Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

2 RESEARCH APPROACH
Pages 2-49

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 2...
... PHASE II PHASE III PHASE I Data Collection and PHASE IV Guidebook Planning Methodology Final Products Development Development Figure 1: Research phases and scope of work. Phase I
From page 3...
... However, there is little work conducted in this domain, particularly with regards to their use in highway construction. Thus, the review begins with an overview of the use of 3D Models in highway construction projects, the benefits and drivers of their use, the challenges and barriers to their implementation, and a review of the current quality management prac tices nationally and internationally.
From page 4...
... . In NCHRP Synthesis 593: 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents, a survey of 41 state DOTs found that (37%, 15 DOTs)
From page 5...
... State DOTs were asked about their perception of the estimated benefits from the use of DTMs. Overall, among 37 responding state DOTs, the following benefits emerged: easier to calculate earthwork quantities; earlier identification of plan discrepancies and conflicts; reducing risk during bidding for contractors and/or DOTs; improved 5
From page 6...
... Also, respondent state DOTs agreed, on average, fewer claims and litigation is a long-term benefit (Dadi et al., 2021)
From page 7...
... . For instance, contractors, sub-contractors, and specialty contractors often use different software tools for their designs, many of which cannot be integrated together, limiting the potential for design review and error/clash detection (Staub-French & Khanzode, 2006)
From page 8...
... In NCHRP Synthesis 593: 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents, the 15 state DOTs that do not currently use 3D models in construction were asked to select the contributing reasons that they do not use 3D models yet. Among the 15 DOTs, (73%, 11 DOTs)
From page 9...
... . The "Highway Design" Chapter from the "Project Development and Design Guide" describes some data quality management procedures for highway construction.
From page 10...
... . NCHRP Project 20-07/Task 172 describes some design and data quality management procedures and practices.
From page 11...
... A report on the organizational analysis of the United States Army contract ing command in Kuwait briefly discusses the review process of contract documents. The report states that for contracts with values exceeding $100,000, all relevant and applicable files must be verified and checked for accuracy by the contracting officer, the procurement analyst, the attorney-adviser, and chief of contract operations.
From page 12...
... . In NCHRP Synthesis 593: 3D Digital Models as Highway Construction Contract Documents, among the five state DOTs that use 3D models for information purposes and as contract documents, only two state DOTs (Florida and New York)
From page 13...
... compliance of the 2D and 3D design files. The model is reviewed by the consultant designers, engineers, project managers, FDOT District Project Reviewer, construction contract estimators, contractors, and other potential parties.
From page 14...
...  Dgn or Dwg files for 2D and 3D lines  Icm file for OpenRoads Design Delivery At the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) , before 3D engineered models are sent out for the bidding process, the final design goes through an extensive quality assurance process.
From page 15...
... Additionally, they are to perform a QC review of the roadway digital design data included in the eBIDS Handoff Package and Construction Survey Handoff package and ensure the uploaded eBIDS Handoff Package includes the data intended by the designer. Finally, they have to review and process ex ception requests to the eBIDS Handoff package requirement in accordance with the Local Agency Guide lines Manual (ODOT, 2015)
From page 16...
... . International Standards Outside of the United States, the European community has united behind the ISO 19650 approach to construction information management (Maier, 2020)
From page 17...
... In this ISO 19650 standard, part 1 outlines the concepts and principles, and provides recommenda tions on how to manage building information, while part 2 supplies information management requirements in the delivery phase of assets (Cohesive BIM Wiki, 2021)
From page 18...
... After the quality check process is complete, and before the information is shared with a common data environment for collaboration, the information has to be independently reviewed to ensure it includes all data requirements, the level of information need, and the necessary information for coordination with other task teams. ISO 19650 recommends the use of an "Information management matrix" to organize the quality checks and review for each tasks and confirm this process is successfully completed (International Standard for Organization, 2018b)
From page 19...
... . Part 3 es tablishes preferred terms and concepts related to sustainability for buildings and other types of construction works (International Standard for Organization, 2017b)
From page 20...
... . The ISO 29481 international standard is an information delivery manual for building information models.
From page 21...
... A secondary consideration is to identify what types of review tools software providers could de velop to partially automate the design review process. Task Outcomes Statutes and rules regulate the practice of engineering.
From page 22...
... In general, agencies say very little about design reviews. The review milestones are easy to locate in the design manuals and/or process maps, but the procedures for doing the reviews are not well docu mented outside of isolated examples.
From page 23...
... . Flor ida's CADD manual defines LOD for proposed model elements and Level of Accuracy (LOA)
From page 24...
... for a roadway preliminary design review versus a bridge hydraulics final design review. Figure 3 shows how these boundaries lead to defining the review methodology and outcome.
From page 25...
... Job Aids for Review Methodology Development The following types of information will support developing review methodology guidance:  Design manuals and CADD manuals.  Job aids like review checklists.
From page 26...
... The main objective of Task 1 and 2 was to review published information regarding current quality management processes, design review protocols for 2D contract plans and 3D model–based delivery, State DOTs policies, statutes, and overall state of the practice that would help the research team finalize the research methodology and determine data collection needs to be collected during Phase II. The research team also reviewed quality management practices and procedures for all disciplines (regardless of whether the project is delivered digitally or not)
From page 27...
... Identify which parts of the review and documentation procedures are essential versus general practice. The task looked at the results of Tasks 1 and 2, which reviewed the literature and did a deep-dive into the policies, practices, job aids, and other resources provided by four State DOTs.
From page 28...
