Emerging Technologies for Construction Delivery (2019)

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.

23 This chapter presents current practices reported by state DOTs in a national survey in the use of the following technologies for delivering highway construction projects: 1. Visualization and modeling technologies; 2. Interconnected technologies for construction vehicles, equipment, and tools; 3. Safety technologies; 4. Instrumentation and sensors technologies; and 5. UASs. A web-based survey questionnaire, developed from the literature review, collected current information on these five technologies. Voting members of the AASHTO Committee on Construction—which includes representatives from 50 state DOTs—received the question- naire,. The purpose of the survey was to collect information on the current practices in using technologies for construction delivery as reported by state DOTs. In addition, the survey helped to identify state DOTs for further investigation as case examples, which are detailed in Chapter 4. Appendix A includes the survey questionnaire. The findings presented in this chapter are a result of the responses of 41 state DOTs—an 82% response rate—that completed the survey. Table 5 presents these 41 state DOTs and notes their responses to the survey question on whether they are implementing (I) or are considering implementing (C) any of the five technologies examined. Thirty-five (85%) have implemented at least two of these five technologies. Nine state DOTs (Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, and West Virginia) reported that they are implementing all five technologies. Figure 11 presents the number and percentage of state DOTs that are already implement- ing, considering implementation, or are not implementing innovative technologies for highway construction delivery. Twenty-six of the 41 state DOTs implemented visualization and model- ing technologies (63%); 18 implemented interconnected technologies (44%); 26 implemented safety technologies (63%); 31 implemented instrumentation and sensors technologies (76%); and 24 implemented UASs (59%) for highway construction delivery. Visualization and Modeling Of the 41 state DOT respondents, 26 are implementing, nine are considering implementa- tion, and six are not implementing visualization and modeling technologies. Figure 12 shows the reported implementation of visualization and modeling technologies for construction delivery. Of the 35 state DOTs that responded either that they have implemented or that they are con- sidering implementation of visualization and modeling technologies, 22 (63%) responded that they implement LiDAR while eight (23%) are considering LiDAR implementation. Twenty-one C H A P T E R 3 Current Practices Using Technologies for Construction Delivery

24 Emerging Technologies for Construction Delivery State DOT Visualization and Modeling Interconnected Technologies Safety Technologies Instrumentation and Sensors UASs Alabama I I C I I Alaska C I I Arizona I I California C I C C Colorado I I I I I Connecticut I I I C Delaware I I I I I Georgia C C I I C Idaho C C Illinois C I I Iowa I I I C Kansas C Kentucky I C I I C Louisiana Maine I I C I I Massachusetts I I I I I Michigan C I I I C Minnesota I I I I I Missouri I I I I I Montana C C I I Nebraska I I Nevada C C I I New Hampshire I I I I New York I C I I C North Dakota C C C C Ohio I I I I I Oklahoma I I I I Oregon I I I I Pennsylvania I I I I I Rhode Island I C I South Carolina I C I I South Dakota I I I I Tennessee I I I I Texas I C C C Utah I I I I I Vermont I C I Virginia C I I I C Washington I I I I West Virginia I I I I I Wisconsin I I C I C Wyoming I I C I I Table 5. Reported technology implementation for highway construction. (60%) implemented and five (14%) are considering implementation of BIM. Only four or fewer state DOTs (11% or less) reported the use of virtual reality, augmented reality, virtual prototyp- ing, wearable visualization devices, and 3-D printing. Table 6 summarizes the use of visualization and modeling technologies for each of the responding state DOTs for tasks commonly performed during construction delivery. Specifi- cally, of the 26 state DOT responses indicating that the DOTs implemented visualization and modeling technologies, 21 state DOTs (81%) reported using these technologies for constructa- bility reviews. Then, 10 state DOTs (38%) indicated using visualization and modeling technolo- gies for as-built plans and models and 10 DOTs for simulating bridge construction, while nine state DOTs (35%) reported using simulations for nonbridge construction. When asked how often state DOTs used visualization and modeling technologies for highway construction, 23 of 26 state DOTs reported that they used visualization and modeling tech- nology for specific projects. Table 7 presents specific projects from responding state DOTs. Massachusetts DOT stated that it used visualization and modeling technologies for major

