Guide for 3D Modeling to Advance Utility Coordination in Projects Delivered Using Alternative Contracting Methods - Summer 2017
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

ROSA P serves as an archival repository of USDOT-published products including scientific findings, journal articles, guidelines, recommendations, or other information authored or co-authored by USDOT or funded partners. As a repository, ROSA P retains documents in their original published format to ensure public access to scientific information.
i

Guide for 3D Modeling to Advance Utility Coordination in Projects Delivered Using Alternative Contracting Methods - Summer 2017

Filetype[PDF-858.32 KB]


English
Details You May Also Like

Details:

  • Corporate Creators:
    United States. Federal Highway Administration
  • Contributors:
  • Corporate Contributors:
    United States. Federal Highway Administration. Center for Accelerating Innovation
  • Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Publication/ Report Number:
    FHWA-HIF-17-034
  • Resource Type:
    Tech Report
  • Geographical Coverage:
    United States
  • Corporate Publisher:
    United States. Federal Highway Administration
  • Abstract:
    Effective utility coordination in projects delivered using alternative contracting methods (ACM) has one common theme: utility issues must be considered as early in the project development process as possible to permit the project delivery team as many options for resolving utility conflicts as practical. In the words of one author, “detection of utility conflicts as early as possible during the project development process can help identify the optimum application of strategies to resolve those conflicts.”1 The objective of optimizing utility strategies is to avoid relocation where possible. To achieve this goal, the agency needs to start the utility conflict identification and coordination process at a point where major design definition decisions like final alignment and geometry have not been locked in to the degree that redesigning to accommodate utility considerations is prohibitive. This creates a requirement to reduce uncertainty with respect to utility locations to an acceptable level. The second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) presents a full set of tools for identifying utility locations, including subsurface utility engineering (SUE), ground-penetrating radar (GPR), and radio frequency identification (RFID) tagging. These tools, while apparently reliable, are often insufficient, triggering the need to excavate test holes (commonly known as “pot-holing”) to physically locate the utilities in question.2 At that point, a contractor typically is needed to conduct the exploratory excavations to furnish physical utility location information to the designer. When early contractor design involvement is needed, ACMs provide a proven solution for procuring that capability in a manner that permits utility coordination risk sharing rather than contractual mechanisms designed to shed this ubiquitous risk. Since ACMs bring both design and construction resources to the table, three-dimensional (3D) engineered models can be used as the medium for communicating spatial information for the entire team and its external utility company stakeholders.
  • Format:
    PDF
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

  • No Additional Files
More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov