1 / 32

3D Modeling For Utility Space Planning & Utility Clash Analysis on Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway

This project involves vetting 22 miles of freeway right-of-way for utility conflicts, ensuring public and worker safety, staying within budgets and time parameters, minimizing utility outages, coordinating with stakeholders, managing large spatial data, and mitigating construction delays.

tnowicki
Download Presentation

3D Modeling For Utility Space Planning & Utility Clash Analysis on Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 3D Modeling For Utility SpacePlanning & Utility Clash Analysis onLoop 202 South Mountain Freeway 2019

  2. The Challenge… • Vetting 22 Miles of Freeway ROW For Any & All Utility Related Conflicts • Always Considering Public & Worker Safety • Working Within Allotted Budgets • Sticking to Strict Time Parameters • Being Cognizant of Scope Growth & ‘Betterments’ • Eliminating or Minimizing Utility Outages to Not Impact Business and Residential Customers • Coordinating a Multi-Disciplinary Approval Process • Working with Private & Public Stakeholders • Inter-Organization Coordination • Easement & ROW Constraints • Prior Rights Vs. Non-Prior Rights • Maintaining Effective Documentation Throughout All Phases of The Process • Effectively Managing Large Quantities of Spatial Data • Constantly Assigning & Evaluating Priorities • Being Mindful How Work Will be Phased & Constructed • Mitigating Any Possible Construction Delays • Multi-Agency Permitting • Unforeseen Subsurface Conditions and Unforeseen Utilities • Design Changes & Ever-Changing Construction Prioritizations

  3. 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

  4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

  5. SOME BACKGROUND ASCE 38-02- Quality Levels- C to A ... How We Got There • All Utilities Within Corridor Were Assigned ASCE 38-02 Quality Level C Designation Initially • 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 Quality Level C Quality Level B Quality Level A

  6. SOME BACKGROUND Subsurface Degree of Separation Matrix What Defined A Utility Conflict Anyway...

  7. SOME BACKGROUND Hard Conflicts vs. Soft Conflicts Different Conflict Types

  8. 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

  9. SOME BACKGROUND SMF SUE Potholing- Using Compressed Air Click C202P Logo To Play Embedded Video

  10. CLASH IDENTIFICATION METHODS

  11. THE METHODS Conflict Analysis Methods- 2.5D Spreadsheet Method • 2.5D 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.

  12. THE METHODS 2.5D Analysis Method- The Spreadsheet

  13. THE METHODS Conflict Analysis Methods- 3D Space Planning Model • 3D Conflict Identification And Analysis Method Involved Using A Variety Of Different Information Sources To Correctly Represent A 3D Makeup Of The Utility That Is Correctly Geospatially Located For Maximum Accuracy • Information sources included 3D SUE data, 2D CAD files, GIS Shapefile And As-Built Plan and Profile Information

  14. THE METHODS A Tour Around The 3D Subsurface Model Click C202P Logo To Play Embedded Video

  15. PROCESS

  16. THE PROCESS The Conflict Identification Process... • Utility Conflict Identification Process • Conflict Checks Performed • Initial Completed With 2.5D Process • Final Completed With 3D Process • SUE Potholes Determined & Performed • SUE Data Analyzed • Conflict Resolution Proposed • Cross Check & Issuance of Design Mitigation for Conflict

  17. THE PROCESS Conflict Check Performed On (60%) Corridor (2.5D 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 2D Crossing Conflicts

  18. THE PROCESS SUE Potholes Completed & Analysis Performed • SUE Pothole Data Provided To Design Engineers As KMZ Mapping With SUE Data Attributes Attached This Was vs. Traditional Paper Reports • 3D CAD Reference File Were Created For A 2D/3D Reference Of Pothole Locations Attribute Data

  19. THE PROCESS SUE Data Analysis Tools- Representing The Data KMZ Overlays Click C202P Logo To Play Embedded Video

  20. THE PROCESS SUE Data Analysis Tools- Representing The SUE Data 3D CAD Click C202P Logo To Play Embedded Video

  21. 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 • 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 Click C202P Logo To Play Embedded Video

  22. 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

  23. THE PROCESS Conflict Resolution… The Follow Up • Resolutions 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

  24. 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

  25. THE PROCESS 3D Modeling Workflow Using InRoads SS2 • The Utility 3D Modeling Analysis Process Completed Using Microstation And Inroads SS2 • Basis Of Model- 2D 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 InRoads Profile And Cross Section Data Frames- Allows Us To Display Crossing Pipes In Future Design Profiles & Cross Sections • End Result- 3D Model That Is Both Visual, But Also Capable Of Producing A Functional End Product

  26. THE PROCESS Subsurface 3D Modeling Workflow- InRoads SS2 • For More Specific Details On Modeling Workflow Feel Free To Send Me A Email

  27. THE PROCESS 3D 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

  28. THE PROCESS 3D Utility Modeling Disadvantages • Data Continuity & Interoperability- A Standard Single File Format Does Not Exist • Complexity of Model Assembly • Garbage In Garbage Out

  29. THE FUTURE

  30. THE FUTURE 3D Utility Modeling- The Future Is Parametric Click C202P Logo To Play Embedded Video

  31. Questions? Contact Information Matt Bombace Matt.Bombace@C202P.com Utility Group Modeler/ Post Design Analyst Connect 202 Partners, LLC. Fluor Corp- Infrastructure Group

More Related