Current Practices Using Technologies for Construction Delivery 25 projects that might have a significant impact on motorists. Tennessee DOT reported that it employed visualization and modeling technologies for projects in urban regions that involved many utilities and conflicts. Ohio DOT stated that it used visualization and modeling for proj- ects that involved major reconstruction or structural work. As various project participants engage in the delivery of highway construction projects, state DOTs were asked to note which organizations used visualization and modeling technologies for construction. Figure 13 illustrates the construction project participants using visualization and modeling technologies. Twenty-four (92%) state DOTs reported that the state DOT used Visualization & modeling Implemented 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Considering Implementation Not implementing Interconnected technologies Safety technologies N um be r o f S ta te D O T Re sp on se s Instrumentation & sensors Unmanned aircraft systems 22% 24% 17% 10% 24% 15% 32% 17% 15% 17% 63% 44% 63% 73% 59% Figure 11. Reported implementation of technologies for highway construction (n = 41). LiDAR Already implemented 0 5 10 15 20 25 Considering implementation Building information modeling Virtual prototyping N um be r o f S ta te D O T Re sp on se s Virtual reality Augmented reality Wearable devices 3-D printing 63% 60% 11% 11% 23% 14% 6% 3% 3% Figure 12. Visualization and modeling technologies implemented by state DOTs (n = 35).

26 Emerging Technologies for Construction Delivery State DOT Reporting Use C on st ru ct ab ili ty R ev ie w s A s- B ui lt P la ns a nd M od el s Si m ul at in g B ri dg e C on st ru ct io n Q C /Q A Si m ul at in g N on br id ge C on st ru ct io n In sp ec ti on s M on it or in g P ro gr es s of W or k U ti lit y L oc at io ns a n d C on fl ic ts V er if ic at io n of W or k fo r P ro gr es s P ay m en ts V ir tu al D es ig n an d C on st ru ct io n F ab ri ca ti on o f St ru ct ur al a nd N on - st ru ct ur al C om po ne nt s Alabama X X X X X X X Arizona X X X X Colorado X Delaware X X X X X Iowa X X X Kentucky X X X Maine X X X X X X X X Massachusetts X X X X X Minnesota X X X X X X X X Missouri X X X X X X Nebraska X New Hampshire X New York X X X X X X X X X X Ohio X X X X X X X Oregon X X X Pennsylvania X X X Rhode Island X X South Carolina X X X X South Dakota X X Tennessee X X X X Texas X Utah X X X X X Washington X West Virginia X X Wisconsin X X X X X Wyoming X TOTAL 21 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 7 9 3 Table 6. Reported uses of visualization and modeling technologies (n = 26). Specific Project State DOT Projects with large scope/complex scope Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania; Washington Pilot projects Alabama, New Hampshire, Ohio Projects using design–build Arizona; Missouri Projects using public–private partnerships Arizona Projects with bridges and structures Iowa, New York, Rhode Island, Utah Projects with large earthwork quantities Pennsylvania, South Carolina Projects with drainage and grading scope Kentucky Table 7. Specific projects using visualization and modeling technologies as reported by state DOTs. visualization and modeling technologies. Another 21 (81%) state DOTs mentioned that the contractor used visualization and modeling technologies for construction. State DOTs were then asked what types of work benefited from the use of visualization and modeling technologies. Figure 14 shows that 20 state DOTs (77%) mentioned drainage work benefits from visualization and modeling use. Another 19 (73%) indicated that visualization and modeling technologies benefited bridge construction work. State DOTs were given the option to provide comments on lessons learned in using visualization and modeling technologies. Arizona, Delaware, and Georgia DOTs mentioned

