Civil Integrated Management (CIM) for Departments of Transportation, Volume 1: Guidebook (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

49 C H A P T E R 5 The research team employed a variety of strategies to collect the required information for this research—an extensive literature review, two nationwide surveys, and case studies. This section presents key findings from the data collection efforts that could act as supplemental resources for CIM implementation. 5.1 Literature Review—Summary The adoption of information modeling has had a significant increase worldwide in the areas of building, infrastructure, and construction management. Much of the literature refers to BIM (building information modeling), which has been widely deployed on construction projects of all types. This report differentiates CIM as referring specifically to technologies and processes for infrastructure. In other reports, the terms BIM and CIM have been used interchangeably. Some- times the term “BIM for infrastructure” is used. The literature review below refers to BIM when reporting broad findings, and CIM or BIM for infrastructure when reporting on applications specific to the infrastructure sector. The percentage of companies using BIM jumped from 17% in 2007 to 71% in 2012 in North America. Some of the interesting findings from the Dodge Data & Analytics’ 2012 report on the “business value of BIM for infrastructure” are presented below. (This survey involved 466 respondents across various infrastructure sectors in the United States.) • Of all users, 67% reported a positive ROI for BIM use on infrastructure projects. Respondents were asked to estimate ROI in seven broad categories: negative, break-even, less than 10%, 10 to 25%, 26 to 50%, 51 to 100%, and over 100%. • Of current users, 79% expected to be using BIM on more than 25% of their infrastructure projects by 2013. • Top benefits included reduced conflicts and changes (58%), improved project quality (48%), and lower project risk and better predictability of project outcomes (60%). The areas reported to require assistance in implementation include software interoperability, workforce education/training, and legal and contractual issues. The road transportation sec- tor has seen a significant increase in CIM adoption from 2009 to 2012. The acceptance of the model-driven approach for design and construction reiterates the need for all stakeholders to devise a tailored approach and establish guidelines in their respective agencies to facilitate seamless transition to digital project delivery and asset management (Dodge Data & Analytics 2012). “BIM, which began primarily as a design tool then evolved to a must-have for leading contractors, is now rapidly gaining traction with owners around the world” (Dodge Data & Analytics 2014). Supplemental Resources

50 Civil Integrated Management (CIM) for Departments of Transportation With specific reference to the transportation projects executed by state agencies (DOTs), a recent literature review revealed the following statistics on CIM usage levels (FHWA 2013). • States reported varying levels of 3D model usage (some are advanced while some model the basic roadway prism). • Twenty-three agencies reportedly have already transitioned to 3D modeling. • Seven agencies were using only traditional 2D plans and profile sections. • Fifteen agencies stated that they were transitioning to 3D modeling. • Agencies reported using n-D modeling software from several vendors. • Slightly more than one-half of the agencies reported using some type of LiDAR technology (aerial, static, or mobile). The research process also considered other references such as academic journals, relevant BIM standards, research reports, and open articles, among others. The data collection efforts were also expanded outside the highway infrastructure area to capture some of the recent developments in other sectors and in other countries. Following are some important observations. • In the United States, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the General Services Administration have been implementing BIM and other modern technologies on public infrastructure proj- ects. They have also been actively involved in devising a suite of BIM guidelines and standards (Dodge Data & Analytics 2012). The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) developed an implementation guide, and began implementing BIM on all projects that exceed a $10 million starting design beginning in 2009. The specifications are vendor-neutral and apply to design and construction by the architects, engineers, other consultants, and contractors hired for those projects by the VA (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 2010). • In the United Kingdom (UK), implementation of BIM in the multi-billion-dollar Crossrail project has proven quite beneficial in several ways. It offers valuable insights about deploying digital project delivery and asset management on a large-scale transportation project. The project presents significant opportunities to understand BIM implementation at both the agency and project levels (Munsi 2012). • Another major initiative from the UK is the government’s decision to make BIM compulsory on all public projects by 2016. The regulation mandates a shift to Level 2 utilization mark for BIM. Special interest groups such as OPEN BIM and BIM for Infrastructure (UK) have been instituted to study the benefits, challenges, and risks associated with promoting digital project delivery for infrastructure projects (Government Construction Client Group 2011). • In Singapore, the Building Construction Authority has made BIM-based electronic submission mandatory on projects for regulatory approval. While this requirement is being implemented in phases (depending on the size of the project), the system had been tested on many projects and it has proven successful (Seng 2012). • France has also taken a significant initiative through a large 10-year, multi-billion-euro project involving the National Institute of Geographic and Forestry Information and major utility companies to map its entire underground utility infrastructure in 3D to an accuracy of 16 in. (Zeiss 2014). Performance indicators for measuring BIM benefits can be subjective. Nevertheless, researchers and practitioners have proposed several performance metrics that agencies can consider using for quantifying CIM benefits. The various metrics that fall under the investment category include the following: • Architecture and engineering costs: The ratio of BIM engineering costs to the cost of total scope awarded in engineering. • 3D background model creator costs: The ratio of the BIM cost of 3D background model creation to the total design cost. • Contractor costs: The ratio of BIM contractor costs to the cost of construction.

