e-Mail
Print
The state of practice
Join Adam Strafaci and Dominick Gallegos of Autodesk, along with Stacey Miyamoto of SSFM International, for a CE News webcast on this topic. Go to www.cenews.com/webcast to view the archived presentation. Attendance is free.
.jpg){kind=logo}
While it seems we’ve come a long way from the days of hand drafting plans, slide rules, and even basic CAD, just how far have we come? With that question looming, the editors of CE News set out to determine "the state of practice" of civil engineering technology, specifically exploring the use of 3-D models for civil engineering, GPS machine control, GIS for civil engineering, and 3-D laser scanning. Using an independent, online survey, CE News has uncovered a wealth of information about the use of these various technologies, their benefits and consequences, and the industry’s perception for their future use. Armed with this knowledge, civil engineers can make informed decisions about what their competitors are doing, how they can serve clients better, and how they can position themselves to succeed in the near future.
The survey
CE News editors developed the idea for this project and wrote the comprehensive survey. To ensure an unbiased, well developed survey, we invited representatives of various software and hardware companies, as well as civil engineering practitioners, to review the survey questions and make suggestions. Representatives of Autodesk; Bentley Systems, Inc.; ESRI; Leica Geosystems HDS; Nave Newell, Inc.; and Trimble participated in this effort. The assistance provided by these industry leaders contributed to the success of this project, and we appreciate their assistance. Of course, it is important to note that CE News had full control of the questions asked in the survey, owns the data, and conducted the analysis.
Along those lines, the sponsor of this article, Autodesk, did not have any control over the data presented in this summary article. This article is an editorial feature. Autodesk’s sponsorship of the results article made this labor-intensive project viable for the editors of CE News.
|
Who responded? Most respondents had more than 20 years of experience (53.2 percent) and work in the private sector (79.3 percent) versus the public sector (20.7 percent). Respon-dents’ titles ranged considerably, but the most common were project manager (12.5 percent), project engineer (12.3 percent), president/ CEO/owner (11.9 percent), senior project manager (11.8 percent), and staff or design engineer (11.3 percent). Likewise, the respondents’ types of employers ranged dramatically: full-service consultant (including many disciplines such as architecture, engineering, planning, and land surveying) (19.3 percent); civil engineering and land surveying (16.6 percent); civil engineering, structural engineering, and land surveying (8.1 percent); full-service engineering (including only engineering disciplines such as civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical) (7.2 percent); and municipal or county government (7.2 percent). Firm/organizations ranged dramatically as well, and are representative of the industry in general. |
It is interesting to note that 1,087 respondents started the survey, but they did not complete it because of its length (it took about 10 to 20 minutes for most people to take the survey). However, comparing the results of the 588 completed surveys with the full universe of responses, we found almost identical results. So that the results presented are easy to understand, only the 588 completed surveys are represented in this summary.
Additionally, it is important to point out that the survey used "skip logic," meaning that how respondents answered questions determined their progression through the survey. In other words, a "yes" response to a question applying skip logic led to a different path than a "no" response. Therefore, some questions’ results consider a smaller pool of respondents.
The big picture
One of the most telling questions in the survey asked which technology will have the greatest impact on the civil engineering industry. 3-D modeling and GIS/CAD interchange were the clear frontrunners. Since we are particularly interested in 3-D modeling and asked the most questions about it in the survey, we will focus on this technology here. However, information about GIS, GPS machine control, and 3-D laser scanning are presented later.
Although it’s anticipated to have the biggest impact on the industry in the next five to 10 years, much more of industry will need to implement the 3-D modeling capabilities of their civil engineering software for it to have a significant impact. Currently, most respondents reported that they "somewhat agree" (23.1 percent) or "agree" (28.2 percent) with the statement: "My firm/organization uses civil engineering software to draft more than it uses it to design." These results tell us that almost 2/3 of the civil engineering industry is not using civil engineering software solutions to their fullest advantage. In fact, only 10.1 percent of respondents agree and 22.0 percent somewhat agree with the statement: "My firm/organization uses civil engineering software to its fullest advantage."