Current Practices Using Technologies for Construction Delivery 27 that the correct software and interoperability of software between the DOT and the contrac- tor was essential to efficient use. Alaska DOT stated that it double-checked all data gener- ated in a model. Massachusetts reported that it was helpful to anticipate which project and which phases in a project would use visualization and modeling. New York DOT said that it was important to verify that the existing conditions in the model matched what existed at the site. Interconnected Technologies Of the 41 state DOTs, 18 reported implementing, nine state DOTs noted that they are considering implementation, and 14 are not implementing interconnected technologies. Figure 15 explains the reported implementation of interconnected technologies for con- struction vehicles, equipment, and tools. Of the 27 state DOTs reporting implementation or considering implementation of interconnected technologies, 14 (52%) reported that they implemented this technology with paving equipment such as compactors, asphalt pavers, con- crete pavers, and planers. Another 13 state DOTs (48%) indicated they implemented inter- connected technologies for their earthwork equipment, including dozers, backhoes, graders, scrapers, and excavators. Six of the responding state DOTs reported implementation or were considering implementation of interconnected technologies for agency vehicles (23%). Only five state DOTs noted using interconnected delivery vehicles (18%), and only three state DOTs noted using interconnected haul vehicles (11%). Contractor 0 5 10 Number of State DOT Responses 15 20 81% 46% 38% 35% 19% 12% 12% 25 Construction manager Program manager Subcontractor Vendor Manufacturer Fabricator Figure 13. Construction project participants using visualization and modeling technologies (n = 26). Drainage 0 5 10 Number of State DOT Responses 15 20 77% 73% 58% 50% 38% 35% 25 Bridges Paving Utilities Earthwork / grading Non-bridge structures Figure 14. Types of work benefiting from visualization and modeling technologies (n = 26).

28 Emerging Technologies for Construction Delivery State DOT Reporting Use M ac hi ne C on tr ol Sy st em s L oc at io n of V eh ic le s/ E qu ip m en t In ve nt or y M an ag em en t A cc id en t A vo id an ce M on it or in g P er fo rm an ce a nd M ai nt en an ce A ss et M an ag em en t M ob ili ty T ra ck in g St ri ng le ss P av in g Alabama X X X X X X X Colorado X X X X X X Connecticut X Delaware X Maine X X Massachusetts X Michigan X Minnesota X X X X X X Missouri X X X X X Ohio X Oklahoma X Pennsylvania X Tennessee X X Utah X X Virginia X West Virginia X Wisconsin X X Wyoming X TOTAL 16 7 5 3 3 3 3 2 Table 8. Reported uses of interconnected technologies (n = 18). 52% 48% 19% 11% 4% 4% 4% 19% 15% 4% 7% 7% 0 5 10 15 Paving equipment Earthwork equipment Agency vehicles Delivery vehicles Haul vehicles Handheld tools Remote controlled equipment N um be r o f S ta te D O T Re sp on se s Already implemented Considering implementation Figure 15. Interconnected technologies implemented by state DOTs (n = 27). Next, Table 8 summarizes the reported use of interconnected technologies for tasks and processes used in a highway construction project. Of the 18 state DOTs reporting the use of interconnected technologies, 16 (89%) reported that they used these technologies for machine control systems, such as AMG for paving and earthwork equipment. In addition, seven state DOTs (39%) used these technologies for identifying vehicle and equipment locations, and five state DOTs (28%), for inventory management. Fourteen state DOTs reported the use of interconnected technologies on specific projects. Table 9 provides details of specific projects as reported by state DOTs. Connecticut DOT reported

Current Practices Using Technologies for Construction Delivery 29 that it employed interconnected technologies—which include GPS-enabled pavers and rollers equipment to achieve uniform compaction—for paving projects. Missouri DOT mentioned that it used interconnected technologies for stringless paving and highway maintenance. Oklahoma DOT noted that interconnected technologies were used for projects that included earthwork and paving, but the usage was at request of the contractor. Then, state DOTs were asked to note which project participants used interconnected tech- nologies during construction. Figure 16 shows the construction project participants using interconnected technologies: 15 state DOTs (83%) noted the contractor used interconnected technologies, while another 10 state DOTs (56%) reported that the subcontractors used inter- connected technologies. Typically, contractors and subcontractors directly perform earthwork and paving during construction, while the DOT oversees and inspects the work. State DOTs were then asked what types of work benefited from the use of interconnected technologies. Figure 17 shows that of the 18 state DOTs implementing interconnected technolo- gies, all 18 (100%) mentioned that paving work benefited from interconnected technology use. Another 16 (89%) said that interconnected technologies benefited earthwork/grading. In terms of lessons learned, state DOTs optionally provided comments for using inter- connected technologies. Utah DOT mentioned gaining employee acceptance; further, working through conflicts with existing specifications, tolerances, and quality assurance is essential to efficient use. Wisconsin DOT stated that it takes time to develop specifications for inter connected technologies and that having the right contractor makes a difference. Ohio DOT said that it still locally monitors and validates grades when using interconnected technologies and AMG. 83% 56% 28% 28% 17% 11% 11% 0 5 10 15 20 Contractor Subcontractor DOT agency Construction manager Vendor Program manager Manufacturer Number of State DOT Responses Figure 16. Construction project participants using interconnected technologies (n = 18). Specific Project State DOT Projects with large scope/complex scope Delaware Projects with earthwork scope Alabama, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania Projects with paving scope Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania Projects with trench work and piping scope Pennsylvania Projects with drainage scope Ohio Pilot projects Wisconsin Projects using stringless paving Michigan, Missouri Table 9. Specific projects using interconnected technologies as reported by state DOTs.