Supplemental Resources 51 These ratios isolate the percentage of work accomplished using BIM. Other suggested metrics include reduction in the number of RFIs, change orders, and schedule savings (Barlish and Sullivan 2012). Stanford University’s Center for Integrated Facility Engineering published a technical report that formulates and validates a scorecard for Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) for con- struction projects. It ascertains the maturity level of VDC implementation of a project across 4 areas, 10 divisions, and 56 measures. Developed with an adaptive scoring system based on evolving industry norms, it meets the goal of making the scorecard quantifiable, evolving, holistic, and practical. The research team collected data from two countries in North America, five in Europe, four in Asia, and one in Oceania. It covers a total of 108 projects from 11 facility types (Kam et al. 2013). 5.2 Current State of Practice—Survey Results (Key Points) The literature review revealed that no project or agency has systematically implemented CIM in its entirety. Moreover, agencies have different levels of expertise in dealing with several CIM technologies. A nationwide survey of DOT practices was conducted to comprehend the variety of tools actually being deployed on their projects. Moreover, these surveys were designed to understand the drivers and the constraints pertinent to the advancement of these technologies for projects. Two questionnaires were prepared to address this objective—an agency survey and a project survey. The key inferences from the survey results are described below. • The main issue for integrating CIM is in recognizing the convergence of analog to digital to analog data across phases/interface points. Agencies need to work on eliminating barriers to digital transfer of information across interfaces. • Of the respondents surveyed, 76% reported using electronic information management sys- tems for document management and controls on their projects. • Although contract provisions are not instituted by all the agencies, 71% of respondents believe that adding clear contract provisions on technology implementation and associated attributes would help channelize the efforts toward effective CIM deployment. • Many agencies have incorporated 3D modeling at varying levels based on the project char- acteristics; 41% of the agencies reported using 3D tools for visualization. However, in all the agencies surveyed, 2D plan sets continue to dominate in contract documents over 3D models. • Modeling in 4D and 5D has been used predominantly on those projects with complex con- struction sequencing (such as major detours for bridges) to facilitate visualization and com- munication among stakeholders. Of the 38 responses for this area, 12% and 6% reported to be utilizing 4D and 5D respectively, showing that they remain emerging tools. • Many transportation agencies have invested in collecting LiDAR information on the facilities being built and have been employing it for facility management (such as recording bridge clearances and inventory of assets). • Participants agreed that AMG using 3D design and IC has proven benefits. However, non- standardization of the associated design processes and initial investment costs of these techno- logies has been cited as a major reason for their lower utilization level. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents reported deploying AMG technology (albeit not including finished surface string- less concrete/asphalt construction) and around 45% of the agencies reported investing in IC. • Respondents also have varied perceptions on ROIs for these technologies. They cited the non- availability of a uniform methodology to guide the investment decisions as the primary concern. However, there was also consensus on the point that such tools can be subjective and specific to a particular agency’s business or its project environment.

52 Civil Integrated Management (CIM) for Departments of Transportation • Training programs are important and have to be considered as a process, rather than one-time events. While some of the respondents understood CIM as process oriented, some still consid- ered CIM as a finite set of technologies. The importance of standardizing electronic deliver- ables and specifications to streamline the information exchange process was also highlighted. • At the project level, respondents had varied perceptions of improvements in specific perfor- mance areas. While some believed that the CIM technologies benefitted projects in terms of better cost (especially avoidance costs through clash detection) and schedule performance, others perceived maximum advantages in the areas of safety and a reduction in the number of RFIs and construction inspections (QA/QC checks). • Interestingly, 70% of the projects surveyed had not performed an internal ROI analysis for the technologies used on projects. However, many agencies have undertaken initiatives to study the requirements of training, hardware, and software that they use on projects and document the investments being made to improve the processes. INFERENCES FOR CIM TOOL CATEGORIES Cumulative Usage Level of CIM Technologies • Applications under 2D category are dominant in all the phases (in line with traditional practice, contractual issues) • Design and construction phases recorded maximum usage of CIM (transition due to innovation/better tools for processes involved) • O&M phase reported lowest overall usage of CIM technologies (especially 3D/nD)—area for future improvement Usage of 2D and 3D/nD Technologies • 4D and 5D modeling appear to be in emerging areas of application (likely to increase in future) • CIM for visualization is gaining significance, more agencies in favor of it • 3D CADD (implementation of CAD/DGN electronic data) had the highest usage Usage of Surveying Technologies • CIM for utility coordination and IC recorded low usage levels (likely to increase in future) • GIS and GPS recorded highest usage levels (as per expectations since they have numerous applications) • LiDAR recorded significant usage levels (need to investigate application areas) • AMG shows encouraging trend (necessary to study AMG application for individual activities) Usage of Data Management Technologies • Data connectivity (other than cellular towers) recorded the lowest usage (need to study further as RTN/CORS GPS networks are more common) • Material management systems and digital signatures seem to be emerging applications • Electronic updating and archiving of plans recorded the highest usage (may relate to actual base/master files or 2D plans sheets)

Supplemental Resources 53 5.3 Case Studies—Lessons Learned The research team decided to balance the data sources taken from the case study projects (those for which the pertinent agencies responded to the project survey) and interviews with CIM subject matter experts. The chosen candidates are listed below: Projects 1. Rotary upgrade to modern roundabout (CTDOT) 2. Relocation of KY7 in Elliott County (KYTC) 3. Fore River bridge replacement project (MassDOT) 4. Kiewit case study on I-70 project (CDOT) 5. Parksville Bypass bridge project (NYSDOT) 6. I-96 Livonia construction project (MDOT) 7. Crossrail Ltd. (UK) Subject Matter Experts 1. Lance Parve (CIM Design-Construction Engineer, SE Freeways, WisDOT) 2. Ron Singh (Chief of Surveys/Geometronics Manager, ODOT) Some of the case studies identified through the secondary resources are as follows: WisDOT’s SE Freeway project, TxDOT’s Dallas-Fort Worth Connector Project, AASHTO’s UPlan, and Michigan DOT’s “e-construction” initiative. Although these present significant learning oppor- tunities for CIM, separate case studies were not conducted because they overlap in scope with other ongoing TRB and NCHRP research efforts on CIM, identified in Appendix A (in particular NCHRP Project 20-68A, Scan 13-02: “Advances in Civil Integrated Management”). The salient characteristics of the projects are enumerated in Table 5.1. CIM implementation was analyzed in-depth for each of the case studies. Several recommen- dations were elucidated from the projects. Table 5.2 presents the key inferences. No. Project Agency Project Delivery Method Approx. Project Cost ($M) Actual/ estimated completion dates* 1 Rotary upgrade to modern roundabout CTDOT D-B-B 1.45 Apr. 2016 2 Kiewit case study on I-70 project CDOT D-B-B 18 Sep. 2013 3 Relocation of KY7 in Elliott County KYTC D-B-B 26.5 June 2016 4 Kosciuszko Bridge Project NYSDOT D-B 555 Nov. 2017 5 I-96 Livonia construction project MDOT D-B-B 124.1 Jan. 2015 6 Fore River bridge replacement project MassDOT D-B 300 Sep. 2016 7 Crossrail Ltd. (UK) Crossrail Various 20,000 2019 Note: D-B-B refers to the design-bid-build method and D-B denotes the design-build method. * The estimated completion dates were obtained at the time of the case study and may have changed. Table 5.1. Characteristics of the case study projects.

54 Civil Integrated Management (CIM) for Departments of Transportation Agency/relevant CIM practices examined Lessons learned CTDOT case study/ 3D design for roadway elements, electronic engineered data (EED) for deliverables Standardizing EED deliverables for 3D design is a significant step in ensuring seamless transfer of project information across all stakeholders. 3D design can be performed in a cost-effective manner for smaller projects (project characteristics and availability of good quality survey data are the driving factors). KYTC case study/ 3D design pilot project, AMG, unique “special note” for priority to 3D model It is beneficial to use continuous breaklines and close attention should be paid to design, detailing, and modeling complex elements of roadways (such as intersection, gore areas, lane additions/drops, and widening for guardrail). For AMG, it is important to specify explicitly in contracts the specific construction processes using AMG (such as grading). Leadership buy-in and expert guidance are major factors. MassDOT case study/ CIM for steel bridge, 3D modeling for structures 3D modeling can be very useful for tasks such as Environmental Impact Assessment, alternative analysis during preliminary design, and clash detection and clearance analysis, among others. Effective change management (especially during schematic-detailed design) is critical for the successful integration of model-based design with project development processes. CDOT case study/3D CAD modeling and visualization Performing pilot projects, workforce-training programs, collaboration with other agencies, and contractor innovation/participation can help promote successful application of CIM technologies. NYSDOT case study/ Surveying specs, 4D/5D modeling, project controls Updating survey specifications to suit “automated stakeout” and allowing contractor to provide equipment for QA/QC can facilitate agency-wide AMG adoption (625 specs). 5D modeling can be used to actively monitor progress, calculate quantities (earthwork), and control payment to contractors. MDOT I-96 case study/ e-construction initiative, traffic simulation, a guide for data exchange for managing utilities The agency now has implemented tools to support electronic document management with digital signatures for approvals, reviews, archiving, and change management. Visualization tools (3D and traffic simulation tools) proved effective for Public Information. Key points for the agencies include the following: Core competencies that a DOT needs to retain, staff, how many personnel, and their qualification and experience backgrounds. Sight set on future and the tools to use; aim for enterprise-wide data management. Solid foundations for geospatially identified data. Crossrail case study Contracts, execution plans, and standards are the three main documents that can operationalize the widespread deployment of several CIM processes. Life-cycle integration of CIM involves considering issues from the project conception to completion and handover. Besides training and investments in IT infrastructure, CIM implementation requires a cultural shift in the organization’s business functions. Government legislation can also help accelerate and motivate the deployment of CIM by all project stakeholders. Table 5.2. Summary of lessons learned from case studies.