information sources included 3 D SUE data, 2 D CAD files, GIS Shapefile And As-Built Plan and Profile Information
THE METHODS A Tour Around The 3 D Subsurface Model Click C 202 P Logo To Play Embedded Video
PROCESS
THE PROCESS The Conflict Identification Process. . . ▪ Utility Conflict Identification Process 1. Conflict Checks Performed • Initial Completed With 2. 5 D Process • Final Completed With 3 D Process 2. SUE Potholes Determined & Performed 3. SUE Data Analyzed 4. Conflict Resolution Proposed 5. Cross Check & Issuance of Design Mitigation for Conflict
THE PROCESS Conflict Check Performed On (60%) Corridor (2. 5 D Process) ▪ Initial Round Of Utility Conflict Locations Throughout The Corridor Was Completed On 60% Initial Corridor Design By The Design Teams ▪ Process Of Identifying Conflicts @ This Stage Was Performed Predominantly By Identifying 2 D Crossing Conflicts
THE PROCESS SUE Potholes Completed &▪ SUE Analysis Performed Pothole Data Provided To Design Engineers As KMZ Mapping With SUE Data Attributes Attached This Was vs. Traditional Paper Reports ▪ 3 D CAD Reference File Were Created For A 2 D/3 D Reference Of Pothole Locations Attribute Data
THE PROCESS SUE Data Analysis Tools- Representing The Data KMZ Overlays Click C 202 P Logo To Play Embedded Video
THE PROCESS SUE Data Analysis Tools- Representing The SUE Data 3 D CAD Click C 202 P Logo To Play Embedded Video
THE PROCESS SUE Data Analysis Workup And Conflict Details Logged ▪ If The Pothole Results Indicate That The Required Clearances Will Be Provided- Not Further Action Was Required Click C 202 P Logo To Play Embedded Video ▪ If The Pothole Results Indicated That The Required Clearance Can Not Be Achieved- The Conflict Was Assigned An ID, Location Was Logged And Conflict Details And Information Was Tracked
THE PROCESS Conflict Resolution… Now We Have To Resolve Them ▪ Conflicts Were Presented Weekly To All Stakeholders During The Dreaded Weekly Conflict Resolution Meetings ▪ These Meetings Allowed For All Project Stakeholders To In One Room To Make Decisions Regarding The Resolution Of Subsurface Clearance Issues And Allowed For Resolution Concepts To Be Vetted Quickly For Feasibility
THE PROCESS Conflict Resolution…▪ Resolutions The Follow Up To All Utility Conflicts Were Agreed Upon By All Project Stakeholders Prior To Being Finalized ▪ Outcome 1 - ADOT Corridor Design Changes Occurred To Mitigate/Eliminate The Conflict With The Utility ▪ Outcome 2 - A Utility Reroute Was Required ▪ If A Utility Retoute Was Required To Mitigate The Conflict, All Necessary ADOT Corridor Design CAD Files Were Presented To The Utility Company (In Their Desired Format) And A Running Line Of The Relocation Was Suggested
THE PROCESS Conflict Resolution… Final Steps ▪ Proposed Utility Conflict Resolution Design Plans Were Reviewed By Developer And Design Teams For Conformance To Original Mitigation Method ▪ Cross Checked For Possible Inadvertent Conflicts Created By Reroute ▪ Proposed Design CAD File Uploaded To ADOT ‘New Utility’ Basefile’ For Future Reference Into The Corridor Design File Warehouse System (Projectwise) For Future Design Referencing
THE PROCESS 3 D Modeling Workflow Using In. Roads SS 2 ▪ The Utility 3 D Modeling Analysis Process Completed Using Microstation And Inroads SS 2 ▪ Basis Of Model- 2 D Utility Linework ▪ Invert Modeling With Inroad SDB’s ▪ Why. SDB Modeling? - Goal Was To Do The Least Amount Of Transformations Possible Between The Source Design Data And The Design Files Being Used For Corridor Design ▪ More Advantages- Active In. Roads Profile And Cross Section Data Frames- Allows Us To Display Crossing Pipes In Future Design Profiles & Cross Sections ▪ End Result- 3 D Model That Is Both Visual, But Also Capable Of Producing A Functional End Product
THE PROCESS Subsurface 3 D Modeling Workflow- In. Roads SS 2 ▪ For More Specific Details On Modeling Workflow Feel Free To Send Me A Email
THE PROCESS 3 D Utility Modeling Advantages ▪ Functional End Product That Can Be Used For Conflict Identification And Utility Space Planning And Field Applications ▪ Crossing Conflict Analysis Can Be Performed Using Live Design Profiles and Cross Sections ▪ Ability To Conduct “What If” Scenarios While Brainstorming Resolutions ▪ Capable of Digesting Large Spatial Data Sets And Representing Them Visually ▪ Can Assist With As-Built/Record Drawing Assembly ▪ Ability to Apply Different Utility Clearance ‘Constraints’ As Needed ▪ Uses In The Field Including Visualizing Current Geolocation Within The Model Simply By Using A Phone Or Tablet, Can Be Loaded Into Construction Machine Control To Help Ease Inadvertent Utility Strikes During Excavation
THE PROCESS 3 D Utility Modeling Disadvantages ▪ Data Continuity & Interoperability- A Standard Single File Format Does Not Exist ▪ Complexity of Model Assembly ▪ Garbage In Garbage Out
THE FUTURE
THE FUTURE 3 D Utility Modeling- The Future Is Parametric Click C 202 P Logo To Play Embedded Video
Questions? Contact Information Matt Bombace Matt. Bombace@C 202 P. com Utility Group Modeler/ Post Design Analyst Connect 202 Partners, LLC. Fluor Corp- Infrastructure Group
- Erickson nursing theory
- Relational vs dimensional data modeling
- Ordinal utility
- Relation between marginal utility and total utility
- Vector space modeling
- Generic process model in software engineering
- Incremental deployment
- Generic process framework
- Evolutionary software process models
- Kontinuitetshantering
- Typiska novell drag
- Nationell inriktning för artificiell intelligens
- Ekologiskt fotavtryck
- Varför kallas perioden 1918-1939 för mellankrigstiden
- En lathund för arbete med kontinuitetshantering
- Särskild löneskatt för pensionskostnader
- Personlig tidbok för yrkesförare
- Anatomi organ reproduksi
- Vad är densitet
- Datorkunskap för nybörjare
- Stig kerman
- Att skriva en debattartikel
- Magnetsjukhus
- Nyckelkompetenser för livslångt lärande
- Påbyggnader för flakfordon
- Arkimedes princip formel
- Offentlig förvaltning
- Bo bergman jag fryser om dina händer
- Presentera för publik crossboss
- Jiddisch
- Vem räknas som jude
- Klassificeringsstruktur för kommunala verksamheter
- Mjälthilus