30 Emerging Technologies for Construction Delivery Safety Technologies The safety of the traveling public and construction workers in work zones is a primary focus and concern for state DOTs. Twenty-six state DOTs reported that they implemented safety technologies. In addition, eight state DOTs reported that they are considering implementation, while seven other state DOTs indicated that they are not implementing safety technologies. When asked about specific uses of safety technologies (see Figure 18), 19 state DOTs (56%) reported implementing mobile and stationary DMS systems. Five state DOTs (15%) and four state DOTs (12%) were considering implementing stationary and mobile DMS, respectively. Also, 18 state DOTs (53%) implemented and another two (6%) were considering implementing VSL for work zones. 56% 56% 53% 37% 18% 18% 15% 6% 15% 12% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 0 5 10 15 20 Stationary DMS Mobile DMS VSL Intrusion/proximity warnings Dynamic lane merging Enhanced PPE Queue detection system Cone placement & retrieval N um be r o f S ta te D O T Re sp on se s Already implemented Considering implementation Figure 18. Safety technologies implemented by state DOTs (n = 34). 100% 89% 33% 28% 28% 11% 0 5 10 15 20 Paving Earthwork / grading Bridges Drainage Non-bridge structures Utilities Number of State DOT Responses Figure 17. Types of work benefiting from interconnected technologies (n = 18).

Current Practices Using Technologies for Construction Delivery 31 The survey questionnaire collected information on the uses of safety technologies during delivery of highway construction projects. Table 10 summarizes the use of safety technology by state DOT. Of the 27 state DOTs reporting the use of safety technologies, 24 use safety technolo- gies to manage work zone traffic and to communicate real-time information to motorists (89%). Also, 13 state DOTs (48%) reported the use of safety technologies for accident avoidance and enhanced protection for workers. The survey asked state DOTs to note the frequency of using safety technologies. Overall, 19 responding state DOTs reported that they used safety technologies for specific projects. Table 11 provides details on specific projects as noted by state DOTs. Four states (Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, and Washington) mentioned that they used safety technologies for all projects. Two state DOTs (Pennsylvania and Virginia) noted the use of safety technol- ogies on most projects, and three state DOTs (Idaho, Minnesota, and West Virginia) noted using safety technologies on only a few projects. South Dakota DOT reported employing safety technologies for projects that had a likelihood of traffic backing up outside the work zone or projects that had limited sight distance before a work zone. Georgia DOT pointed out that it used safety technologies for freeway and Interstate projects with limited alterna- tive routes. State DOTs were then asked to note which project participants used safety technologies during construction. Figure 19 explains that 20 state DOTs (74%) reported that the contractor State DOT Reporting Use W or k Z on e T ra ff ic C on tr ol an d M an ag em en t R ea l- T im e W or k Z on e In fo rm at io n fo r M ot or is ts A cc id en t A vo id an ce E nh an ce d P ro te ct io n fo r W or ke rs R em ov in g W or ke rs f ro m H ar m ’s W ay W or k Z on e In tr us io n D et ec ti on In ci de nt T ra ck in g Q C /Q A California X X Colorado X X X X X X X Connecticut X X X Delaware X X X Georgia X X Idaho X Illinois X X X Iowa X X X X Kentucky X X Massachusetts X X X Michigan X X X Minnesota X X X X X X X Missouri X X X X X Nevada X X X X New Hampshire X X New York X X X X X Ohio X X X X Oklahoma X X X X X X X Oregon X X X Pennsylvania X X X X X South Carolina X X South Dakota X X X Utah X X X X X X Vermont X X X X X Virginia X X X X X Washington X X X X X X West Virginia X X Total 24 24 13 13 11 9 7 3 Table 10. Reported uses of safety technologies (n = 27).

32 Emerging Technologies for Construction Delivery used safety technologies for highway construction and 17 (63%) state DOTs reported that the DOT agency used safety technologies. State DOTs were asked to identify types of work that benefited from the use of safety tech- nologies. Figure 20 shows that 22 state DOTs (81%) mentioned paving work benefited from safety technology use, while 15 (56%) and 13 (48%) indicated that safety technologies benefited bridge and structural work, respectively. State DOTs then provided comments about lessons learned in using safety technologies. Iowa DOT mentioned that effective work zone management did reduce the likelihood of accidents. Ohio DOT said that disincentives for safety nonperformance were key and that message signs must be validated to be effective. Massachusetts reported that using proprietary safety technolo- gies was difficult because of restrictions for sole-source procurement. Instrumentation and Sensors Of the 41 state DOT respondents, 31 reported implementing, four said that they were con- sidering implementation, and six states were not implementing instrumentation and sensors technologies. Figure 21 shows the number of state DOT respondents that have implemented or are considering implementing instrumentation technologies. Of the responding state DOTs, 23 (66%) implemented remote sensing technologies, 20 (57%) reported implementing sensors for measuring and monitoring structural integrity (e.g., gauges for stress, strain, deformation, seismic/vibration, and current/voltage), and 19 (54%) implement audio/video and closed captioning television (CCTV) for highway construction projects. Instrumentation and sen- sors technologies are in limited use for construction delivery. Only two state DOTs reported Specific Project State DOT Projects with large scope / complex scope Delaware Pilot projects California, Missouri Project with high traffic volumes Massachusetts; Oklahoma Interstate projects Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Oregon Projects with paving scope Ohio Projects with limited sight distance approach South Dakota Table 11. Specific projects using safety technologies as reported by state DOTs. 74% 63% 41% 33% 15% 11% 7% 4% 0 5 10 15 20 25 Contractor DOT agency Subcontractor Construction manager Vendor Fabricator Manufacturer Program manager Number of State DOT Responses Figure 19. Construction project participants using safety technologies (n = 27).

Current Practices Using Technologies for Construction Delivery 33 implementation of infrared sensors. One state DOT mentioned implementation of RFID, and one state DOT said that it was considering implementation of RFID. Table 12 lists the state DOTs that reported using instrumentation for the specific tasks listed. Instrumentation and sensors technologies were used for monitoring the progress of work, as noted by 22 state DOTs (71%); 19 departments used the technologies for QA/QC (61%); and 18, for construction inspections (58%). When asked how often state DOTs used instrumentation and sensors technologies, 22 (71%) reported that they used instrumentation technologies on the basis of specific project requirements, as noted in Table 13. Another five state DOTs (Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Washington) reported using instrumentation and sensors technologies for all construction projects. Alabama DOT reported using instrumentation and sensors technologies for projects located in metropolitan areas. Virginia DOT use instrumentation and sensors for projects involving the monitoring and evaluating of the integrity and forces of complex struc- tures. Oklahoma DOT employed instrumentation and sensors for projects that included large embankments and bridge construction. 81% 56% 48% 26% 22% 15% 0 5 10 15 20 25 Paving Bridges Non-bridge structures Utilities Drainage Earthwork / grading Number of State DOT Responses Figure 20. Types of work benefiting from safety technologies (n = 27). 66% 57% 54% 43% 40% 6% 3%3% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3% 0 5 10 15 20 25 Remote sensing Structural integrity sensors A/V & CCTV Sensors for measuring specifications Environmental sensors Infrared sensors RFID N um be r o f S ta te D O T Re sp on se s Already implemented Considering implementation Figure 21. Instrumentation and sensors technologies implemented by state DOTs (A/V = audio/visual) (n = 35).