And maybe we have uncovered the reason why: Astonishingly, 69.9 percent of respondents reported that they are not trained well enough to maximize the use of their civil design software. Since maximizing the use of civil engineering software includes applying the 3-D modeling capabilities of the software, this is a significant finding. Of course, it is also important information for firm owners and managers who have invested heavily in expensive software solutions; learning that users don’t feel adequately trained cuts right to your bottom line. If training equals efficiency, and efficiency equals profit, you might want to rethink how you are training staff, or should I say, how you have not trained staff.
Most respondents reported no formal training, only on-the-job learning and coaching from peers. What do most respondents think is the best way to be trained on civil engineering software? Forty-four percent, the clear frontrunner by 30 percentage points, said "attend an onsite customized training class, taught by a training specialist." Note that "customized" training was defined in the question as training requiring datasets and manuals written specifically for the trainee at additional cost over "generic" training, which is the pre-set vendor type with standard datasets. Although respondents reported that they would prefer this method of training, only 18.2 percent of respondents have received this type.
3-D modeling
At this point in the survey, after asking some basic questions about the impact of various technologies on the industry and civil engineering software use and training in general, the survey narrowed in on civil engineering 3-D models. Because we perceived that there are various definitions of a civil engineering 3-D model, we asked respondents to define it themselves. Below are some examples of the spectrum of responses we received:
- Same as the traditional 2-D drawing with elevation (Z) value assigned to the horizontal point.
- A digital terrain model (DTM).
- X, Y, and Z points with existing trangulated irregular network (TIN) and topographic features including contours and proposed TIN.
- A civil engineering 3-D model is best developed from an extensive topographical survey of existing conditions. The survey data is connected through a TIN and then smoothed to produce a DTM surface with many uses. Design work should be added and adjusted on top of the existing surface DTM. This gives a visual and numeric check on slopes, quantities, alignments, pipe runs, et cetera. The proposed designs can then be rendered into something anyone can visualize.
- A digital electronic representation of existing ground and design features that have complete X, Y, and Z data reference. Design takes place in a 3-D model environment and not separately in orthogonal view, as with classical "board" drafting/design.
- The ability to do all of the design work in 3-D and have it be relational to all of the components so when a change is made everything updates automatically and the drawing is more intelligent for having multiple people working on a project collaboratively.
Most respondents’ definitions were equivalent to "3-D drafting" (exemplified by the ones at the top of the list) rather than a more developed understanding of the full scope of 3-D modeling (exemplified by the ones on the bottom of the list).
Anticipating such an array of definitions and misunderstandings of what a civil engineering 3-D model is, we provided our own definition so that we would ensure that respondents would answer subsequent questions with the same meaning in mind and results would be more accurate. Respondents were told, "For the remainder of the survey, ’3-D model’ means ’civil engineering 3-D model.’ 3-D model is defined as a digital 3-D data set that contains existing and proposed terrain and facilities (i.e., utilities, buildings, parking areas, etc.) in an environment that can be used for analysis, design, computation, collaboration, and construction. Additionally, a 2-D CAD drawing with elevation data attached to known points or contours does not constitute a 3-D model; this is considered 3-D drafting."
Provided with this definition, we asked about the current use of 3-D modeling. Most people believe that 3-D modeling is not prevalent at this time; in fact, respondents believe that 25 percent or less of firms/organizations are using it on their projects.
But what about the future? Respondents anticipate significant adoption within the next 5 to 10 years.
Figure 3: How long do you think it will be before 50 percent and 90 percent of the civil engineering industry uses 3-D modeling on a regular basis?
| Answer options |
50% use |
90% use |
| I think it already does now |
10.9% |
2.1% |
| Within 5 years |
38.3% |
9.9% |
| 5-10 years from now |
36.6% |
32.8% |
| 11-14 years from now |
7.1% |
19.8% |
| 15-20 years from now |
4.5% |
19.6% |
| More than 20 years from now |
1.4% |
11.6% |
| Never |
1.2% |
4.3% |
Even though most respondents perceive that less than 25 percent of the industry is using 3-D modeling, 58.3 percent of respondents reported creating a 3-D model or working for a firm/organization that has done so. This group is considered "3-D modeling users" for the remainder of this article.
Before we share the results of what users report to be the benefits and consequences of using 3-D models and how they use the technology, it is important to explore why some firms/organizations don’t use 3-D modeling.
Interestingly, when asked about barriers to industry-wide use of 3-D modeling, the majority of users and non-users selected "reluctance to change traditional processes and workflows." However, the second most popular selection among users and non-users differed. For non-users, "financial cost" ranked second, while "general understanding of the technology and the opportunities it presents" was the second most popular choice for users. Apparently, experience plays a role in perception this technology.
Figure 6: In your opinion, what is the most significant barrier to industry-wide use of 3-D modeling?
| Answer options |
All Responses* |
Users |
Non-users |
|
Reluctance to change traditional |
34.8% |
36.8% |
30.3% |
| General understanding of the technology and the opportunities it presents |
19.2% |
19.3% |
17.7% |
| Financial cost |
14.9% |
10.1% |
23.4% |
| Need for quality training |
12.7% |
15.1% |
10.3% |
| Time |
10.4% |
9.2% |
14.3% |
| Risks/liabilities |
5.7% |
7.1% |
3.4% |
| Interoperability |
2.3% |
2.4% |
0.6% |
*10.8 percent of respondents selected "don’t know" when asked, "Have you or your firm/organization created a 3-D model." Their responses are included in the All Responses column.
Much can be learned from those respondents who have personally created a 3-D model or who work for a firm that has done so. Before continuing, we should point out that the experience of this group is diverse, with most respondents reporting that they personally have developed a 3-D model for 0 to 10 projects (59.9 percent).
They use 3-D models for better coordinated plan sets, as a competitive advantage, and for value engineering. Additionally, quantities take off, such as length of pipe, number of manholes, volume of roadway aggregate, et cetera, is the most popular post-project use for the 3-D model data that they create (52.2 percent). Other popular uses are paper plan production (47.5 percent) and preliminary design option scenarios/alternatives (45.0 percent). Three interesting post-project use options that are not as common are GPS machine control (19.8 percent), GIS (13.5 percent), and model mediation/clash detection or error analysis (13.52 percent).
According to survey results, the decision to use 3-D models is most frequently a personal decision (56.5 percent), rather than an internal firm/organization decision (42.3 percent) or a company standard process (23.7 percent). (Note that responses were not mutually exclusive.)
Considering that formal drivers to use the technology are somewhat lacking, it is no surprise that this technologically experienced group is still not exclusively using 3-D modeling to its full potential all the time. See the results below about the frequency users engage in various practices with 3-D models and other practices for design and analysis. Responses were obtained using a 5-point rating scale, where 1 was "never," 2 was "rarely," 3 was "occasionally," 4 was "usually," and 5 was "always." A don’t know/not applicable option was provided as well, but was not included in the rating average.
Figure 9: Using a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always), rate the frequency you engage in the following practices:
| Answer options |
Rating Average |
| I depend on third-party software, including Excel spreadsheets I have written, to conduct design and analysis. |
3.44 |
| I use the 3-D modeling capabilities of my civil engineering software for design and analysis. |
3.31 |
| I create 3-D models but limit its use to viewing existing grade and designing proposed contours. |
2.90 |
| I draft contours, cross sections, and profiles to design, rather than build a 3-D model. |
2.87 |
| I take advantage of my civil engineering software’s dynamic capabilities to make a change in one view that will be represented in the 3-D model. |
2.86 |
| My firm/organization regularly meets with project owners to discuss the value of 3-D modeling and its role for value engineering services. |
2.13 |
Understanding how they use their 3-D modeling solutions, we also wanted to learn on what projects it is most commonly applied. Site design (including earthworks) is the most popular type of design and analysis conducted with a 3-D model, as it was selected by 80.2 percent of 3-D modelers. Roadway layout and design (74 percent) was the next most popular choice, followed at a distance by hydrologic analysis and design for stormwater management (41.8 percent) and hydraulic analysis and design of pipe systems (40.3 percent). In terms of project types on which respondents use 3-D models, roadways (64.7 percent), non-residential/commercial (59.6 percent), residential (49.2 percent), and stormwater (48.3 percent) were most common.
The most popular benefits reported from using 3-D modeling on projects were improved visualization of design (71.2 percent), improved quality of work/quality assurance (61.8 percent), and reduced errors/misinterpretations (47.9 percent). The benefits that ranked lowest were expanded revenue opportunities (10.9 percent), minimized liability (9.1 percent), and faster construction time (8.2 percent). Even with many benefits cited, 10.6 percent of respondents selected "I have not realized any benefits when I used 3-D modeling."
We also asked about the negative consequences of using 3-D modeling and found that more respondents reported benefits than consequences. In fact, 35 percent of respondents indicated that they have not realized any negative consequences when using 3-D modeling. The most common negative consequence was that production costs went up internally (36.9 percent), followed by increased design time (30.6 percent). All other negative consequences listed were selected by 11 percent or fewer of the 3-D modeling users, with degraded quality of work; worsened collaboration externally with contractor, owner, other consultants, et cetera; increased change orders; degraded visualization of design; and increased construction time all receiving less than 3 percent of the responses.
Thinking back to our definition of 3-D models, which included that they can be used for collaboration and construction, the sharing of 3-D modeling data was of particular interest to the editors, as this is a practice we expect to become more prominent in the near future. We found that 53.2 percent of 3-D modeling users have shared a 3-D model with someone outside of their firm/organization. Sharing with a design consultant outside my organization for collaboration" was the most popular response (53.9 percent). Other popular options were sharing with the entire project team, including the owner, contractor, and other design consultants for collaboration (43.8 percent); a contractor for cost estimates (43.2 percent); and a contractor for GPS machine control (41.6 percent).
Since most respondents to the survey (54.7 percent) believe that sharing digital civil engineering 3-D model data is somewhat risky or very risky, it is valuable to understand how firms/organizations that engage in this practice protect themselves when sharing 3-D models externally. What we found was somewhat concerning: 33 percent of respondents don’t practice any risk management techniques when sharing 3-D models externally.
As a side note, it is interesting to note that only 13.9 percent of all 588 respondents reported that sharing paper plan sets is somewhat risky or very risky. And while sharing digital civil engineering 3-D model data received a 54.7-percent response for being somewhat risky or very risky, even more—57.5 percent—reported that sharing digital plan sets is somewhat risky or very risky.
For those of you who have considered implementing 3-D modeling at your firm, you might appreciate knowing how the users of 3-D modeling rated the challenges involved with implementing 3-D modeling. Responses were obtained using a 5-point rating scale, where 1 was "very unchallenging," 2 was "somewhat challenging," 3 was "average," 4 was "somewhat challenging," and 5 was "very challenging." A don’t know option was provided as well, but was not included in the rating average.
Please rate how challenging the following tasks were when you got started with 3-D modeling?
| Answer options |
Rating Average |
| Training staff on new software |
4.1 |
| Effectively implementing the new process/workflow |
4.0 |
| Training staff on new process/workflow |
4.0 |
| Establishing the process/workflow |
3.9 |
| Realizing the value from a financial perspective |
3.6 |
| Purchasing software/technology |
3.5 |
| Understanding opportunities for other services it would enable for the company |
3.5 |
Most 3-D modeling users reported that they initiated the process of 3-D modeling with an actual project and had an internal champion/committee to assist others with training and support when they implemented the technology into their workflow. The tactics employed are listed below.
Conclusion
Much valuable information was gained from this research project. Namely, a standardized definition of 3-D modeling has not been accepted, or learned, by the civil engineering community. While the benefits of the technology are being realized, barriers to adoption still exist, especially reluctance to change traditional processes and workflows. Of course, this finding begs the question: Do the benefits outweigh the costs of change? Only time will tell. Since those who have adopted the technology are still using it most commonly at their own discretion, not as mandated by their firm as a standard process, I expect more leaders will have to understand the opportunities presented by the technology to implement the necessary process and workflow changes necessitated by 3-D modeling adoption. If our respondents are good forecasters, such changes will be dramatic and happen within a short timeframe if we are going to achieve 50 percent adoption within five years and 90 percent adoption in five to 10 years, as predicted.
Want to learn more? Join Shanon Fauerbach, P.E., editorial director of CE News and author of the Civil Engineering Technology Survey, to delve deeper into our findings from this project. We couldn’t cover all we learned in this article, so view our archived webcast to gain a deeper under-standing of how the civil engineering industry is adopting these exciting technologies. View the archived webcast at: www.cenews.com/webcast. Attendance is free.
This CE News Webcast is proudly sponsored by Autodesk
.
Beyond training
By Marc E. Meyers
In the past, implementation of civil engineering software was more or less just training. As the design software has evolved, so have the methods and considerations that are needed for a successful implementation. Prior to making the switch from 2-D drafting to 3-D modeling, you should develop a plan that will guide you and your organization along a path to increased efficiency and better designs.
"The number one factor in ensuring the success of a 3-D modeling implementation is support from management," said Mark Scacco, P.E., president of Engineered Efficiency, a 3-D modeling consulting firm. "A very close second is support from the end users." As you begin developing your implementation plan, be certain to get input and feedback from those who will be affected by the change and make sure you have the proper support.
The next important step is to develop a plan. The plan should be comprehensive and take into consideration how your organization works and the tasks your users must accomplish. "3-D modeling software is not an end in itself but rather a means to accomplishing the real jobs of designing and drafting. Make sure that the software integrates into your existing processes as much as possible without upsetting the apple cart," said Scacco. "Successful engineering organizations should not have to abandon practices or procedures that work; rather their workflows should be optimized to take advantage of all that 3-D modeling has to offer."
After your plan has been developed, the next step is execution. Successful migration to 3-D modeling requires a commitment and willingness to work through the learning curve. Be patient with your rollout. Pick an initial project and project team and provide them with training immediately before the project begins. Next, work through the project, noting what parts of the plan work and what need modification. Additionally, to ensure users remain productive during the first project, have the right technical resources to help deliver on the plan. Relying on in-house staff, partnering with outside consultants, or a combination of both, pilot projects must be kept on track by someone who knows the software and what you are trying to do with it.
With the proper organizational support, implementation planning, and technical resources, your transition from 2-D drafting to true 3-D modeling will be successful.
Marc E. Meyers is a vice president with Engineered Efficiency, a 3-D modeling consulting firm. He can be reached at marc.meyers@eng-eff.com.
GIS, GPS machine control, and 3-D laser scanning highlights
Three other technologies were explored in the survey: GIS for civil engineering, GPS machine control, and 3-D laser scanning. We learned that the respondents perceive that GIS will have a significant impact on the industry—almost as substantial as 3-D modeling. The respondents’ anticipated timeframes for adoption of this and the other technologies that were studied are below.
How long do you think it will be before 50 percent and 90 percent of the civil engineering industry uses the following on a regular basis?
|
GIS and CAD together |
GPS machine control |
Laser Scanning |
||||
| Answer options |
50% |
90% |
50% |
90% |
50% use |
90% use |
| I think it already does now |
18.8% |
5.7% |
7.6% |
1.1% |
2.0% |
0.4% |
| Within 5 years |
33.8% |
15.7% |
26.4% |
9.9% |
17.9% |
5.9% |
| 5-10 years from now |
28.6% |
29.6% |
36.6% |
22.2% |
35.8% |
17.9% |
| 11-14 years from now |
7.8% |
18.3% |
17.1% |
22.2% |
24.3% |
21.5% |
| 15-20 years from now |
4.0% |
13.6% |
7.8% |
18.8% |
12.0% |
25.6% |
| More than 20 years from now |
0.9% |
8.4% |
3.0% |
17.4% |
5.4% |
18.4% |
| Never |
1.1% |
4.2% |
1.6% |
8.5% |
2.7% |
10.4% |
Barriers to adoption of technology are always interesting to explore, especially when the industry seems to think that we will universally adopt the use of these technologies most likely within the next decade.
In your opinon, what is the most significant barrier to industry-wide use of:
|
GIS and CAD together |
GPS machine control |
3-D laser scanning |
|
| General understanding of the technology and the opportunities it presents |
25.8% |
23.1% |
27.5% |
| Reluctance to change traditional processes and workflows |
25.1% |
25.8% |
16.3% |
| Financial cost |
17.0% |
26.1% |
40.4% |
| Need for quality training |
13.8% |
5.8% |
5.9% |
|
Risks/liabilities |
8.3% |
14.6% |
4.3% |
| Interoperability |
5.8% |
3.0% |
3.0% |
| Time |
4.2% |
1.6% |
2.7% |
GIS—In addition to the information highlighted above, we learned that 18.9 percent of respondents believe that civil engineers already have direct access to the CAD and GIS data they need to perform design in both GIS and CAD systems. However, most respondents think it will be within 5 years (31.5 percent) or 5 to 10 years (22.9 percent) before we reach that stage. As for when respondents think that civil engineers will, in the normal course of business, supply their 3-D models to public entities’ GIS, most anticipate that practice happening 5 to 10 years from now (30 percent) or maybe even within 5 years (25.7 percent).
These time frames may be realistic, since 47.5 percent of respondents reported that GIS is a tool used in their civil engineering workflow. This group of GIS user told us that the type of design and analysis that they conduct using GIS and CAD together most commonly is site design (64.8 percent), followed closely by roadway layout and design (56.9 percent). Also popular are hydrologic analysis and design for stormwater management (52.1 percent) and hydraulic analysis and design of pipe systems (46.4 percent). They use GIS and CAD together for various advantages, but the most significant benefit is improved visualization of design (58.7 percent). Internal production cost increases was the most commonly selected negative consequence, but it was chosen by only 17.2 percent of GIS users.
GPS machine control—Only 20 percent of respondents reported that they have shared or their firm has shared a 3-D model for GPS machine control. Those who have engaged in this practice have limited experience; most reported doing so for 10 or fewer projects (73.9 percent). Site design, residential and commercial, and roadways projects are the most common types of projects for sharing 3-D model data for GPS machine control. Like with the other benefits, we discovered many benefits from using GPS machine control, including faster construction time (58.6 percent), project cost benefits for the owner or contractor (54.1 percent), and improved quality of work/quality assurance (45.1 percent). The most significant negative consequences were increased liability (26.9 percent), and increased production costs internally and design time (both 18.5 percent).
3-D laser scanning—Twenty-three percent of respondents have personal or firm experience with a project that used 3-D laser scanning data (whether captured by them or another party), yet the experience is minimal, as most users reported that less than 5 percent of projects in the past year involved 3-D laser scanning. About 32 percent of users reported owning at least one 3-D laser scanner; most users reported that they obtain laser scanning data from subconsultants (65.6 percent). Bridge projects (33.3 percent) are most popular for using 3-D laser scanning, along with roadways (32.5 percent), non-residential/commercial projects (31.8 percent), and highways (30.2 percent).
As with 3-D modeling and GIS used with CAD, improved visualization of design was the most popular benefit (50.0 percent), with internal production cost increases being the top negative consequence (21.1 percent).
As with 3-D modeling, the industry perceives significant adoption of these technologies in a relatively short time frame. Will the industry become better educated on these technologies, overcome its reluctance to change current processes and workflows, and realize the financial viability of adoption to make the forecasts come true? You can trust that CE News will be monitoring the answer to this question very closely.
This article is proudly sponsored by |
