ACRP

AIRPORT
COOPERATIVE
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
SYNTHESIS 34

Subsurface Utility Engineering Sponsored by

the Federal
Information Management Aviation Administration

for Airports

A Synthesis of Airport Practice

ACRP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE* TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2012 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

CHAIR OFFICERS
JAMES WILDING Chair: Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson
Metropolitan Washington Airports Vice Chair: Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern
Authority (retired) Corporation, Norfolk, VA
Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board
VICE CHAIR
JEFF HAMIEL MEMBERS
Minneapolis–St. Paul J. BARRY BARKER, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY
Metropolitan Airports Commission WILLIAM A.V. CLARK, Professor of Geography and Professor of Statistics, Department of Geography,
University of California, Los Angeles
MEMBERS EUGENE A. CONTI, JR., Secretary of Transportation, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh
JAMES CRITES JAMES M. CRITES, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas-Fort Worth International
Dallas–Ft. Worth International Airport Airport, TX
RICHARD DE NEUFVILLE PAULA J. C. HAMMOND, Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia
Massachusetts Institute of Technology MICHAEL W. HANCOCK, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort
KEVIN C. DOLLIOLE CHRIS T. HENDRICKSON, Duquesne Light Professor of Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University,
Unison Consulting Pittsburgh, PA
JOHN K. DUVAL ADIB K. KANAFANI, Professor of the Graduate School, University of California, Berkeley
Austin Commercial, LP GARY P. LAGRANGE, President and CEO, Port of New Orleans, LA
KITTY FREIDHEIM MICHAEL P. LEWIS, Director, Rhode Island DOT, Providence
Freidheim Consulting SUSAN MARTINOVICH, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City
STEVE GROSSMAN JOAN McDONALD, Commissioner, New York State DOT, Albany
Jacksonville Aviation Authority MICHAEL R. MORRIS, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington
KELLY JOHNSON TRACY L. ROSSER, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport Authority Mandeville, LA
CATHERINE M. LANG HENRY G. (GERRY) SCHWARTZ, JR., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO
Federal Aviation Administration BEVERLY A. SCOTT, General Manager and CEO, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority,
GINA MARIE LINDSEY Atlanta, GA
Los Angeles World Airports DAVID SELTZER, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA
CAROLYN MOTZ KUMARES C. SINHA, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University,
Airport Design Consultants, Inc. West Lafayette, IN
RICHARD TUCKER THOMAS K. SOREL, Commissioner, Minnesota DOT, St. Paul
Huntsville International Airport DANIEL SPERLING, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute
of Transportation Studies; and Acting Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS KIRK T. STEUDLE, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing
PAULA P. HOCHSTETLER DOUGLAS W. STOTLAR, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI
Airport Consultants Council C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of
SABRINA JOHNSON Texas, Austin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RICHARD MARCHI EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Airports Council International— REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute,
North America Smyrna, GA
LAURA McKEE ANNE S. FERRO, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
Airlines for America LEROY GISHI, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the
HENRY OGRODZINSKI Interior, Washington, DC
National Association of State Aviation JOHN T. GRAY II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads,
Officials Washington, DC
MELISSA SABATINE JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and
American Association of Airport Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
Executives MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT
ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR. DAVID T. MATSUDA, Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT
Transportation Research Board MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association,
Washington, DC
SECRETARY VICTOR M. MENDEZ, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT
CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS TARA O’TOOLE, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland
Transportation Research Board Security, Washington, DC
ROBERT J. PAPP (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, Washington, DC
CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S.DOT
PETER M. ROGOFF, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT
DAVID L. STRICKLAND, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
JOSEPH C. SZABO, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT
POLLY TROTTENBERG, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT
ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding
General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
Diamond Bar, CA
GREGORY D. WINFREE, Acting Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology
Administration, U.S.DOT

*Membership as of March 2012. *Membership as of March 2012.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

ACRP SYNTHESIS 34
Subsurface Utility Engineering
Information Management
for Airports

A Synthesis of Airport Practice

Consultants
James H. Anspach
J.H. Anspach Consulting
Bend, Oregon
and
Randy J. Murphy
Grafton Technologies, Inc.
Newburyport, Massachusetts

S ubscriber C ategories
Aviation • Design • Geotechnology

Research Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.
2012
www.TRB.org
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP SYNTHESIS 34

Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in Project A11-03, Topic S09-03
transportation of people and goods and in regional, national, and ISSN 1935-9187
inter­national commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation sys- ISBN 978-0-309-22367-6
tem ­connects with other modes of transportation and where federal Library of Congress Control Number 2012934396
responsibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations
intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and © 2012 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
operate most airports. Research is necessary to solve common oper-
ating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other
industries, and to introduce innovations into the airport industry. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) serves as one Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for
of the principal means by which the airport industry can develop obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the
innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce
Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes.
a study sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will
The ACRP carries out applied research on problems that are shared be used to imply TRB or FAA endorsement of a particular product, method,
by airport operating agencies and are not being adequately or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this
addressed by existing federal research programs. It is modeled after document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate
the successful National Cooperative Highway Research Program acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For
and Transit Cooperative Research Program. The ACRP undertakes other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
research and other technical activities in a variety of airport subj­ect
areas, including design, construction, maintenance, operations,
safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, and administra­ NOTICE
tion. The ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can coop-
eratively address common operational problems. The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Airport
The ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision Cooperative Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research
100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary partici- Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research
pants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the Council.
ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and
U.S. Department of Transportation with representation from airport to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with
operating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry orga- regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical
nizations such as the Airports Council International-North America panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and
(ACI-NA), the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the
the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), Governing Board of the National Research Council.
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those
Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport Consultants Council
of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those
(ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) the TRB as program
of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the
manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the FAA
program sponsors.
as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract
with the National Academies formally initiating the program.
The ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of air-
port professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National
officials, equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and Research Council, and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research
research organizations. Each of these participants has different Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’
interests and responsibilities, and each is an integral part of this names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the
cooperative research effort. object of the report.
Research problem statements for the ACRP are solicited period­
ically but may be submitted to the TRB by anyone at any time. It is
the responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by
identifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels
and expected products.
Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel,
appointed by the TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and
research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport
professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels
prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors,
and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the Published reports of the
­project. The process for developing research problem statements and
selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop- AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, are available from:
ACRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation.
Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the Transportation Research Board
intended end-users of the research: airport operating agencies, service Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
providers, and suppliers. The ACRP produces a series of research Washington, DC 20001
reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other
interested parties, and industry associations may arrange for work- and can be ordered through the Internet at
http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
shops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that
results are implemented by airport-industry practitioners. Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol-
ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology
and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in
1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni-
cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration
and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for
advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs
aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve-
ments of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining
to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative,
to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad-
emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences
and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the
Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively,
of the National Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The
mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and
progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci-
plinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and
other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of
whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation
departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org

www.national-academies.org
ACRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 11-03 COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF
CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
CHAIR CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research
JULIE KENFIELD Programs
Jacobs Engineering, Inc. MICHAEL R. SALAMONE, Senior Program Officer
JOSEPH J. BROWN-SNELL, Program Associate
MEMBERS EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications
RANDALL P. BURDETTE
Virginia Department of Aviation SYNTHESIS STUDIES STAFF
KEVIN C. DOLLIOLE STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs
Unison Consulting, Inc. JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies
LINDA HOWARD JO ALLEN GAUSE, Senior Program Officer
Bastrop, Texas GAIL R. STABA, Senior Program Officer
ARLYN PURCELL DONNA L. VLASAK, Senior Program Officer
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey TANYA M. ZWAHLEN, Consultant
BURR STEWART DON TIPPMAN, Senior Editor
Bursst, Seattle, Washington CHERYL KEITH, Senior Program Assistant
DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant
FAA LIAISON DEBBIE IRVIN, Program Associate
PAUL DEVOTI
TOPIC PANEL
ACI–NORTH AMERICA LIAISON BILL BAYHAM, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
A.J. MULDOON BRUCE CARTLIDGE, Greater Toronto Airports Authority
INTISSAR DURHAM, Los Angeles World Airports
AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION JEFF FITZGERALD, Jacobs Engineering Group, Fort Worth, TX
JOHN L. COLLINS MARC GAMBRILL, Broward County Aviation Department
D. T. (Tom) ISELEY, IUPUI-Purdue School of Engineering &
TRB LIAISON Technology, Indianapolis, IN
CHRISTINE GERENCHER ADRIAN JOHNSTON, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
STEPHEN F. MAHER, Transportation Research Board
NICHOLAS M. ZEMBILLAS, Cardno TBE Group, Inc., Clearwater, FL
MONICA STARNES, Transportation Research Board (Liaison)
KHALIL KODSI, Federal Aviation Administration (Liaison)

Cover figure: Jeffrey Oakley, EIT, designating utilities at Dulles

International Airport. Courtesy: So-Deep, Inc.
 FOREWORD Airport administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor-
mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac-
tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence,
full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its
solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked,
and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviat-
ing the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the airport industry. Much
of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their
day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful
information and to make it available to the entire airport community, the Airport Coop-
erative Research Program authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a
continuing project. This project, ACRP Project 11-03, “Synthesis of Information Related
to Airport Practices,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available
sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this
endeavor constitute an ACRP report series, Synthesis of Airport Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format,
without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report
in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures
found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems.

PREFACE This synthesis study is intended to provide airport operators, airport service providers,
By Gail R. Staba and utilities/infrastructure owners with ways in which information on subsurface utilities is
Senior Program Officer collected, maintained, and used by airports, their consultants, and the FAA to increase the
Transportation effectiveness of and enhance safety during infrastructure development programs at airports.
Research Board It compares the current state of technology and effective processes from other industry
sectors with what airports do today, allowing airports to consider areas for improvement.
To gather relevant information on current practices, literature was reviewed, and 16
airports were surveyed.
James H. Anspach, J.H. Anspach Consulting, Bend, Oregon, and Randy J. Murphy,
Grafton Technologies, Inc., Newburyport, Massachusetts, collected and synthesized the
information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on
the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the
practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time
of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be
added to that now at hand.
CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY

3 CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION
Background, 3
Audience, 6
Methodology, 6
Document Organization, 7

9 CHAPTER TWO   STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY

Geophysical Detection, 9
Positioning Methods, 13
Inertial Mapping, 14
Electronic Information Storage, Retrieval, and Analysis, 14
Technology Integration, 15

16 CHAPTER THREE   STATE OF THE ART

Existing Utility Records, 16
Utility Composite Records, 16
Data Reliability, 17
Survey of Geophysics, 18

20 CHAPTER FOUR   STATE OF THE PRACTICE

Organizational Factors, 20
Collecting Subsurface Utilities Data, 21
Storing Subsurface Utilities Data, 23
Using Subsurface Utilities Data, 25
Growing Use of Subsurface Utilities Engineering at Airports, 27

28 CHAPTER FIVE   EFFECTIVE PRACTICES

31 CHAPTER SIX   RESEARCH IN PROGRESS

Asset and Infrastructure Management for Airports (ACRP 01-16), 31
Evaluating CMMS Practices (ACRP Anticipated Project 09-05), 31
FAA National Airspace System Enterprise Architecture, 31
Mapping the Underworld, 31
Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) R-01A: Innovation in Technologies
to Support the Storage, Retrieval, and Utilization of 3D Utility Location Data
in Highway Renewal, 31
Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) R-01B: Multi-Sensor Platforms
for Utility Location & Characterization, 31
Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) R-01C: Expanding the Locatable
Zone for Underground Utilities, 32
Excavation Encroachment Notification (EEN) System, 32
33 CHAPTER SEVEN  CONCLUSIONS

35 GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS

36 REFERENCES

38 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

42 APPENDIX B SUE CONSULTANT SURVEY

44 APPENDIX C SUE PREQUALIFICATION CRITERIA

46 APPENDIX D SUE SAMPLE SCOPE OF WORK

Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from
color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at
www.trb.org) retains the color versions.
 Subsurface Utility Engineering
Information Management for Airports

Summary This synthesis report identifies ways in which information on subsurface utilities is collected,
maintained, and used by airports, their consultants, and the FAA to enhance safety during
infrastructure development programs at airports. It compares the current state of technology
and effective processes from other industry sectors with what airports do today, allowing
airports to consider areas for improvement.

Airports are typically served by a network of underground utilities, not all of which are
under their direct control. Many airports have unreliable and/or incomplete subsurface util-
ity data, and as a result, utilities are often damaged during or in conflict with infrastructure
development. Airports and consultants interviewed for this study indicated that the data about
subsurface utilities vary greatly in quality, quantity, and access. When airport utilities are dam-
aged or conflict with development plans, there are inevitably consequences for project sched-
ules and budgets and sometimes significant impacts on safe and efficient airport operations.

For example, on January 10, 1996, a routine capital improvement project caused damage
to an electrical cable at Newark International Airport, resulting in more than $1 billion of
impacts, including hundreds of canceled and re-routed flights, disruption of travel to tens
of thousands of people, and complete closure of the airport for more than 24 hours. This
accident was the direct result of not knowing where the electrical cable was located. Unfor-
tunately, this is not an isolated incident. This study found that some major airports experience
almost daily utility damages caused by construction activities.

Fortunately, existing technology can identify and reliably map subsurface utilities and
reduce the risks associated with utilities damage, although implementation of these pro-
cesses has been slow. Some airports have embraced geographic information systems (GIS)
to more efficiently store and use their utility data. Utility data are being integrated into not
only airport GIS programs but asset management, computerized maintenance management,
and other information technology resources. Some airports are beginning to incorporate new
technologies such as mobile computers so that field personnel can instantly have access to
needed utility information during construction and maintenance activities.

With greater access to improved software and hardware, airport GIS personnel report
that they would like better and more comprehensive data. This study found that airport staff
perceives that utility records are often inaccurate, incomplete, and not accessible to all who
need them. In many cases they do not include utilities that are owned by others, such as the
FAA, tenants, and local utility providers. Airports typically plan and design projects based on
existing records and a small portion of the utility networks that they can see on the surface. It
is the project manager’s or project engineer’s responsibility to identify the location of utilities
during planning and design. This study found that few airports have standardized policies or
procedures for how locating underground utilities is to be carried out by airport staff and/or
consultants. This places an increased responsibility on the project manager and often leads to
inconsistent results across an organization.

Most airports do require their consultants and tenants to provide as-built drawings; how-
ever, the quality of the information received is not standard and/or as expected, and sometimes
2

the information is not received at all. Although most airports have developed computer aided
design and drafting (CADD) standards for as-built drawings, few have developed standards
for related attributes and metadata or implemented procedures for submitting and storing these
data. Contractors are sometimes willing to forego any retainage held back in lieu of delivering
the as-builts an airport needs. The desire to complete projects and bring new facilities into use
often eclipses the need for information necessary to efficiently operate and maintain them.

Studies have consistently shown that having accurate and comprehensive information
available early in a project’s life cycle leads to significant project cost savings and reduced
risks. The practice of combining professional judgment with imaging, positioning, and map-
ping technologies for managing and coordinating the risks of existing underground utilities is
called subsurface utility engineering (SUE). University and DOT studies on these technolo-
gies and practices document a significant positive return on investment ranging from 462%
to 2,200% over traditional methods of researching, locating, surveying, mapping, and using
underground utility information.

SUE is considered an effective practice by the FHWA, AASHTO, the American Public
Works Association (APWA), the Associated General Contractors of American (AGC), the
utility damage prevention community, and many other organizations more recently including
the FAA.

This study found gaps in the use and understanding of SUE by many airport personnel and
their consultants. Several airports have begun to use SUE as a part of planning and designing
projects. Some have established separate programs or on-call contracts with SUE firms in an
attempt to map all of their utilities over time regardless of the requirements of specific proj-
ects. Some of these airports have reported satisfaction with their fledgling SUE programs, but
would also like to see improvements

Others forgo the use of SUE because the costs are higher than using existing records for
utility depictions. Many interviewees are unaware of the studies from other industry sectors
showing high return on investment. Airports that have funded SUE initiatives have done so
using a variety of mechanisms. Some have used airport operating funds to conduct focused
SUE projects that deliver CADD and/or GIS data depicting specific utilities or to pay for
an on-call contract to make SUE services available on an as-needed basis. Airports have
also initiated SUE activities as a part of construction projects or larger capital improvement
programs. Many of these construction projects and programs receive funds from the FAA’s
Airport Improvement Program.

This study identified gaps between existing technology and processes for utility risk man-
agement in other industries with those in the airport industry. These gaps suggest that further
research is needed to:

• Increase awareness and training on SUE practices

• Integrate utility mapping with geotechnical investigations
• Develop SUE prequalification criteria for airports
• Standardize scopes of work for utility mapping for airports
• Develop SUE cost guidelines for airports
• Develop a utility data model for airports
• Improve CADD–GIS interoperability
• Develop a metadata profile for airports
• Integrate utility mapping into the project development process for airports.

The study concludes that while the use of SUE on airport projects to obtain and man-
age data is growing, SUE is not being used as effectively in other sectors and is not always
aligned with existing procedures.
 3

chapter one

Introduction

Background cuts from excavation, assess actions being taken to prevent

disruptions, and provide information to FAA managers for
This chapter identifies the objective and intended audience use as a basis for decision making. The recommendations
of this report. It accentuates how critical reliable informa- of that report were not implemented owing to FAA orga-
tion about subsurface utilities is to airports and the risks that nizational structure and funding constraints (Nguyen 2003).
poor information poses to safety, operational efficiency, and Because of the continuing problem of cable cuts, the director
infrastructure development costs. It also provides an intro- of National Airspace System (NAS) Implementation (ANI)
duction to subsurface utilities engineering (SUE) and how initiated another study in November 2001 to revisit the issue
the processes it embodies help mitigate those risks. Finally, and develop improvement practices to decrease cable cuts
it summarizes the methodology for conducting this study and during ANI construction projects at airports.
the contents of this report.
The ANI Advanced Implementation Team discovered the fol-
The objective of this synthesis report is to describe cur- lowing facts. All too often, utility damages can have catastrophic
rent and effective practices within the airport industry of results. Even when not catastrophic, the results from damages
can be significant. Being one of the many tenants at the airport,
collecting, storing, and using subsurface utility informa- FAA owns vital underground utilities at airports. Disruptions
tion. The intended audience for this report includes airport to telecommunications or electrical power systems that support
operators, airport service providers, the FAA, and utilities/­ critical FAA facilities and services have a significant impact.
infrastructure owners. These may include air traffic delays, increased air traffic work-
load, and operational and personnel safety concerns. Multi-
million dollars lawsuits are increasingly common. Traditional
Airports are typically served by a network of underground solutions have not reduced damages to an acceptable frequency.
utilities, some of which may be operated independently. These solutions typically made the contractor responsible for
Unreliable and/or incomplete subsurface utility data can utility protection during excavation, and encouraged or required
some utility owners to mark their facilities’ locations on the
result in damage to these utilities during development or ren- ground surface just prior to construction. The ANI Team also
ovation (Anspach 1998), which inevitably affects construct discovered that the general engineering and construction indus-
schedules, budget projects, and even safety (FAA 1993). try has the same problem and is undertaking an increased effort
to reduce underground utility damages during excavation. This
effort includes the increased use of Subsurface Utility Engineer-
The likelihood of unintentional utility damage during air- ing (SUE), and the development of a new national engineering
port development projects is high for two reasons. First, standard ASCE 38 (Nguyen, 2003).
many airports operate somewhat autonomously from their
surrounding jurisdictions. Their operating procedures are Other transportation sectors have also conducted exten-
largely dictated by the FAA, which is focused on aviation sive studies of the risks subsurface utilities can pose to safe
safety, security, and efficiency and has no standards for under- and efficient operations and infrastructure. A large-scale
ground utilities owned by airports or local entities. The FAA study (FHWA 1999) characterized utility project risks on
does have a standard for subsurface utility damage preven- highways as follows:
tion (ANI1Q-QCW1342.1); however, it applies only to FAA
projects (FAA 2004). There are mixed reports on whether Project delays and extra costs resulting from:
this standard is being applied consistently among airports.
Second, airports host a large volume of complex operations • Unnecessary utility relocations based on incorrect loca-
in a relatively small space. Supporting these operations with tion information
minimal above-ground hazard to aircraft operations requires a • Unexpected utilities found during construction
vast and complex network of underground utilities. In short, a • Unexpected utility configurations
large volume of buried utilities that support critical operations, • Redesign of utility or structural project elements
combined with disparate procedures and a great deal of miss- • Unanticipated utility relocation construction
ing data, leads to risks that need to be mitigated (FAA 1993). • Utility damage repair
• Utility damage environmental mitigation
In 1994, the associate administrator for aviation safety • Utility damage pavement mitigation
initiated a study to review the causes and impacts of cable • Utilities at unexpected depths
4

• Utilities in poor condition that need replacement or repair on a normal schedule, with no impact on passengers. Mainte-
• Utility One-Call marks not matching up with construc- nance crews are on site and estimate completion of the cable
repair by 7:00 p.m. this evening.
tion plan depictions.

Initial project costs higher resulting from: The Orange County Register, June 16, 2010

• Contractors pricing utility risk contingencies Commuters on the I-405 and 55 freeways came across some
• Investigation and processing of incomplete and inaccu- delays Wednesday morning after a gas line ruptured at a John
Wayne Airport construction area. The main gas line to the airport
rate utility information terminal was damaged at about 7:30 a.m., said Jenny Wedge, an
airport spokeswoman. It occurred at the construction site of the
Safety risks resulting from: central utility plant, near a parking structure at the east end of
the airport. Wedge said takeoffs and landings were not affected.
While crews worked to shut off the gas leak, travelers were seen
• Damaged utilities affecting safe vehicle operation walking with their luggage along Michelson Drive.
controls, such as traffic signalization
• Traveler inconvenience resulting from closure of
surrounding highways. Baltimore Sun, February 10, 2004

A gas leak at Baltimore–Washington International Airport tied

The following news articles illustrate some of the poten- up vehicle traffic yesterday afternoon and prompted the tempo-
tial consequences of the risks posed by incomplete informa- rary evacuation of three piers, airport officials said. Construction
tion about subsurface utilities at airports. crews were working on part of the airport’s $1.8 billion expan-
sion about 11:30 a.m. when they ruptured a gas line on the lower
level outside the main terminal, said a spokeswoman for BWI.
New York Times, January 10, 1995
As the incidents above illustrate, utility disruptions pres-
Newark International Airport was crippled, then shut down, and ent significant risk to airport operations, aircraft operations,
air travel in the Eastern United States was seriously disrupted
today after a construction crew driving piles for a new garage
and human safety. Identifying and developing strategies to
accidentally crushed high-voltage underground electrical cables mitigate them are an important part of an airport safety man-
serving the airport’s three passenger terminals. agement system (SMS). FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-37
defines SMS as “the formal, top-down business-like approach
Several hundred of Newark’s passenger flights were canceled
and the travel plans of tens of thousands of people were ruined to managing safety risk. It includes systematic procedures,
after the mishap cut off electricity to the three terminals at about practices, and policies for the management of safety (includ-
8:30 a.m. Some passengers flying from Europe to Newark ended ing safety risk management, safety policy, safety assurance,
up in Bangor, Me.; others took unexpected detours on domes-
tic trips, landing at LaGuardia and Kennedy airports and being
and safety promotion)” (FAA 2007).
bused here to pick up cars and meet their families.
The extent and complexity of the utility networks that can
At 5 p.m., the airport’s general manager, Benjamin DeCosta, impact safety in and around an airport, the types of hazards or
ordered the airport, the nation’s ninth-busiest, shut until Tues-
day morning as utility crews struggled into the night to install vulnerabilities that utilities present, and methods of address-
a 100-foot loop of cable to bypass the three damaged lines and ing them fall under the area of safety risk management. Air-
restore power to the terminals. ports can support the safety risk management process by
accurately and comprehensively depicting the location of
existing utilities, identifying the airport systems each serves,
Minneapolis Star Tribune, August 29, 2000
and providing important details that can help in assessing
A severed cable temporarily disabled a landing system on two the level of risk and determining mitigation strategies. Dis-
runways Monday morning at Minneapolis-St. Paul International seminating information on subsurface utilities helps promote
Airport, delaying about 15 Northwest Airlines arrivals. Airport safety among contractors, airport maintenance staff, airline
spokesmen said a construction crew accidentally cut a cable near
the southeast end of the airport’s north parallel runway about ground crews, and others that routinely come into contact
9 a.m. That led to a 50-minute interruption in operation of the with airport utilities infrastructure.
two parallel runways’ instrument landing system, designed to
guide arriving planes when visibility is low.
Having effective methods of achieving accurate and com-
prehensive subsurface utility information not only minimizes
Colorado Springs Airport Website News,
safety risks; it can limit their effect on construction project
January 11, 2007 costs and schedules. Figure 1 illustrates the ability to control
risks to program costs and various phases during a project
At approximately 12:30 p.m., contractors working on the west development schedule. It is easier to control risks when accu-
side of the Colorado Springs Airport cut the primary fiber optics
phone cable that serves the passenger terminal building. Airline
rate, comprehensive data are available early in the project
and airport personnel have switched to back-up communications development process (University of Texas 1986). However,
systems and it is anticipated that flight operations will continue airport project managers are often under pressure to deliver
 5

Figure 1  Ability to influence construction costs as a function of the project development process
­timeline (University of Texas 1986).

a project at the lowest possible initial cost with little thought assessment, communication of utility data to concerned
toward future operating and maintenance costs or utility parties, utility relocation cost estimates, implementation of
safety issues. utility accommodation policies, and utility design (ASCE
2002). An important duty of the subsurface utility engineer
Developing procedures to avoid damaging utilities is not is effective coordination, communication, and cooperation
only good practice, it is a requirement. Airports that have between stakeholders, including utilities, One-Call centers,
scheduled passenger-carrying flights on aircraft with nine or public agencies, consultants, construction contractors, and
more seats and unscheduled passenger-carrying flights with project owners (AASHTO/FHWA 2002).
31 or more seats must “Provide procedures, such as a review
of all appropriate utility plans prior to construction, for The use of SUE in other transportation sectors consistently
avoiding damage to existing utilities, cables, wires, conduits, shows a significant return on investment (ROI), with the most
pipelines, or other underground facilities” according to Part recent study by Penn State University documenting a 2200%
139.341 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 2011). ROI over traditional means and methods of collecting, depict-
A case might be made that the phrase “appropriate utility ing, and using utility information (Singha 2007). Said another
plans” implies plans that are accurate and comprehensive. way, every $1 spent in using appropriate geophysics to reli-
ably identify utilities early in the project delivery process cut
SUE was developed to incorporate the disparate, ineffi- costs by $22 in reduced test excavations, redesign costs, proj-
cient, and unorganized methods of collecting and depicting ect delays, contractor change orders, bid prices, unnecessary
utility data and establish practices to be carried out by reg- utility relocations, and utility and environmental repairs.
istered professionals with expertise in geophysics, survey-
ing, and engineering. These professionals use their judgment In other studies that encompassed more than 100 capi-
to select appropriate basic and advanced technologies and tal improvement projects of various sizes and complexities,
then use those technologies to collect and depict the loca- totaling well in excess of $1 billion worth of design and
tion of utility infrastructure and related details about it (i.e., construction costs, ROI was positive in all but three proj-
attributes), as well as information about the quality of these ects. This led Purdue University to conclude that the use of
data (i.e., metadata). SUE is widely recognized as a means of SUE, in particular the use of geophysics as a tool for utility
both managing and mitigating risks that subsurface utilities mapping, should be used systemically for highway projects.
pose to the design and construction process (Anspach 2009). These studies included:
SUE is officially defined by the American Society of Civil
Engineers as a branch of engineering practice that involves • Virginia Department of Transportation: 700% ROI
managing certain risks associated with utility mapping at (Scott 1996)
appropriate quality levels (QLs), utility coordination (UC), • Maryland State Highway Administration: 1800% ROI
utility relocation design and coordination, utility condition (FHWA 1995)
6

• Purdue University: 462% ROI (FHWA 1999) and have larger budgets for SUE activities, smaller airports
• University of Toronto: 341% ROI (Osman 2005). must also manage utility networks, incorporate utilities into
planning and design projects, and be aware of possible utility
The typical way that utility information is deemed reli- conflicts during construction.
able is by knowing its origin, the qualifications of the per-
sons creating it, the technology they used, and the amount of
Methodology
trust placed in these persons. The result is a massive amount
of metadata, or information specifically about the utilities
This study was carried out in three phases. First, a search
data that is required for a user to ascertain reliability. The
for existing relevant literature was conducted and the result-
ASCE’s Standard Guidelines for the Collection and Depic-
ing documents were reviewed for information about the state
tion of Existing Subsurface Utility Data, CI/ASCE 38-02,
of the technology, art, or practice. Second, phone interviews
simplifies this process by defining a utility quality level (QL)
were carried out with a variety of airport administrators and
attribute that incorporates origin, qualifications, technology,
their consultants. A questionnaire was designed to solicit
and trust/accountability. QL is broken down into the follow-
information about current practice at airports and was used
ing four levels:
to guide these interviews. Third, an e-mail survey was con-
ducted of firms that have provided SUE services to airports.
• Utility quality level A (QLA)—Information obtained
The results were combined with information identified dur-
by the actual exposure (or verification of previously
ing other studies being conducted by the investigators, as
exposed and surveyed utilities) and subsequent direct
well as their experience providing SUE services to airports.
measurement of subsurface utilities, usually at a spe-
All of the information gathered was synthesized into this
cific point.
report, a draft of which was reviewed by a panel of experts,
• Utility quality level B (QLB)—Information obtained
before this final report was produced. This methodology is
through the application of appropriate surface geophys-
described in more detail here.
ical methods to infer the existence and approximate
horizontal position of subsurface utilities. QLB data
should be reproducible by surface geophysics at any Literature Search
point of their depiction. The horizontal locations are
surveyed to the horizontal positional accuracy require- A literature search was undertaken to identify documents
ments of the project or any required statute. in the public domain that relate to subsurface utilities and
• Utility quality level C (QLC)—Information obtained airports. The literature search made use of Transportation
by surveying and plotting visible utility features and by Research International Documentation (TRID) and the Inter-
using professional judgment in correlating this infor- net by means of commercial search engines. Keywords placed
mation to quality level D information. in the TRID search engine returned only 12 results, none more
• Utility quality level D (QLD)—Information derived recent than 2004, and after review of the abstracts, only two
from existing records or oral recollections. pertained to this topic. Removing any keyword reference to
aviation or airports produced an additional 275 results, some
of which were relevant regardless of transportation or indus-
Audience try sector.
This report is primarily written for airport design and Internet searches were performed with various combi-
construction project managers and their counterparts in nations of keywords such as “utilities,” “subsurface util-
consulting organizations. These individuals are the pri- ity engineering,” “SUE,” “airport,” and “FAA,” with the
mary parties who will decide if and how SUE practices names of each type of utility found at airports (i.e., “fuel,”
and principles are incorporated into the projects they man- “water,” “storm,” etc.) as well as with specific types of
age and used to manage underground utility risks. Airport studies typically carried out by airports (i.e., “storm water
engineers, computer aided design and drafting (CADD)/ pollution prevention plan”). This produced 1,700 results.
geographic information system (GIS) technicians, and sur- Technical paper abstracts were reviewed for applicabil-
veyors can also benefit by understanding the technologies, ity. Seven were found that had not already been identified
practices, and policies that guide their work. Although the through other means. The vast majority of the documents
report is written for airport administrators and their con- were SUE consultant websites or articles that mentioned
sultants, FAA managers and staff who are involved with SUE and airports in the same document, but had no useful
projects that install utilities will also find the information information for this study.
in this report helpful.
To complement electronic searches for documents and
This report can be useful for airports of any size. While phone interviews, e-mails were sent to a sampling of airport
larger airports often embark on larger construction projects industry consultants. Specifically, members of the Transpor-
 7

tation Research Board’s (TRB’s) Airport GIS Subcommittee

and attendees of American Association of Airport Execu-
tives (AAAE) conferences held over the last 14 years were
contacted. They were asked for copies of or references to
written procedures, standards, request for proposals, or other
material that related to utilities data at airports. Finally, refer-
ences furnished by this study’s expert task group, and litera-
ture and documents already in the possession of this study’s
investigators, were also reviewed and are contained in the
References.

Phone Interviews

Sixteen airports were identified at the 2011 AAAE GIS con-

ference as having recent capital improvement projects with Figure 2  Distribution of airports for which information on this
utility involvement. All 16 agreed to be interviewed and study was collected.
subsequent telephone interviews were conducted. Two air-
ports were outside the U.S. Of the 16, eight are considered
large-hub airports; that is, airports handling more than 1% of in support of other federally funded studies. Although the
the nation’s annual passenger boardings. Interviews lasted objectives of these studies differed from the review con-
approximately 90 minutes and were structured from a ques- ducted for this project, some of the information gathered in
tionnaire that was sent to the airports before the interview these other studies was related to subsurface utility engineer-
so that respondents could internally seek the answers from ing at airports and was therefore taken into account. These
different departments within their organizations. The ques- studies include the Strategic Highway Research Program
tionnaire was intended as a guide to facilitate discussion. A Projects R-01A, R-01B, and R-01C.
blank copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix A.
The answers have been aggregated to maintain confidential-
Document Organization
ity of interviewees and are included in the body of this report.
This document has been organized into a Summary, seven
Airport interviewees suggested other sources of informa- chapters, and four appendices.
tion, and as a result, informal interviews were also conducted
with several large consulting engineering firms, FAA repre- • Chapter one provides an introduction stating the
sentatives, software and hardware vendors that supply the objectives and intended audience of this report. It
airport and/or public utility industries, and energy industry identifies the problem that this report is intended to
representatives. help address and identifies processes airports have
used to effectively overcome it. This introduction
also describes the methodology used during this study
E-Mail Survey
and provides an overview of the organization of this
A questionnaire was developed and sent to 15 major SUE document.
providers whose websites indicated they had experience with • Chapter two details the existing state of the technology
mapping utilities at airports. Ten firms responded, with util- (SOT). It reviews current geophysical tools for imaging
ity mapping experience covering 44 airports. The 44 airports utilities, survey tools for both positioning the geophysi-
covered included eight for which interviews were conducted. cal tools or for creating as-builts of exposed utilities,
The questionnaire provided both confirmation and differing information storage and retrieval methods, and technol-
perspectives of the procedures at these eight airports. ogy integration where the lines are blurred.
• Chapter three deals with the state of the art (SOA). It
Figure 2 illustrates the geographic extent of North Ameri- explains how property and project owners who rou-
can airports for which information was gathered. In addition, tinely contend with utility issues integrate the available
two Western European airport authorities were interviewed. technology into a system that reduces utility risk during
projects, maintenance, and operations.
• Chapter four reviews the results of the interviews and
Parallel Study surveys. It explains how airports in general are deal-
ing with utility data management. It can be used as a
In addition to the interviews carried out for this project, comparison between what can be done, as described in
investigators were concurrently carrying out similar research chapters two and three, and what is being done. It is a
8

snapshot of the state of the practice (SOP). By request, • Chapter six looks at research in progress. It identi-
the identity of individual airports in this section is not fies any current research that is related to the topics
revealed. addressed in this study. The purpose of this is twofold:
• Chapter five highlights what individual airports, their first, to identify areas where additional information will
consultants, and SUE providers believe are effective soon be available; second, to provide suggestions that
practices being used by at least some airports and that may help influence these other studies so that they pro-
could be considered for use by a broader audience. vide additional benefit to the intended audience of this
While at first glance this may appear like integration study.
between SOT and SOA, it takes the perspective of users • Chapter seven summarizes the report conclusions and
and providers into account. identifies areas for further research.
 9

chapter two

State of the Technology

This chapter describes technologies that use geophysics to Electromagnetic Pipe and Cable Locators
detect and interpret the location of utilities already in the
ground, reference utilities to a position on the earth, and Electromagnetic pipe and cable locators (EML) have been in
store and retrieve utility information. The detection meth- common use since the 1960s. Recent advances in technology
ods detailed below are commercially available and broadly make it possible to measure and display current flow direc-
applicable. The relative merits and applicability of these tech- tion, in addition to EML’s traditional function of displaying
nologies are described, but not the theories behind them or signal amplitude. Advances also include multiple antennas
instructions on how to use them. (Information on theory and and frequencies. EML devices come in a variety of available
use can be found in many of the references in the Appendices.) frequencies ranging from 50 HZ to 500 kHZ. The range of
frequencies is essential in order to detect utilities in a variety
The technologies that are currently available include geo- of situations (TSA 2011).
physical sensors, survey equipment, CADD and GIS software
tools, portable field computers, wireless communications, Most EML devices allow the operator to interpret the
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), Global Positioning signal as being utility-related, mark the position of that sig-
System (GPS)-enabled cameras, and software. Some of the nal on the ground, and subsequently survey that mark. New
devices can be equipped with mapping grade GPS capabili-
more recent and advanced technologies are integrated with
ties. This positional data can be transmitted wirelessly to
multiple sensors and survey capabilities in a single platform
another computer or stored within the unit for later output.
(Young 2010). Technologies for detecting, tracing, position-
Most devices come with attachments that allow a signal to be
ing, and depicting utilities are constantly improving. This
better coupled to a known and exposed utility. Such attach-
results in an increasing number of options available to identify
ments include cables, magnets, and inductive clamps.
the location of utilities.
EML devices are limited to the possible detection of con-
Geophysical Detection tinuously metallic structures or structures that can be made
to act as if they are metallic (see Figure 3). Installation of a
Geophysical detection analyzes energy fields to find anoma- metal tape or “tracer wire” directly above the utility during
lies with the surrounding environment that might indicate construction is one way to allow a non-metallic utility’s loca-
the presence of a utility. Successful detection is a function tion to be inferred. There are also metallic insertion devices
of the utility material, the way that material is connected to for situations where pipes or conduits, typically empty and/
other portions of the same system, the way that material is or out-of-service, can be accessed. Pipe diameter, material,
connected to the ground, and properties of the ground itself. number of bends and their proximity to one another, pipe con-
There are many types of energy available (Sterling 2000). strictions, and check-valve placement all affect capabilities.
Sometimes field engineers will apply an energy field or use
one that is applied by others or occurs naturally. Some of EML devices can also utilize sondes, or small radio trans-
these energies are limited in power and amplitude owing to mitters, which are inserted into an accessible pipe or conduit.
safety and interference issues. By detecting the sonde at numerous points as it is pushed
through the pipe or conduit, the user can infer the position
Some utilities can be detected by several methods, some of the utility. Cameras can be inserted at the front of a sonde
can only be detected by one method, and some cannot be so that a video can be taken of the inside of the pipe or con-
detected by any method other than exposure (Sterling 2009). duit. This can be useful for condition assessment as well as
A recent TRB product that assists in determining which type location interpretation.
of geophysics is useful in a particular situation is the Selection
Assistant for Utility Locating Technologies (SAULT), which Radio Frequency Identification
can be found on the Internet at http://138.47.78.37/sault/
home.asp (Sterling et al. 2011). This tool was developed A type of miniature sonde, called RFID, has been employed
in part for project owners so that they could understand the more frequently over the last several decades (see Fig-
broad toolbox necessary for the utility-mapping professional. ure 4). RFID “tags” are installed on or near the utility during
10

ing the utility is close by. Other manufacturers are using

protocols that can be read by nonproprietary devices. RFID
devices that have internal batteries can be detected deeper
underground than devices that have no batteries and use the
energy from the above-ground receiver. One drawback for
a device with batteries is that it will eventually lose power.
Just as with an inserted sonde, the user can use RFIDs to infer
the position of the utility by “connecting-the-dots.” Another
highly important use of RFID is to confirm the interpretation
of a utility as a particular one, since the RFID is unique to that
utility (Dziadak 2009). RFID tags have been proven to play a
significant role in utility damage prevention (Anspach 2011).

Magnetics

Magnetics (MAG) technology has not changed appreciably in

decades. It is useful for finding buried steel or iron “­single-point”
structures such as buried manhole lids and valves. Although
there are several types of MAG methods in use, the one that is
most used for utility detection is a g­ radient-field magnetometer
Figure 3 EML device in use to designate (see Figure 5). As with EML, once a utility has been detected
electric lines. (Photo courtesy of Cardno.) with MAG technology, marks are usually placed on the ground
for later survey.
c­ onstruction or exposure for maintenance or other purposes.
Some of these devices can be programmed to include infor-
Elastic Waves (Sound)
mation about the utility, such as ownership, type, size, and
depth. Newer RFID devices are almost unlimited in the
There are three separate techniques that are currently in use to
amount of data they can contain. Some devices transmit data
trace utilities using elastic waves (additional techniques are
when “interrogated” on a particular frequency. The data can
currently in development). A pipe under mechanical stress
be encoded so that only proprietary devices can read them,
may deform and generate noise. This noise can be measured.
but any device on that frequency can get a signal indicat-
The noise should be loudest directly over the pipe because
the elastic wave’s travel distance is the shortest at this point.
However, the type of surface (e.g., soil vs. concrete), the type

Figure 4  A marker ball RFID/Sonde Figure 5 Gradiometer.

being programmed prior to emplacement. (Photo courtesy of Schonstedt
(Photo courtesy of VDOT.) Instrument Co.)
 11

It has the advantage of being able to tune the oscillator’s fre-

quency to one (or more) of the resonant frequencies of the pipe,
usually resulting in more tracing distance. A disadvantage is the
need for many different types of fluid or oscillator interfaces.

Electromagnetic Terrain Conductivity

Terrain conductivity methods create and measure eddy currents

caused by differences in the average conductivity from the
ground surface to an effective penetration depth of 5 m or so.
Utilities (and/or the product they convey) may exhibit conduc-
tivities that are different enough from the average soil conduc-
tivity that they can be differentiated using this method. In areas
of high metallic utility congestion, there is usually too much
noise to interpret results. Similarly, surface metals (e.g., cars,
fences, etc.) and reinforced concrete will distort results.

There are two basic antenna configurations for electromag-

netic terrain conductivity (EMTC). One is long and ­linear; the
other is square. Both instruments have the capability to store
collected data for download. Each instrument has its advan-
Figure 6 Resonant tages. The long linear antenna measures average conductivity
sonics receiver. (Photo in a cone-shaped space from the ground surface to a depth of
courtesy of So-Deep, Inc.)
about 20 feet (see Figure 7). The antenna’s ­linearity can both
augment and hinder a utility investigation. If interpretation of
of fill (e.g., rock vs. clay), the degree of compaction, and the data is in “real-time,” the operator can view a difference
ground moisture may affect the noise distribution, as may in signal strength as the antenna is rotated and/or dipped. The
other sources such as aircraft, automobiles, trains, and elec- resultant signal can give clues as to a utility’s depth and direc-
trical transformers (see Figure 6). As with EML, marks are tion of travel, and can also give clues as to interfering nearby
usually placed on the ground for later survey once the loca- structures (Geonics 2000). It is recommended that real-time
tion has been inferred. interpretation be used for utility detection with this device, as
using an intersection survey point grid and collecting data
The following excerpt from CI/ASCE 38-02 (2002) fur- only at these points can result in incomplete data (ASCE
ther describes methods for using sound waves to detect sub- 2002). Isolated metallic utilities, underground storage tanks,
surface utilities: wells, and vault covers are usually detectable by means of
this method. Under some conditions, large non­metallic water
One method involves inducing a sound onto or into a pipe. This pipes in dry soils or large nonmetallic empty and dry pipes in
can be accomplished by striking the pipe at an exposed point or wet soils may be imaged. Once a utility is identified, a mark
by introducing a noise source of some kind into the pipe. This
may work for metallic, nonmetallic, empty, or filled pipes. A is typically placed on the ground for later survey.
noise source may have the advantage of moving within the pipe
for some distance, thereby getting the sound closer to the detec-
tion point. By marking or measuring the loudest points, a trace
of the utility may be accomplished. This method is sometimes
known as ‘active sonics.’

A second method relies on the pipe’s product being able to escape

the pipe. This method is sometimes known as ‘passive sonics.’
For instance, water escaping a pipe at a hydrant or service petcock
will vibrate the pipe. This vibration will carry along the pipe for
some distance before attenuation. Factors such as product pres-
sure, shape and size of orifice, and type of pipe material will affect
the initial sound generation. Pipe m ­ aterial, surrounding material,
compaction, and product will affect the distance the sound travels
along the pipe. Factors such as those already mentioned affect the
sound detection between the receiver and the pipe.

The third method relies on the pipe’s product containing a non-

compressible fluid (water in most cases). Interfacing the fluid
surface (e.g., at a hydrant) and generating a pressure wave in
the fluid will in turn create vibrations in the pipe that can be Figure 7  Terrain conductivity device. (Photo courtesy of
detected. This method is sometimes known as ‘resonant sonics.’ So-Deep, Inc.)
12

A recent advance in EMTC is the use of the square antenna an image is received, its depth can be determined fairly accu-
(see Figure 8). This antenna shape is more efficient than the rately, and accuracies can be increased through calibration of
linear one and alignment of the antenna with the utility is not a the signal velocity over targets of known depths. This con-
factor in detection. Some technicians combine multiple anten- trasts with EML methods, which provide a less reliable depth
nas for a broader swath of coverage, decreasing the time spent measurement.
collecting data, and increasing the density of the data returned.
Improved data density allows for a more robust interpretation, GPR does have limitations. In conjunction with other
and can be used to “see” utility trenches as well as the utility. technologies it can be used to interpret a very accurate pic-
The square antenna is usually coupled to some sort of survey ture of the subsurface environment (TSA 2011). Approxi-
equipment and the data are downloaded and plotted on plans mately 50% of the land area of the United States has soils
without using markings on the ground. Quality control of the that are unsuitable to obtain any meaningful data on utilities
positioning is critical as there are no marks on the ground for regardless of size, contrast, or depth (USDA 2009). Local
correlation (Young 2010). use of pavement de-icing salts can also increase soil conduc-
tivities where the salt washes off, rendering GPR less reliable
at the edges of paved areas in northern climates. Surface con-
Ground Penetrating Radar ditions such as uneven ground and physical obstacles may
limit survey coverage. Additionally, the depth of penetration
Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is a sub-class of electro-­ is inversely proportional to the size of the utility that can
magnetic methods. GPR is an established technology that until be imaged. This implies that small pipes and cables can be
recently had a poor reputation. This reputation was the result difficult or impossible to see at greater depths. Sometimes a
of “over-selling” of GPR capabilities, difficulty of data inter- utility can be inferred through seeing the edges of a trench,
pretation by typical utility locating personnel, and unreliability even when the utility is deep (Sterling 2009).
of components. That has changed within the last decade, and
GPR has become widely accepted within the subsurface utility There are different types of GPR that involve permuta-
engineering market. However, “contract locating” or One-Call tions of single or multiple frequencies, numbers of antennas,
providers still find the equipment too expensive and compli- orientations of antennas, types of data storage, and display
cated for their purposes (Sterling 2007). capabilities. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. For
the purposes of this study, we will classify them into two
The main benefit of GPR is that it can detect virtually main groups: basic GPR and advanced GPR (Green 2006).
anything that contrasts with the surrounding underground
environment, such as non-metallic pipes, edges of trenches, and Basic GPR has a transducer that sends out an electro-
plastic conduits. Another significant advantage is that when magnetic signal (see Figure 9). Electromagnetic waves are

Figure 8  Multiple square antenna EMTC with integrated Figure 9  Basic GPR unit. (Photo
survey. (Photo courtesy of UIT.) ­courtesy of So-Deep, Inc.)
 13

reflected, refracted, and diffracted in the subsurface by

changes in electrical conductivity and dielectric properties.
Travel times of reflected, refracted, and diffracted waves are
analyzed to give depths, geometry, and location information.
The energy returned to the antenna is processed within the
control unit and displayed on a screen. Round targets (typical
of a utility) are of a distinctive shape and therefore easy to
interpret. The operator usually places a mark on the ground
where a target is identified, and then moves to the side and
repeats the process until a series of marks can be interpreted
as a probable utility. An analogy is that of a fish-finder on a
boat, but instead of identifying schools of fish, the field engi-
neer looks for long linear features. The marked utilities are Figure 11  Output from an advanced GPR. (Graphic courtesy
then surveyed to record their location. of UIT.)

Advanced GPR has multiple sensors for better data den-

sity, and integrated positioning hardware to correlate the can be detected as well (see Figure 11). This increases the
equipment’s location to the data associated with that loca- value of the utility mapping process. Both EMTC and GPR
tion (see Figure 10). Real-time analysis is usually not pos- methods can gather this type of data (Young 2010).
sible, and interpretation of the data is done at the office by
highly skilled technicians. One advantage of advanced radar
Positioning Methods
is the speed at which data can be collected, which reduces
the amount of time spent on roads, aprons, taxiways, and The state of the technology for mapping the positions of
runways. The higher data density allows better interpreta- exposed or remotely sensed underground utilities is con-
tion, and for some radar configurations, the multiple frequen- stantly and rapidly changing. Surveying methods and tech-
cies can increase the ability to see utilities at greater depths. niques have embraced new technologies such as total stations,
Instead of the operator’s stopping every few seconds to place spatial stations, and GPS to make it faster and cheaper to col-
a paint mark on the ground, he/she uses a small tow tractor. lect more accurate data.
Another advantage is that the data delivered is more compre-
hensive than with basic GPR. A cross section through any
part of the data will yield depth information at that point, Total Stations
rather than the interpolated depth information gained through
Total stations can be divided into two basic types: mechani-
basic radar.
cal and servo-autolock-robotic. Mechanical total stations are
useful for surveying lines (paint marks representing utilities)
Another significant advantage of advanced GPR is that
and structures. Robotic total stations are useful for surveying
other subsurface characteristics such as paving thickness,
the locations of advanced geophysical instruments as they
bedding thickness, voids, thrust blocks, depth to bedrock,
are traversing a site. Total stations are oriented to known
depth to water table, soil lenses, and contamination plumes
ground control points, and generally require a survey team of
several persons, survey control identification, and processing
of the survey data.

Spatial Stations

Spatial stations are relatively new. They combine the precision

of traditional point surveying with the ability to capture shapes
and details, and coordinates with integrated video and 3D scan-
ning (see Figure 12).

Global Positioning System

GPS comes in many different forms and is rapidly chang-

ing. For the purposes of this study, GPSs are divided into
mapping grade and survey grade. The differences are in cost,
accuracy, and procedure. Further details on this technology
Figure 10  Advanced GPR. (Photo courtesy of UIT.) can be found at many GPS manufacturers’ websites.
14

Figure 12  Spatial total station. (Photo courtesy of Trimble.)

Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS equipment can yield

absolute positions of 1–2 cm horizontal accuracy in real time
without post-processing. RTK surveys require few obstruc-
tions in the field area, ideal for airfield settings (see Figure 13).

Less accurate GPS is useful for some related utility appli-

cations. An example of this is the GPS-enabled camera, Figure 14 RTK GPS on
3-D advanced GPR array.
which can take a picture and associate the location of that (Photo courtesy of Cardno.)
picture with a particular geographic spot, indicate the direc-
tion the camera is pointing, and insert an icon into a CADD
or GIS system that will, when clicked, bring up the photo- ences between the surveyed position and the initial position
graph for viewing while you are looking at the CADD or GIS are used to calculate inertial drift. If the variance is unaccept-
drawing (see Figure 14). able, the distance of travel may be shortened and the process
attempted again. The inertial device produces a read-out that
plots its location as it travels through the pipe (Sterling 2007).
Inertial Mapping

Inertial mapping methods use the same technology as sub- Electronic Information Storage,
marines to track positions through the use of gyroscopes. A Retrieval, and Analysis
survey reading is taken with traditional means at the open-
ing to a conduit or empty pipe. The inertial device (called a Utilities data have traditionally been recorded on engineering
“smart pig” by the oil and gas industry) then travels through drawings and related documents. Years ago, these drawings
the pipe to either an end point or to its tethering limit and were hand-drafted on parchment material, paper, or Mylar.
then retrieved. Its location is surveyed again and the differ- Because these historic records can still be of significant value,
they are often scanned and saved as electronic images in TIF or
PDF format. Interviews with some airport staff indicated that
this can amount to tens or hundreds of thousands of drawing
sheets that can be stored, searched, viewed, copied, and backed
up much more efficiently than their hard copy equivalents.

Electronic data about utilities can also be disseminated

more easily than hard copy drawings. Advances in Internet
security, the growing use of mobile computing devices, cloud
computing (i.e., Internet) resources, and other advances have
made it easier to exchange data with less fear of sensitive
data getting into the wrong hands.

Computer Automated Design and Drafting

Over the last few decades, airport engineering drawings

Figure 13 RTK GPS positioning on EMTC System at airport. have been developed predominately using CADD software.
(Photo courtesy of UIT.) Because they are produced electronically, the original draw-
 15

ings can be stored, backed up, retrieved, and viewed much enhances traditional CADD by providing sophisticated 3D
like scanned hard copies. To reduce their file size and to pre- models that can be used to assist facility designs and improve
vent alteration, CADD drawings are often converted to a TIF the efficiency of the design process. BIM also enables sophis-
or PDF format for archival purposes. ticated analyses that can support cost estimating, material
ordering, conflict detection, environmental efficiency, and
CADD drawings can also convey a great deal of infor- other factors throughout a building’s life cycle. As the use of
mation about components of a utilities network. Increas- BIM grows, new tools are being developed to aid in the plan-
ingly, these components are drawn accurately in 3D and in ning and design of utilities networks (Ball 2011).
a known coordinate system so that other relevant data can
be superimposed to yield a more informative map. Different
types of utility components are drawn on specific layers that Technology Integration
can be turned on or off and easily symbolized to distinguish
The above-mentioned technologies are becoming increas-
between other types of utilities. Labels, dimensions, call-
ingly compatible, so that the most appropriate software can
outs, and other annotations provide additional textual details.
be applied where and when it is most effective. International,
More advanced CADD software allows these details to be
national, or open (i.e., nonproprietary) commercial standards
stored in a database format that supports queries and analy-
defining the structure and format of utilities data foster this
sis. Metadata, or information about the data itself, is stored
compatibility. Many airports have defined GIS and CADD
in the drawing’s title block, title/index sheets, and in letters
of transmittal. Some advanced CADD software packages data standards that are compatible with one another so that
include or can be augmented with utility models that offer software tools can migrate data from CADD to GIS and back
advanced analytic tools to support network capacity imaging again. These data standards also enable GIS and CADD data
and upstream/downstream tracing. to be exchanged with other airport information systems,
such as asset management and computerized maintenance
management systems (CMMS). One large hub airport that
Geographic Information Systems has invested a great deal in CADD–GIS interoperability
notes that while significant advances have been made, data
GIS has emerged over the last decade as a means to store exchange between CADD and GIS has plenty of room for
engineering data. When GIS technology was first introduced improvement. Coordinate system transformations, differ-
in the 1960s it was not viewed as a precise enough tool for ences in how GIS and CADD data are traditionally structured,
engineering applications. Advances in the precision of GIS and divergent user preferences are all factors that need to be
data, as well as in the compatibility between GIS and CADD taken into consideration (Reid 2003).
software, have allowed GIS to become a practical tool for
engineering purposes. As a result, most utility companies The benefits of exchanging data between different soft-
and a growing number of airports are using GIS as a means ware applications on different hardware platforms are, how-
of storing, retrieving and analyzing utilities data. ever, great. For instance, it is now possible for a professional
with a single hand-held device to stand at a spot on the airport
One of the primary benefits enjoyed with GIS is the ability property, look at a screen that has an overlay of satellite imag-
to perform advanced queries and analyses of detailed loca- ery, have the location shown on that imagery, look at all the
tions, attributes, and metadata. Once specific utility compo- utility locations, change those locations if there is ­better infor-
nents have been identified, linked drawings, specifications, mation, receive information on those utilities from RFIDs,
and photos that provide further information can be easily retrieve more detailed information from records stored in a
retrieved. GIS also enables advanced models to be developed database either on site or on the Internet, and send that infor-
that carry information about the direction and capacity of mation immediately to almost anyone, anywhere.
products traveling through a utility network. These models
offer additional analytic abilities such as capacity planning, Another example is combining GPS with laser scan-
what-if analyses, isolation of branches impacted by a break,
ning equipment to map utilities before they are buried.
and tracing the likely source of pollutants.
A 3D position of underground utilities constructed by
open trenchless methods can be collected by a single per-
Building Information Modeling son using integrated technologies within an accuracy of
±450 mm (±1.5 ft). Furthermore, the positional data of
Building Information Modeling (BIM) has emerged as a a 30 m (100 ft) long utility line can be collected within
technology to model and depict information about the struc- approximately 15 minutes, including time taken for setup
ture, utilities, furnishings, and other details of buildings. BIM (Ariatnum 2010).
16

chapter three

State of the Art

This chapter describes the processes, standards, and procedures data development. UCRs come in two basic formats: CADD
available to collect, store, and use utilities data. It describes the and GIS. The concept is to have a single source that shows
practical approaches that can be used, not necessarily those the current best available location of all utilities with as many
that are being used (the subject of the next chapter). Much pertinent attributes as possible. This provides a resource that
of this information comes from outside the aviation industry; will suffice for a majority of users and eliminate the need
however, the issues, technologies, and challenges addressed for each user to conduct records research every time utility
are fairly universal. Some of this information comes from the information is needed. Judgment on what data are considered
interviews with airport personnel and their consultants who “best” is a crucial issue. This requires a qualified expert, such
find these processes and procedures desirable. Some of this as a subsurface utility engineer. UCRs are updated on a con-
information comes from interviews performed by the authors tinual basis as new utility information is created from valid
as part of related utility and airport research in progress. sources. The qualified expert must evaluate the new informa-
tion against the older information to ascertain whether the
Existing Utility Records UCR should be changed (CSA 2011).

Existing records come in many forms and degrees of accuracy.

Utility Network Models
Many times the quality of the data is not known or assumed, so
the users must judge whether the accuracy and completeness Once utilities data have been consolidated into a standardized
of the data are sufficient for their purpose. This judgment is and comprehensive data set, sophisticated queries, analyses,
constrained unless all legacy data are available and indexed.
and reports can be carried out. Information can be added to
The users of utility data include maintenance and operating
indicate the flow and capacity of individual components of
personnel, planners, and engineers—each of whom has dif-
a utility network. Interview and survey respondents reported
ferent needs. Some records may be pertinent to those needs,
that developing such utility networks enables peak demand
whereas others may not. Interview and survey respondents
forecasting, identification of where pollutants may have
reported that knowing where records can be found, having
entered or exited a system, isolation of network branches in
the ability to find a specific record that includes the pertinent
the event of a break, and other more sophisticated analyses.
information, keeping those records secure and being able to
access this information in a timely manner are all important.
As-Builts
Reported SOA procedures include:
The best way to record where utilities are located is to sur-
• Having all records available electronically so that the vey their location in three dimensions during installation and
user can access them at will from any location in a secure to incorporate this information into standardized drawings
manner. Formats include scanned documents (e.g., PDFs that depict as-built conditions. This is important for making
and TIFs) and CADD files. effective risk management decisions when these utilities are
• Indexing records to indicate the area for which the involved in future construction issues (CSA 2011).
record has pertinence (e.g., the entire airport property
or the boundaries of a particular project); the source of Ideally, these “as-builts” include such attributes as date of
the record (e.g., unknown or project as-built); and the installation, type of utility, size, material, owner, and number
age of the record. of direct-buried cables. Metadata such as the accuracy of the
• Geographically referencing utility record drawings survey information, the method used to collect the data, and
using GIS. the name of the firm or individual who collected the data
are also included. These attributes and metadata are associ-
Utility Composite Records ated with the geometric features in a manner that can be eas-
ily and intuitively read by planners, engineers, maintenance
Of all utilities on the airport property regardless of owner- technicians, and others. This can be achieved by labeling or
ship, the one SOA component to have is a Utility Composite annotating utility features on maps, applying informative
Record (UCR), with updates performed by experts in utility symbology and an associated legend, and providing data
 17

tables that present attributes in a tabular manner. The attri- through to delivery and recording of data into a document
butes and metadata are also stored in a manner that can easily management system, consolidated utilities drawings, and/or
be loaded into a GIS database with minimal conversion and a GIS helps ensure conformance and consistency of data in
data re-entry (CSA 2011). the end. Spreadsheets maintained by records librarians and/
or GIS managers are an effective means of tracking projects.
Achieving these goals requires identifying the types of data These spreadsheets can be reviewed at periodic construction
collection methods that are acceptable, methods of coordina- coordination meetings that many airports conduct.
tion with airport operations and security personnel as well as
with contractors and other consultants, the process for submit- While as-built procedures, standards, and enforcement
ting data to the airport, and the means by which submitted data mechanisms can be extensive and require ample resources,
will be evaluated for acceptance. they can be scaled down so that smaller airports can apply
these principles as well. National standards, data templates
In addition, as-built standards define the format, layer- from the FAA, and simplified procedures can be leveraged
ing, symbology, and annotation required. The structure of by even the smallest airports in a manner that is proportion-
the data in terms of acceptable geometry types, attribution ate to the level of construction they have planned.
storage, and metadata formats are also defined. Templates
that reflect this structure but do not include any data are
developed and shared with consultants to make it easier for Data Reliability
them to comply with these requirements, which may lower
Reliability of data is difficult to judge. One of the reasons
the costs of producing the as-builts and ensure a higher level
state governments have regulated the practice of engineering
of conformance.
and surveying is to provide a mechanism whereby the reli-
ability of data can be assured through training and certifica-
Consultants are aware of the airport’s procedures and
tion. Unfortunately, utility data are often gathered, judged,
standards for as-builts as a part of the bid process and at
and referenced by uncertified individuals. One of the prime
project kick-off meetings. Interview and survey respondents
motivators for the development of ASCE 38 was to make it
report that at early delivery points during a project, drawings
easier to assess data reliability by recording a utility QL attri-
are checked for compliance so that misunderstandings can
bute. This attribute, when associated with the identity of the
be resolved before final as-builts are prepared and submitted.
registered professional who assigned the QL, establishes a
basis for confidence in the data. Barring a QL attribute, other
Conformance with as-built procedures and standards can
information is necessary for the data user to assess the qual-
be encouraged in many ways. Enforcement mechanisms
ity of the data themselves. This information may include who
include withholding retainer fees and/or considering past as-
gathered the data, what geophysical equipment was used,
built delivery performance during procurement. Providing
when that equipment was calibrated, what survey method
past as-built data to consultants at the beginning of projects,
was used, when the survey equipment was calibrated, and
clear and thorough as-built specifications, templates to ease
the training and certifications of the person gathering the data
the burden of as-built development, and fast evaluation and
(Noone 2004).
acceptance of submitted deliverables also encourages con-
sultants to conform to an airport’s standards.
The SOA for data reliability is for an appropriately-­
registered professional to stamp record drawings that indi-
Interview and survey respondents report that their prac-
cate the QL of the data, along with a statement of accuracy
tice is that if as-built procedures and/or standards are not fol-
for the survey component of that data, as required by ASCE
lowed, then fees can be withheld to allow airport staff and/or
38 (Anspach 2004).
on-call consultants to collect the necessary information and
develop the required data. This can also be done as a matter
of policy on all projects, so long as the resources can be made Creating a Utility Mapping Program
available to provide the staff and equipment and/or outside
consultant support. For facilities that have gaps in their utility records, or have
unknown quality or poor quality records, utility mapping
Once as-built data are received and accepted by an airport programs (UMPs) can be implemented to help fix the prob-
(typically by the airport’s project manager), the data can then lem. Some important elements of such programs include:
quickly be entered into a document management system for
archival and future retrieval. The data can also be converted • Prequalification criteria for SUE providers. All mapping
and loaded into consolidated utilities drawings and, if avail- work needs to be performed under the direct charge of a
able, a centralized GIS. licensed professional in accordance with state statutes.
Mapping generally consists of many components that
Interview and survey respondents reported that track- are integrated into a deliverable report. These compo-
ing as-built projects from the time the contract is awarded nents include records research; surveying geophysical
18

equipment selection, use, and interpretation; and plot- Survey of Geophysics

ting and developing a map. (Examples of such prequali-
fication criteria are provided in Appendix C.) Because each element of the NAS is tied to a single reference
• SUE can be used on capital improvement projects framework, it is important that every utility survey conducted
above a certain cost threshold. on an airport be accurately integrated into the National Spa-
• A scope of work that includes QLB mapping of all utili- tial Reference System. One accepted method of doing this is
ties within project boundaries including a geophysical to tie the survey to the Primary and Secondary Airport Con-
search for known and unknown utilities within that trol Stations (PACS/SACS) available at most airports. This
boundary. can be complicated when an airport uses a locally developed
• A plan to fill in the gaps between project boundaries grid reference system for project design and construction. To
over the course of time. tie a local grid to a commonly recognized coordinate system,
a surveyor is required to develop an accurate transformation
An SOA mapping program would contain all of the above between the coordinate systems.
elements.
The SOA for a survey is to reference all utility mapping to
The end result of a UMP that encompasses design and the PACS and SACS established at the airport. Data for x and y
construction projects, maintenance activities, and responses coordinates is integrated into North American Datum of 1983
to “one-call” locating requests is an increasingly more accu- (NAD 1983) for the airport; z values are recorded in North
rate and comprehensive record. At some point in the future, a American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) datum with
utility would only need to create as-builts of new facilities and U.S. survey feet being the unit of measure (FAA 150 2009).
update the existing UCR as a result of abandoned or removed
utilities or attribute changes. An SOA utility program con- Maintenance and Repair Activities
tinually increases the quality of data and makes certain it cap-
tures all additions and changes. The UCR is made available to maintenance personnel. Wire-
less tablet computers are made available so that technicians
working in the field can instantly access and view the geo-
Quality Level B Utility Mapping
referenced UCR. When tablets are taken to the field, GPS
An SOA QLB utility mapping effort includes the use of a wide automatically documents the user’s location and provides a
range of EML, advanced GPR (if soil conditions allow for menu of options based on that location.
sufficient depth of penetration), EMTC, MAG, and SOUND
Survey-grade GPS is available to maintenance personnel.
methods (if utility and site conditions allow). All structures on
When exposing a utility for repair, an accurate x, y, z loca-
the surface or exposed during construction are photographed
tion is gathered. Menus and automated routines are avail-
with GPS-enabled cameras. Where good images cannot be
able on the wireless tablet to facilitate automatic metadata
obtained, diagrams showing details of the utilities within
and completeness of data. Interview and survey respondents
the structures are developed. All empty conduits are imaged
reported that data are automatically submitted to the depart-
through the insertion of sondes or other conductors, if GRP
ment or person responsible to update the UCR and the record
did not image them. The project area is completely covered
is automatically archived in the central repository. Pictures
by at least two different geophysical sensors in an attempt to
are taken of the repair with a GPS-enabled camera.
identify unknown or incorrectly documented utilities (TSA).
Utilities of record that cannot be imaged with geophysics are
portrayed at QLC or QLD (ASCE 2002). Asset Management

Depth attributes on all utilities are collected where pos- An SOA practice among airport interviewees is to develop
sible at valves, in vaults, in basement walls, and by indirect asset management programs. These programs seek to iden-
geophysical means. These attributes are also cross-referenced tify and monitor the condition of facilities, equipment, and
with the method of depth determination (i.e., GPR, EML, infrastructure under the airport’s control. These systems can
EMTC, Sonde, or as-builts) (Anspach 2010). capture not only the location and key characteristics of assets
(as in a GIS) but also track condition, useful life, replacement
If advanced geophysical methods are used, raw data are value, and other considerations.
retained so that the user can use it to identify other structures
if desired. Damage Prevention/One-Call Activities

The SOA for QLB utility mapping is to use all appro- Interview and survey respondents reported that a staff mem-
priate geophysics to acquire as complete a set of data ber or consultant is retained to respond to all requests for
on the utilities within a project area as possible (Sterling utility locating and marking prior to construction activities.
2007). All utilities are marked or checked for completeness and
 19

accuracy if other entities did the marking. This staff member tion measures. Recommendations may include the excava-
or consultant is equipped with a full range of EML devices, tion of a utility to obtain QLA data, special provisions for
a mobile tablet enabled to be connected to the UCR, and the contractor to follow to avoid damage, or changes in the
­survey-grade GPS. In areas where no utilities have previ- design to avoid conflict with a suspected utility. This QLB
ously been mapped, it may be necessary to supply extra per- mapping effort is performed as early in the project as pos-
sonnel to assist in using the geophysical equipment properly, sible (APWA 2007). AASHTO also states that project own-
or to enter confined spaces. One-Call markings are surveyed ers should “Ensure utilities are depicted at appropriate quality
and if discrepancies are found between the UCR and the field levels on all highway plans. Collect Subsurface Utility Engi-
markings, they are brought to the attention of the resident neering (SUE) information early in the development of all
utility expert, who makes judgments as to which informa- highway projects” (AASHTO 2004). Where potential con-
tion is likely to be more accurate. If it is determined that the flicts with the construction and the utilities still exist, the engi-
One-Call mark should be part of the UCD, then it is treated neers should consider the need for QLA data to determine the
as a new record. exact location and characteristics of the utility (Ellis 2009).

Radio Frequency Identification Program Utility Coordination

An SOA utility program includes RFID. Programmable RFID UC is the integration of tasks taken during project develop-
markers are placed on each newly installed utility at regular ment to identify and resolve conflicts between the construc-
intervals so that during One-Call operations or maintenance tion activities and any existing or planned utilities. It requires
activities the exact location of the utilities can be positively a commitment to communication and cooperation between
identified, along with other attributes that may be useful to the the stakeholders, including utility owners (private, public,
future contractor. RFID markers can also be placed on utili- airport, tenant, and FAA), consultants, construction contrac-
ties during repair operations or anytime a utility is exposed. tors, and others involved in the airport project development
Specifications regarding correct installation and program- process (AASHTO/FHWA 2002). Typical tasks include but
ming are developed. Survey respondents place survey RFID are not limited to:
markers in the GIS or CADD UCR at their actual location.
• Designing to avoid conflict with existing utilities when-
ever possible
Permitting of New Installations • Determining potential utility conflicts
• Estimating the costs of utility conflicts
An SOA is to establish a notification system that indicates • Assessing the impacts conflicts can have on project
when any construction may involve installing, changing, or timetables
removing utilities. A condition of receiving a construction • Determining the impacts that potential conflicts can
permit is following applicable SUE policies and procedures. have on safety
Upon final inspection and close-out of the permit, a contrac- • Identifying potential resolutions of those conflicts
tor is required to submit accurate as-built drawings indicat- • Determining cost responsibility for any utility relocations
ing the location of any utilities installed or removed. • Determining and communicating necessary utility
easements
Integrating Utility Mapping into the Project • Determining who is responsible for any utility relocations
Development Process • Designing the utility relocation
• Coordinating the timing and execution of relocations
SOA projects have a mechanism to evaluate the potential • Communicating safety and coordination issues to
impacts that the project will have on utilities, review the qual- ­contractors.
ity and completeness of existing utility information, and tailor
a utility mapping effort so as to reduce utility issues. Typi- An SOA utility coordination effort involves a written
cally, this includes a QLB mapping effort within the proj- checklist of procedures and a formalized system to identify,
ect limits. If QLB cannot be achieved on a particular utility, document, resolve, and track utility conflicts (Ellis 2009).
an engineer reviews available utilities data and the project Tools are being developed through the SHRP2 R-15B proj-
design so as to make recommendations on further risk reduc- ect to assist project owners and engineers in this task.
20

chapter four

State of the Practice

This chapter describes the degree to which airports, their Organizational Factors
consultants, and the FAA are applying state of the science
technologies and SOA practices when collecting, storing, or Organizational factors, including awareness, organizational
using utilities information. In general, there is a significant culture and interpersonal dynamics, policies and procedures,
gap between what airports are doing and how the SOT and procurement practices, and funding sources, were high-
SOA practices can assist in collecting, storing, and applying lighted in many interviews and surveys as being critical fac-
information on subsurface utilities. tors to the success of utilities data collection, storage and use.

Few airports collect utilities data using the full range of Available Information
applicable technologies. Interview and survey respondents
reported that because of a lack of awareness of the options, too In comparison with other modes of transportation and with
much reliance is placed on consultant practices that vary firm several other industries in general, there is relatively little
by firm and sometimes even within firms. Technology gaps literature published about collecting, storing, and using
may also reflect limited funds. A more significant gap exists information about utilities at airports. Much of the material
between SOA policies, procedures, standards, and organiza- that is available is marketing material from private firms that
tional structures that promote the exchange of utilities data, provide SUE services to airports.
and the practices many airports report currently using. Many
airports and consultants do not follow the ASCE 38 practice In addition, vague, incomplete, or in some cases errone-
of having a registered surveyor or engineer sign or stamp ous interpretation of the material that is published is fairly
deliverables that contain utilities information (according to common. Practitioners of SUE in the aviation industry have
interviews and survey). Interview and survey respondents typically heard of ASCE 38-02, but interview and survey
acknowledge that uncertainty as to the quality of the airport’s respondents reported that few have applied its specific provi-
utilities information leads to risks for the airport and other sions beyond the concepts of the four QLs defined within it.
consultants who rely on this information. Although these QLs may have been achieved, they are not
necessarily always differentiated on the plans nor explained
Once information is collected, there is a broad range of to the design engineers or constructors. Many of the respon-
practices for storing and retrieving it at airports. Interview dents are also aware of the Spatial Data Standards for Facili-
and survey responses indicate that a few but growing number ties, Infrastructure, and the Environment (SDSFIE), but few
of airports have standards that they believe are adequate for are aware of recent changes to this standard or of alternatives
capturing their utilities data. However fewer airports have that exist (see the section on Data Standards in this chapter
policies and procedures in place for handling the informa- and the following chapter on Effective Practices).
tion once it is received. Most larger airports and a growing
number of medium and small airports are beginning to use Interpersonal Dynamics
consolidated CADD drawings, GIS databases, electronic
document management systems, and asset management sys- One of the key factors affecting the success of utilities data
tems to store and retrieve their utilities data. collection at airports is interpersonal dynamics. At almost all
airports interviewed, dynamics of this nature both helped and
When using utilities information, many airport staff mem- hindered access to the utilities data people require. Interview
bers and consultants complain about the challenging organiza- and survey respondents reported that different departments
tional and interpersonal dynamics required to find and obtain often hold their information close and only share it when it
the information they need. While many accept the accuracy is in their best interests. Furthermore, consultants often with-
of the data they receive, especially if metadata are provided, hold data they have collected on past projects to support their
most survey respondents and interviewees want more com- current work and retain a competitive advantage for future
prehensive coverage. Following are more specifics on what is work. Some organizations also cite security. The result limits
currently being done, and the next chapter highlights some of the accessibility of data to individuals who have a legitimate
the practices that could be adopted. need to know. As data become less accessible, project costs,
 21

change orders, the likelihood of costly utility breaks, and standardized descriptions ease the burden on individual
safety risks all go up. project managers tasked with defining the SUE services
they require.
Many of the airports interviewed rely exclusively on design • Airport Funded Activities—Some of the airports inter-
and construction project managers to implement SUE-related viewed have allocated operational funds (as opposed
policies and procedures as they see fit. Many of these project to capital funds supported by FAA grants, as described
managers rely primarily on the expertise of the consultants below) to SUE activities. A few airports have con-
they have hired. There are advantages and disadvantages ducted SUE projects as a means of developing com-
of this approach. An advantage is that it allows consultants prehensive CADD and/or GIS maps of utilities in
to carry out tasks using the best technology and methods of preparation for construction activities. Some airports
which they are aware. It also allows them to work in ways in have also selected on-call consultants that can provide
which their staff have been trained and become accustomed. SUE services on an as-needed basis. A few larger air-
The primary drawback of this approach is that work is carried ports employ staff members who are familiar with SUE
out in a variety of ways, which can lead to inconsistent results. and can perform records research and field survey of
AASHTO, most state DOTs, and some large facility owners utility appurtenances themselves, relying on external
have overcome organizational and interpersonal constraints consultants for more equipment-intensive subsurface
by establishing written programs that include standards, poli- detection and excavation services.
cies, and procedures that enforce consistency without con- • FAA Funded Projects—Many airport capital improve-
straining efficiency. A small but growing number of airports ments are funded through federal grants or the use of
have also begun to establish programs of this nature. passenger facility charges. These funds carry grant assur-
ances and other requirements. Through the Airports GIS
Interview and survey respondents reported that airports Program and other programs, the FAA is beginning to
schedule meetings at the beginning of and periodically dur- require standardized collection and submittal of geospa-
ing all design and construction projects. Occasionally this tial data. The requirements for these submittals are defined
is also done as a part of major tenant improvement projects. in FAA Advisory Circulars, notably AC150/5300-16,
Airports that conduct such meetings as a matter of policy and/ -17 and -18, which define geodetic control, remote sens-
or standard procedure have found that better coordination ing, and GIS data collection and submittal requirements.
from the onset can lead to better use of available resources Utilities data and references to ASCE 38 are covered in
and better chances of receiving quality data. AC150/5300-18. When conducting capital improvement
projects funded through FAA Airport Improvement Pro-
gram (AIP) grants or projects able to utilize Passenger
Another quality of data improvement includes use of
Facility Charges (PFCs), airport managers may be able
secure Internet sites to exchange data. Allowing authorized
to include subsurface utility data collection costs into
individuals to access utilities data in a secure manner over
their projects. Airport managers can contact the FAA
the Internet increases the accessibility of data while not com-
Office of Airports for specific eligibility requirements.
promising its security.

• Policies and Procedures—Although most airports Collecting Subsurface Utilities Data

interviewed and survey respondents reported having
CADD standards that identify the format of delivered Most airports and consultants initially, and often exclusively,
drawings, and some airports have procedures governing rely on records research to identify the location of utilities.
the use of utilities data, few airports have established This research is often carried out first by searching through
procedures for collecting utilities data. They typically available record drawings and then by contacting individu-
rely on the knowledge and experience of their outside als believed to have additional information. Following are
design consultants to complete a design or data collec- the methods currently according to phone interviews and in
tion project. This can lead to variation in the manner survey responses.
in which the data are collected, which can degrade the
consistency of the data once consolidated with deliver- • Manual Document Research—More often than not,
ables from other consultants. utilities records research involves a physical search of
• Procurement—A few of the airports interviewed and documents kept in hard copy, CD or DVD, and/or on
several DOTs have prequalification requirements for networked disc drives. These archives are typically
SUE providers to help streamline the procurement pro- accessed by indexing the project that installed or dis-
cess. A copy of some of these prequalification require- covered a utility and then searching sheet-by-sheet for
ments is provided in Appendix C. FHWA has prepared relevant details. The process is labor-intensive and sub-
a sample scope of work for SUE services (see Appen- ject to omissions because of lost, damaged, checked out,
dix D), which some airports and many state DOTs or misfiled documents. The process also imposes a con-
have modified for their use. Some state DOTs have straint on consultants because few airports will allow
published their own standard scope of services. These them to remove needed documents from the premises.
22

• Electronic Document Research—At a moderate but ing GIS and/or CADD maps that can be used for plan-
growing number of large and medium airports, record ning and preliminary design purposes. Technological
drawings have been entered into a document manage- advances and the increasing sophistication of users
ment system that enables electronic search and retrieval. of this information have fueled a trend toward higher
These systems range from custom software developed resolution and accuracy imagery. Common resolutions
by consultants to meet an airport’s specific needs to include 1-ft, 6-in., and 3-in. square pixel sizes. To some
commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) software degree 6-in., but especially 3-in resolution imagery can
solutions. Custom software can be expensive, but pro- be used to identify and locate utility assets on or above
vides greater flexibility to address the specific needs, the ground. The use of such imagery to locate and/or
preferences, and work processes of that airport. COTS confirm the location of visible portions of the utility is
solutions range widely in price and but are developed to growing among airports, especially as new FAA GIS
address more general needs. requirements are prompting more aerial imagery col-
lections at airports.
A small but growing subset of airports utilizes document
management systems that can link related documents to the LiDAR technology is typically not used by airports or
geographic location of specific utility assets. These “GIS- their consultants to collect utilities data, although it has been
enabled” document management systems typically provide a used in other industries. One limitation of LiDAR is that the
map display and the ability to search for documents related assets being identified must be exposed and in the line of
to a specific location. The location specified is often a gen- sight of the laser scanning device at the time the survey is
eralized reference (e.g., a roughly drawn bounding area or a conducted. This can present a logistical challenge to con-
grouping of associated map grid cells) to the location of the struction crews and equipment, as well as to project sched-
project that first installed or discovered the location of the ules. Some airports and their consultants are considering, and
utility. Most airports that have an electronic document man- in a few cases applying, LiDAR as a means of supporting
agement system that allows authorized consultants to use it other non-utilities data collection efforts. FAA Standards
while on airport property and a few have begun to offer these for Using Remote Sensing Technologies in Airport Surveys
capabilities through secure systems available on the Internet. (AC150/5300-17C) prescribe methods of collecting and sub-
mitting geospatial data depicting many airport features using
• Word-of-Mouth—Informal communication between LiDAR, although its use in collecting utilities data are cur-
individuals is a pervasive method used to gather airport rently not accepted.
utilities data. This method is especially prevalent and
valuable when the information desired is from outside • Geophysical Detection—As with aerial photography
the department or organization that needs it. Although and LiDAR, subsurface detection technologies can
the results of such inquiries can be beneficial, success remotely sense the location of a utility without com-
relies heavily on knowing and maintaining a friendly ing into direct contact with it. GPR, EML, and RFID
relationship with those who possess the information or are examples of subsurface detection technologies that
who know someone who does. Restrictive organiza- airports have used with varying degrees of success,
tional policies regarding data sharing, labor-intensive depending on differing soil types, lack of knowledge
data retrieval processes, and retirement or death of of the limitations of the technology, and limited expe-
individuals who are “in the know” limit the success of rience with the necessary equipment. Cost, however,
this method. There is also a limit to human recollec- appears to be the primary factor that results in GPR
tion, given the rapidly growing volume of records and only being used on a limited, case-by-case basis. Often
associated data enabled by modern CADD and GIS the technology is only used where critical utilities are
technology. suspected and design/construction is imminent.
• Field Surveying—Most airports have a means of col-
Once records research has been completed, some airports lecting survey coordinates (x, y, and z) of utilities on
attempt to directly locate utilities and record specific infor- the surface or exposed by construction. Some of the
mation about them. This field work is often done in prep- larger airports employ licensed land surveyors for utili-
aration for and as a part of an infrastructure development ties, properties, and other data collection requirements.
program. Following are common methods used by interview Others retain on-call local consultants who can survey
and survey respondents to collect these data. exposed utility locations. Several airports interviewed
indicated that it was helpful to use these contracts for
• Remote Sensing—Remote sensing involves measur- surveying routine utility exposures, since the advance
ing without coming into physical contact with the knowledge of when a utility might be exposed and sur-
subject. This method includes aerial photography and veyed was rare.
Light Detection & Ranging (LiDAR). Airports typi-
cally collect aerial photography (a few airports do so Some airports attempt to use their on-call or in-house
as frequently as once a year) as a means of develop- capabilities to survey One-Call or contract locator markings.
 23

Although this is better than not capturing those marks, it is utility assets that are on the surface or exposed by con-
important to note that this does not lead to QLB information. struction or potholing. Recognizing technical limita-
ASCE 38 is currently under revision to clarify this point. tions, and citing cost and technical limitations, they
are often satisfied with less precise vertical accuracy,
Survey responses indicated that airports more often con- especially of subsurface features. Regardless of the
tract for such survey services as a part of design projects. accuracy with which data are collected, the availability
Increasingly lower costs, productivity improvements of newer of metadata is essential in allowing users of the data
devices, and the need for greater accuracy have favored the to judge how and when to use it. In the end, all stake-
use of RTK GPS or total stations. holders appear to recognize the relationship between
accuracy and cost and the variations in the relative ben-
An issue that often constrains the use of these technolo- efits and costs of more accurate data on different types
gies is the need to come into direct physical contact with the of projects. For these reasons, accuracy specifications
utility. Such contact is limited by safety and security restric- appear to not be set by universal policy, but often on
tions on airfield, aircraft, and ground service operations; tight a case-by-case basis by the airport project manager in
construction schedules; and the cost of excavating test holes charge of the design or construction effort. Many inter-
or potholes. Although this data collection method provides viewees have found through experience, however, that
coordinates of the utility asset, it does not necessarily pro- mapping grade surveys inherently lead to utility data
vide additional details such as the type of utility, material, that is usually insufficient for design purposes.
condition, or invert elevations. For this reason, qualified
engineers sometimes accompany surveyors in the field so
that these data can be collected at the same time as the coor- Storing Subsurface Utilities Data
dinates are recorded.
Data have diminished value unless stored in a manner that
Several airports interviewed noted a general lack of air- can be easily accessed and searched by those who need them.
field electrical information and attributed this to the difficulty The manner in which utilities data are stored by airports
in detecting an underground conduit that does not necessarily ranges from secure, Internet-accessible databases to hand-
follow straight lines and the volume of wires that can run marked drawings on the dashboard of a maintenance tech-
through any given conduit. To compound the matter, many nician’s truck. While the trend is clearly toward electronic
electrical engineering drawings are “one-line” diagrams that storage and dissemination, several constraints—including
show a schematic of electrical conduit and lines that is not time, money, and old habits—have slowed the progression.
accurately tied to a known coordinate system. Collecting Based on the interviews, the following paragraphs describe
electric data is particularly important because electrical how airports and their consultants store and access the utili-
lines are among those that present the highest risk to airport ties information they need.
operations and safety.
• Record Drawing Rooms—Most large airports have
• As-Builts—Most airports have policies that require record drawing rooms with some sort of paper-based
consultants or contractors to submit as-built drawings. cataloguing system to help staff members or authorized
Seventy-five percent of airports interviewed (12 of 16) consultants find the drawings they need. Usually, but
include as-built requirements in contracts. Half (8 of not always, these drawing rooms are secure and ade-
16) also enforce their as-built policy by withholding a quately protected from fire and flooding. Medium and
retainer fee. Despite these methods, only two of the 16 small airports typically retain some drawings on site,
airports interviewed believed that as-builts accurately but often rely on record drawings retained by the parent
represent the installed location of utilities. Airports authority, city, or county. Some airports try to obtain
employees have recognized this problem, but only a few and retain copies of tenant and FAA drawings, but more
interviewed have gained management support to imple- often than not these records are requested only when
ment remedies (e.g., enforcement of financial penalties needed to support a project and then discarded when
and/or taking nondelivery into consideration in future the project is complete. It is relevant to note that inter-
competition for work) or to provide funding for alterna- views with some airport staff members indicated that
tives (e.g., staff or on-call consultants to conduct field records drawings were readily available to consultants,
survey and prepare sufficient as-builts). As hard as col- but that consultants surveyed about those same airports
lecting as-builts from consultants can be, airports are indicated that they were not.
even more challenged to collect as-builts from tenants. • Electronic Records—Most airports receive design and
One approach that has worked for some airports is to as-built drawings in electronic format on CD/DVD or
provide incentives to consultants, tenants, and the FAA through e-mail. The files submitted are typically CADD
such as a providing greater access to the airport’s data. drawings in the native format of the brand of CADD
• Data Collection Accuracies—Most airports and con- software in use at the airport. In some cases, PDF or
sultants desire survey-grade horizontal accuracies for image copies of these CADD drawings are also supplied.
24

In most cases, airports have CADD standards that software that can read the GIS files. More often, especially at
describe how the data in the CADD drawings are to larger airports, these GIS data are kept in databases and made
be delineated on separate layers, the symbology that is available to users through intranet web applications.
to be applied, and the cover sheets and title blocks to
be used. Few specify file naming, title, or page num- • Utility Network Models—As noted previously, once
bering conventions. At present few airports require QL utilities information has been consolidated into a stan-
attributes such as those detailed in ASCE 38. After the dardized and comprehensive data set, sophisticated
data are received, they are often kept on individual hard queries, analyses, and reports can be carried out. These
drives of the receiving project manager or consolidated enable computers to understand the flow and capac-
onto shared network drives that others can easily access. ity characteristics of a utility network, forecast peak
• Document Management Systems—Some larger air- demand, identify where pollutants may have entered or
port interviewees have invested in electronic docu- exited a system, isolate network branches in the event of
ment management systems to store and retrieve record a break, and produce other more sophisticated analyses.
drawings and other documents. Often when they are Few airports have taken their utilities data to this level.
first installed, tens or hundreds of thousands of historic Most are focused on collecting a set of data that shows
hard-copy drawings and related documents are scanned the location of utilities assets and a few key details.
and loaded into these systems. COTS document man- • Data Standards—A prerequisite to consolidating CADD
agement systems range in price from a few thousand or GIS data are standards that identify on which layers
to a few hundred thousand dollars, depending on their specific types of utilities assets will appear, their geo-
capabilities. Some airports have opted to hire software metric properties, the way in which they appear on ren-
developers to create custom document management dered maps and drawings, attribute details, and metadata
systems tailored specifically to their needs. that describe the quality of the data itself. Although sev-
eral standards exist, the primary details most airports
Additional information about each document can be and consultants require about utilities assets are type,
entered as the original is loaded, which can be laborious and size, material, and ownership. Currently, airports store
therefore expensive. The challenge is to identify the right this information in a variety of manners suited to the
balance of cost versus the ease of search and retrieval that individual needs of their project(s). While some have
these attributes offer. Airports have entered as few as two adopted national or international standards, there was
to three attributes and as many as 22. The desire to capture little consistency among the airports and consultants
additional information about utilities has often fueled the interviewed. Following are some of the primary stan-
desire for more attributes. dards that are currently being used, with modifications
or in combination, by airports and consultants to store
Some airports have also tied the documents they enter into utilities data.
management systems to the geographic location of the facili- – Department of Defense Spatial Data Standards
ties or assets referenced in each document. This is often most for Facilities Infrastructure and the E ­ nvironment
relevant when the document management system is used to (SDSFIE)—Originally developed by the Tri-­Services
search for utilities. CADD–GIS Technology Center under the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, this standard encompasses an
• Consolidated Master Utility Drawings—Many large enormous amount of detail about utilities and other
and medium sized airports interviewed consolidate util- types of facilities and assets. The components of the
ity record and as-built drawings as they are received standard are consistently defined and tools are freely
into UCRs that show utilities infrastructure for the available to help implement them. For these reasons,
entire airport. Often these records are broken down into most airports that have used GIS to store utilities data
separate drawings for each type of utility. They are typ- have relied heavily on the SDSFIE. The key con-
ically placed on shared network drives or intranet sites straint airports have faced is that the volume of lay-
for colleagues and authorized contractors to retrieve. ers and attributes is broader than an airport typically
• Consolidated Geographic Information System Data— requires and far more extensive than an airport will
Some interviewed airports have converted their UCR ever fully employ. Another constraint is that the older
data into a GIS database. This is the GIS equivalent to policy of expanding the SDSFIE to better suit non-
a CADD UCR. The primary difference is that GIS data defense applications has been reversed under new
are often structured to hold attributes and metadata that DOD leadership.
enable more sophisticated searches and queries to be – U.S. National CADD Standard—Most U.S. air-
performed. ports have adopted the U.S. National CADD Stan-
dard (or the corresponding American Institute of
Consolidated GIS data are sometimes stored as files on a Architects CADD layering standards) and require
shared network drive for airport staff and consultants to use. their consultants to submit design and as-built data
To open this software, they must have access to desktop GIS in this format.
 25