... We addressed the first methodology requirement by proposing the following taxonomies:  Functional Areas: Major disciplines and sub-disciplines  Model Elements: Major systems, sub-systems, major elements, and sub-elements  Milestones: Points in time at which reviews occur  Review Types: Categories of reviews, e.g., external, design, 3D model  Review Criteria: Standards and other criteria that are the reference for the review  Responsible Parties: Roles involved in the design and review processes The methodology proposed collecting a suite of information for three purposes: to build out the taxonomies, develop review methodology guidance, and to capture definitions to create a property set. The types of information were:  Manuals and design guidelines.
From page 29...
... The taxonomies would enable building out a library of reviews defined by functional area, mile stone, model elements, review type, review criteria, and responsible party. Using the taxonomies in this way would identify gaps.
From page 30...
... The review property set would be provided as part of the appendix to the guide. These products would be shared with State DOTs to assist them in requesting automation tools from their software developers.
From page 31...
... The work was submitted to the NCHRP project panel on January 6, 2023. Revisions were required and presented to the NCHRP project panel again on February 16, 2023.
From page 32...
... The research team collected examples of manuals, checklists, guidelines, process maps, glossaries of terms, statutes, and administrative rules (that document definitions) , organization charts, model element tables, job aids (including checklists)
From page 33...
... Taxonomies were developed for functional areas, model elements, review types, and responsible parties. The taxonomies are included in this conduct of research report as Appendices A-D.
From page 34...
... . Taxonomies were developed for Functional Areas, Model Elements, Review Types, and Responsible Parties.
From page 35...
... Table 3: The Format of the Model Element Taxonomy with an Example for Bridge Structures Discipline Bridge Structures Model Element Grouping 1 Approach Structure Model Element Type 1 Approach Slabs Model Element Type 2 Sleeper Slabs Model Element Grouping 2 Bearings Model Element Type 1 Curb and Gutter Model Element Type 2 Deck Model Element Grouping 3 Substructure Model Element Type 1 Abutment/End Bent Model Element Type 2 Architectural Feature The model elements taxonomy was used to develop a Model Element Table (MET) , which is a listing of model elements within each group and sub-group.
From page 36...
... for a roadway preliminary design review versus a bridge hydraulics final de sign review. Figure 6 shows how these boundaries lead to defining the review procedures and documenting the outcome.
From page 37...
... We determined that there are too many combinations of reviews to document each one, so we will provide guidance on how to determine the comprehensive list of reviews needed on a project and create a library of reviews that are representative of each type of review. The omitted reviews would differ from the sample only in terms of the review criteria that are specific to the group of model elements.
From page 38...
... The quality process terms will be used to develop a data dictionary for quality management metadata that can be used by vendors to build software tools to automate reviews and/or pro vide review documentation. This glossary of terms is included as Appendix A in the Task 9 Sample Guide book document.
From page 39...
... Outcomes The main outcome of Task 8 was a packet of instructions for executing model-based design reviews and 3D model reviews using the proposed methodology. More detail is provided regarding the outcomes of each of the four steps.
From page 40...
... Table 4: Execution Plan Activity Participants Timeline Alexa Mitchell, Jennifer Steen, Francesca Maier, John Interview Subject Matter Reese, Kevin Martin, Colby Christiansen, Grant March – May 2023 Experts Schmitz, Dan Prokop, Daniel Domalik Develop review libraries Francesca Maier, Jennifer Steen, John Reese March – May 2023 Solicit partnerships from Alexa Mitchell, Jennifer Steen, Francesca Maier March – May 2023 DOTs Alexa Mitchell, Jennifer Steen, Francesca Maier, John Host a web conference Early June 2023 Reese Develop a packet of in- Jennifer Steen, John Reese, Kevin Martin, Marcia May – July 2023 structions Yockey, Grant Schmitz, Julie Rivera, Francesca Maier Collect feedback Francesca Maier, Jennifer Steen Early September 2023 Create a synthesis report Francesca Maier, Jennifer Steen, Alexa Mitchell September 2023 Interviews We interviewed HDR Design SMEs and HDR Quality SME. We setup interviews with technical advisers, discipline engineers, and a quality manager with ex tensive experience in project delivery.
From page 41...
...  A suggestion to combine review types into a smaller number of reviews organized by the typical responsible party for executing the review. Specifically, combining sub-categories of 3D Model Standards and 3D Model Integrity review types.
From page 42...
... o Review process (i.e., procedures to conduct each of the seven steps and core competen cies for each procedure)  Job aids to support review documentation, including check lists and a MET, and  A glossary of 3D modeling and quality management terms.
From page 43...
... As part of the IHEEP workshop preparation, the research team identified that the five review types previously proposed do not cover the important step of checking the quantities taken off from the design to use in cost estimating. We therefore added this to the Discipline Design Review procedures used in the IHEEP workshop.
From page 44...
... The Task 9 Sample Guidebook is a good starting point for the work to be conducted in Phase III. A thorough review from the perspective of the intended audience will provide the research team with the opportunity to capture input for developing the full content of the guide that will be valuable to all State DOTs.
From page 45...
... TASK 11 TASK 12 * XLGHERRN ,QWHULP  'HYHORSP HQW 5HSRUW Figure 7: Phase III tasks and scope of work.
From page 46...
... , and job aids. This chapter helps ensure consistent and standardized 3D model reviews.
From page 47...
... Appendices The report appendices offer supplementary resources, including a glossary of terms, model ele ments taxonomy, review documentation property set, competencies required, detailed review procedures, and sample quality artifacts.
From page 48...
... Task Overview The research team used the approved draft Guide, submitted, and approved during Phase III, as the basis for the workshop materials. The team planned and facilitated three (3)
From page 49...
... Task 14. Final Products Task Overview The work under this task focused on the development of the final products, including: Guide: This standalone document providing suggestions and best practices for performing qual ity management of 3D model–based project delivery was approved at the end of Phase III.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.