34 Emerging Technologies for Construction Delivery State DOT Reporting Use M on it or in g P ro gr es s of W or k Q C /Q A C on st ru ct io n In sp ec ti on s E va lu at in g F or ce s in St ru ct ur al M em be rs Id en ti fy in g O pt im al C on di ti on s fo r P la ce m en t of W or k R ec or di ng W or k P la ce m en t fo r A s- bu ilt P ur po se s V er if yi ng D es ig n D ur in g C on st ru ct io n L oc at in g U ti lit ie s L oc at in g C on st ru ct io n M at er ia ls P ro je ct C on tr ol s E va lu at in g B ou nd ar y C on di ti on s St ru ct ur al M em be rs Alabama X X X Alaska X X X X Arizona X X X X Colorado X X Connecticut X X X Delaware X X X X Georgia X X X X Illinois X Iowa X X Kentucky X X X X X Maine X X X X X X Massachusetts X X X X Michigan X X X X X X X Minnesota X X X X X X X X X X Missouri X X X X X Montana X X New Hampshire X X New York X X X X X X X X X Ohio X X X X X Oklahoma X X X X X X Oregon X X X X Pennsylvania X X X X South Carolina X X X X X South Dakota X Tennessee X X X Utah X X X X X X Virginia X X X Washington X X X X X X West Virginia X X X Wisconsin X X Wyoming X Total 23 19 18 15 10 10 10 9 6 3 3 Table 12. Reported uses of instrumentation and sensors technologies (n = 31). Specific Project State DOT Projects with large scope/complex scope Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin Projects using accelerated bridge construction Connecticut, Delaware Projects in urban regions Alabama; Georgia; New York Projects with bridge scope Iowa, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma Projects with paving scope Pennsylvania; New York Projects with earthwork scope Oklahoma, Wyoming Projects concerned with material types/ material placement Massachusetts, Tennessee Pilot projects Missouri, Ohio Table 13. Specific projects using instrumentation and sensors technologies as reported by state DOTs.

Current Practices Using Technologies for Construction Delivery 35 Then, survey respondents were asked to report which construction project participants used instrumentation and sensors technologies. Figure 22 shows the construction organizations that were using instrumentation and sensors technologies: 23 state DOTs noted that the DOT agency used instrumentation and sensors technologies, while 19 reported that the contractor used instrumentation and sensors technologies during construction. State DOTs were asked what types of work benefited from the use of instrumentation and sensors technologies. Figure 23 shows that 28 state DOTS (90%) mentioned that bridge con- struction work benefited from instrumentation and sensors use, while 19 (61%) indicated that instrumentation and sensors benefited paving work. Lessons learned were collected from comments made by the responding DOTs regarding instrumentation and sensors use in highway construction delivery. Iowa DOT stated that addi- tional data from instrumentation is beneficial for monitoring structural loads, verifying design conditions, and monitoring structural health. New York State DOT noted that training must be provided to ensure that staff use the equipment correctly. Wisconsin DOT reported that the data from instrumentation came in large quantities and that processing, storing, and sharing the data was the challenge. 74% 61% 42% 39% 16% 13% 10% 10% 0 5 10 15 20 25 DOT agency Contractor Subcontractor Construction manager Vendor Fabricator Program manager Manufacturer Number of State DOT Responses Figure 22. Construction project participants using instrumentation and sensors technologies (n = 31). 90% 61% 32% 26% 19% 16% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Bridges Paving Non-bridge structures Earthwork / grading Utilities Drainage Number of State DOT Responses Figure 23. Types of work benefiting from instrumentation and sensors technologies (n = 31).

36 Emerging Technologies for Construction Delivery State DOT Reporting Use M on it or in g P ro gr es s of W or k C on st ru ct io n Su rv ey in g Si te M ap pi ng C on st ru ct io n D oc um en ta ti on C on st ru ct io n In sp ec ti on s In ve nt or y M an ag em en t T ra ff ic M an ag em en t G eo gr ap hi c In fo rm at io n Sy st em s Alabama X X X X X Alaska X X Colorado X X X Delaware X X X Maine X Massachusetts X X Minnesota Missouri X X Montana X X X X Nebraska X Nevada X New Hampshire X X X Ohio X X X Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania X X Rhode Island X South Dakota X X Tennessee X X Utah X X X X Vermont X X Washington X X West Virginia X X Wyoming X Total 13 9 8 8 4 4 2 2 Table 14. Reported uses of UASs (n = 24). Specific Project State DOT Projects with large/complex scope Delaware, Maine, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island High-profile or high-interest projects Alabama, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Wyoming Projects with bridge inspections Missouri, Ohio Projects with earthwork scope Ohio Table 15. Specific projects using UASs as reported by state DOTs. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Of the 41 responding state DOTs, 24 reported using, while another 10 noted they were con- sidering using UASs for highway construction projects. Then, seven state DOTs mentioned that they were not implementing UASs for construction. Thirteen state DOTs (54%) reported using UASs to monitor construction progress. Nine state DOTs (38%) noted their use of UASs for construction surveying, while eight state DOTs (33%) indicated that they used UASs for site mapping and construction documentation. Table 14 shows the uses noted by state DOTs for UASs. State DOTs were asked the frequency in using UASs for construction. As 20 of 24 respond- ing state DOTs reported that they used UASs on the basis of specific project requirements, Table 15 lists some of the specific projects from state DOTs. Four state DOTs noted that they

Current Practices Using Technologies for Construction Delivery 37 rarely used UASs, mainly because of state and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regula- tions. The Montana DOT stated that it used UASs on a few projects to test the technology for site mapping. Washington DOT reported that it used UASs on multiseason projects for photo documentation. Colorado DOT mentioned that it employed UASs when the contractor pro- posed the usage and then used the technology during construction. A survey question was directed to the participants in construction projects that used UASs. As shown in Figure 24, 17 (71%) reported that the DOT used UASs, while 13 (54%) indicated that the contractor used UASs. Five state DOTs (21%) reported that subcontractors used UASs. State DOTs were asked to note the types of work benefiting from the use of UASs. As shown in Figure 25, 24 state DOTs (100%) reported using UASs for bridge construction work, while only five state DOTs reported using UASs for utilities work. State DOTs were asked to provide comments on any lessons learned from the use of UASs for highway project delivery. Alabama, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin DOTs all reported on checking state and federal regulations before use. Colorado DOT reported that UASs were a good tool, but an added cost to a project. New Hampshire mentioned that a detailed plan was essential for the use of UASs during construction. 71% 54% 25% 21% 17% 8% 4% 0 5 10 15 20 DOT agency Contractor Construction manager Subcontractor Vendor Program manager Manufacturer Number of State DOT Responses Figure 24. Construction project participants using UASs (n = 24). 100% 54% 46% 42% 33% 21% 0 5 10 15 20 25 Bridges Grading / earthwork Drainage Non-bridge structures Paving Utilities Number of State DOT Responses Figure 25. Types of work benefiting from UASs (n = 24).

38 Emerging Technologies for Construction Delivery Chapter Summary Chapter 3 documents the current practices of five technologies for delivering highway con- struction projects on the basis of 41 state DOT responses to a national survey. Also on the basis of those responses, the five technologies varied in their implementation and use. • State DOTs implemented visualization and modeling technologies, including LiDAR and BIM. State DOTs and contractors were the main users of visualization and modeling tech- nologies, which used visualization and modeling technologies for constructability reviews, simulating construction, and as-built modeling. Drainage and bridge construction work benefited from visualization and modeling technologies. • Interconnected technologies, used mainly by the contractor and subcontractors, were imple- mented by state DOTs for AMG or paving and earthwork equipment and for location of vehicles and equipment. Earthwork and paving work benefited from the use of interconnected technologies. • State DOTs and contractors used technologies for construction safety, which primarily were in the form of DMS and VSL for work zone traffic control and management of real-time work zone information for motorists. Projects that included paving, bridges, or structures benefited from the use of safety technologies. • State DOTs implement instrumentation and sensors technologies for remote sensing, audio/ visual and CCTV, and measurement of structural integrity, specifications, and environmental conditions. The primary uses of instrumentation and sensors technologies were to monitor the progress of work, QA/QC, construction inspections, and evaluation of structural mem- bers. Contractors and state DOTs were the primary users. Projects with bridge construction and paving work benefited from the use of instrumentation and sensors technologies. • Mainly contractors, subcontractors, and state DOTs used UASs for monitoring the progress of work, construction surveying, and site mapping. Projects that involved earthwork and bridge construction work benefited from the use of UASs.