– Software Vendor Models—A couple of software for utilities and communications, and is eventually
vendors have developed data standards for utilities. slated to become a mandate for any projects that
Although these models are extensive, they have been apply federal funds to the development of geospatial
developed by disparate industry groups or private data, which will include most airports, few airports
firms and therefore lack consistency, making them currently know it exists.
difficult for airports to implement in a uniform way. A key challenge airports face with regard to meta-
Also, because these standards were developed for data that describe utilities data is the need to describe
broader markets, they are not perfectly matched to subsets of data (i.e., specific groups of features) dif-
the typical needs of airports. ferently. For example, it is relevant to differentiate
– FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-18B—General between airfield lights collected through survey
Guidance and Specifications for Submission of Aero- means versus digitized from a relatively old scanned
nautical Surveys to NGS: Field Data Collection and as-built drawing. This increases the complexity and
Geographic Information System (GIS) Standards. the burden of populating metadata about utilities.
This document was issued in 2009 and is being
rolled out nationwide as a requirement of airports Another very important piece of metadata is the signa-
using federal funding. It requires that airports collect ture or stamp of the licensed surveyor or engineer who pre-
and submit GIS data in a specified format to an FAA pared the utilities data. This signature or stamp certifies that
website. Included in this standard are a few specific a qualified and licensed professional is directly responsible
(e.g., airfield lights and utility tank site) and a few for preparing the data to the appropriate standard of care.
generic (i.e., utility point, utility line, and utility This conveys a certain level of trustworthiness to the recipi-
polygon) definitions. While this utilities data struc- ent and future users of the data. If a deliverable was prepared
ture is significantly less detailed than what airports in accordance with ASCE 38, the users can make decisions
typically require, it does provide a means for airports based on the data with a high level of confidence. Interest-
to share GIS data depicting utility locations with the ingly, despite its virtues, few airports interviewed require
FAA. This standard is also one of the few that men- stamped or signed SUE data deliverables. The result is data
tions and encourages the use of ASCE 38-02. that may meet an immediate need, but may not instill confi-
– INSPIRE—European countries have collaborated dence in future users. It is also in violation of ASCE 38. Only
in developing a spatial data infrastructure called three of the SUE firms interviewed said they stamp their air-
INSPIRE, which includes data standards encom- port mapping deliverables. Even the few airports interviewed
passing utilities. These standards are roughly anal- that use SUE on a systematic basis to map utilities do not
ogous to the Framework Data Content Models require their consultants to stamp their work when supplying
developed by the Federal Geographic Data Commit- data with a QL attribute.
tee (FGDC), under the eGovernment program. An
advantage of these broad standards is that they allow
software vendors to develop advanced products that Using Subsurface Utilities Data
can be used by those who adopt it. A disadvantage
of these standards is that they are often too broad to The value of quality data is demonstrated when it is used to
be used as-is by a vertical market such as airports. make decisions, perform analyses, avoid unintentional util-
Also, potential users who have already developed a ity breaks, and support other activities. Quality encompasses
standard sometimes face challenges when adapting many factors including accuracy, currency/timeliness, com-
their data to meet the requirements of the broader prehensiveness, conformance to specifications, correctness
standard. of attribute values, and the presence of metadata (FAA
– Metadata Standards—Although most ­individuals 2009). Utilities data are used by many, including airport
interviewed recognize the value of metadata in con- planners, designers, contractors, maintenance technicians,
junction with utilities, few have adopted uniform emergency personnel, meter readers, and others. To make
standards to represent that metadata. The FGDC’s use of the data, they require easy access to the subset of avail-
Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata able information. Airports need data to be presented to them
(CSDGM), Version 2, is broadly recognized as a de- in a clear and comprehensible manner. They also need to
facto standard for capturing metadata, but few prac- know the quality and age of the data. With this information,
titioners in the airport industry fill these data in. GIS they can apply responsibility and with confidence to the tasks
practitioners in the energy industry have also devel- at hand. Following are the primary ways airport interviewees
oped a profile of the International Standards Organi- are using the utilities data they collect and store.
zation (ISO) Geographic Information Metadata stan-
dard (ISO 19115). A similar profile of this standard • Design—Having quality information regarding subsur-
is being developed in cooperation with the FGDC face utilities available during the early design phases of
for broader use throughout North America (ANSI a project can help planners, architects, engineers, and
2009). While this standard has a specific application others eliminate consideration of project alternatives
26

that are unfeasible or too costly. Good data also help archi- • Facilities Maintenance—Often preventative mainte-
tects and engineers come up with optimal project designs. nance and work order requests are associated with utili-
Planning and preliminary design can consume 5% to 15% ties. When work orders are issued, it is often difficult to
of the cost of a typical airport construction project, 5% to accurately identify the specific asset that requires atten-
10% of which is spent on gathering information, much of tion, given the variety of verbal or written descriptions
it about utilities. Having quality data available at the onset that are used to identify its location. In addition, details
of a project can therefore also provide significant saving about the asset such as size, material, part numbers, etc.,
to the project as a whole. are often not available. Consequently, a considerable
amount of time and money is wasted on repeated visits
Designers and architects use utilities data in a variety of to the location, maintenance applied to the wrong asset,
ways. First, they are looking for utilities that are in the way or maintenance applied to assets soon to be removed.
of the infrastructure to be developed and must be relocated
or avoided. Second, they are looking for utilities that will To remedy this problem, many large and medium-sized
need to be used to provide service to the infrastructure being airports interviewed have implemented CMMS. These sys-
developed. Lastly, they are concerned with utilities near a tems track work orders, maintenance labor, materials, parts
project site that should be avoided during the construction and other supplies, and the cost of maintaining airport infra-
phase of a project. structure. Some of these systems can be linked to maps con-
taining GIS data to precisely locate facilities and assets being
Airport designers and architects predominantly use CADD maintained. Whether a CMMS is map-enabled or not, it does
software to do this design work. GIS is often used for analysis require quality utilities information so that assets are discreetly
and the identification of possible conflicts. For architecture identified and the appropriate level of detail is available. One
and design work associated with buildings, BIM is rapidly challenge in associating data in a CMMS with utility data
emerging as a very powerful, 3D, analytic tool that can be are that utility data that has originated from a SUE-mapping
used to manage infrastructure need of buildings throughout deliverable and is stored in a CADD or GIS format is typi-
their life cycle. cally far more specific (or granular) than data in a CMMS.
Assets or facilities (particularly small, high-quantity items
While most design and architecture work is carried out such as valves or lights) are often grouped into logical units in
in an office using CADD, GIS, BIM, and other software, a CMMS. An example would be all valves on a certain branch
some utility companies have taken proposed designs into of a utility network or all lights in a parking area. The result is
the field to confirm or check the proposed designs against that it is very difficult to link the individual assets (i.e., a single
existing conditions. This requires the use of powerful hand- valve or light) with the group of items recognized by a CMMS.
held, tablet, or ruggedized laptops that can be brought into Airports that have had the ability to implement CMMS in par-
the field. allel and in close coordination with a GIS system have often
done better at establishing a link between the data in the two
• Construction—Utilities data are important during con- systems.
struction so that workers can take the proper precau-
tions to avoid utility breaks or risks to their personal • Asset Management—The use of asset management
safety. Locating and marking utilities within or near practices and information systems is a growing trend
a construction area, carrying hard-copy record draw- in the airport industry. The term asset management,
ings into the field, and utilizing the utilities data pres- however, is being used to describe a broad variety of
ent on design drawings are common methods used on processes and systems. GIS, CMMS, building control
airport construction projects. Less prevalent techniques and monitoring, and other tools are often included in
include confirming the location of subsurface utilities the realm of asset management. Asset management
using RFID technology, GPS-equipped construction can also include inspection and current condition data.
equipment, and mobile computing devices. The purest definition of asset management is financial,
• Inspection—Aside from the mandated daily airfield encompassing the cost, useful life, and replacement
inspections that certificated airports (14 CFR Part 159) value information about specific assets.
are required to carry out, the most frequently inspected
assets at airports tend to be utilities. Having reliable Utilities assets are critical to the operation of an airport,
data showing the location and characteristics of utili- are very large in quantity, and are typically hidden from view
ties can not only ease the inspection process, but it or easy access. Quality data about utilities is therefore a criti-
can ensure thorough results and protect the safety of cal part of an asset management system, and one that is often
workers. Some airports have coordinated data collec- difficult to develop.
tion activities with utility asset inspections. While some
airports have used mobile computing devices during • Metering—A small but by no means insignificant
inspections, the practice is far more pervasive in the stream of revenue at airports comes from gas, electrical,
public utility industry. fuel, and other meters that measure the use of product
 27

conveyed through subsurface utilities. Whether meters ports have general data usage guidelines that must be
are read by airport staff or third parties, quality data accepted and signed. Some airports have defined Sen-
about the location, condition, and accessibility of the sitive Security Information to include utilities infra-
meters are important for productivity, safety, and mini- structure that directly support security activities such as
mal impact on airport operations. Many airports rely on closed circuit television cameras.
manual reading of meters and hard-copy records. The
trend in the overall utility industry, however, is to rely
more heavily on automated meter reading and mobile Growing Use of Subsurface Utilities
computing devices. Engineering at Airports
• Data Security—As a greater volume of utilities data is
disseminated to a broader audience, often by means of In spite of gaps between SOT and SOA, there is an ever
the Internet, concerns over protecting it from mistaken increasing use of SUE both on airport projects (Pillar 2001)
or malicious acts becomes increasingly important. Air- and for complete airport facility mapping programs (Nelson
ports have developed data security policies, but not 2008). Surveys of SUE consultants identified 44 airports
necessarily at a granular level that clearly indicate how where SUE was contracted in the past 10 years, almost exclu-
utilities data are to be protected and handled. Some air- sively limited to mapping functions.
28

chapter five

Effective Practices

This chapter identifies utility data collection, storage, and • Utility company “locators”
application practices that the literature review, interviews, • Utility company “contract locators”
and survey responses indicated are particularly effective at • Private industry “private utility locators”
airports. In many cases, these practices are being applied. It • Utility company construction inspectors
can be noted that the practices identified here may not always • Utility company consultants for relocation design
be appropriate to an individual airport situation. • FAA
• Agency tenants
Using SUE effectively requires a variety of skills and • U.S. military
coordinated work processes. Airport project managers and • FHWA
engineers are the primary parties responsible for carrying out • SUE consultants
effective SUE practices. However, they need to interact with • Construction personnel
airport management, GIS/CADD technicians, surveyors, • Maintenance personnel
public utility companies, and others as they carry out these • GIS departments
practices. They also require support from records librar- • Contracts and procurement departments
ians and/or CADD/GIS program managers who can store • Railroad companies.
and retrieve the utilities information produced. An effective
practice referred to repeatedly in both interviews and surveys The level of effort and therefore the number of people
was the establishment of a single responsible department to required to support these various positions obviously varies
oversee continuity of managing subsurface utility informa- greatly according to the size of the airport or project. These
tion on airports. This oversight department has the mandate activities can be performed as a part of existing employ-
to coordinate between the different stakeholders within the ees’ jobs on smaller projects and/or at smaller airports.
airport property to ensure the capture, dissemination, and More extensive construction programs at large airports may
management of utility information. Stakeholders identified require several new staff members or consultants to fulfill
as potentially involved in the utility process depending upon these roles.
the airport structure and type of project and therefore needing
coordination of activities may include: Effective SUE practices start well before and end well
after (if ever) infrastructure development projects. Organi-
• Airport and/or public agency project manager zational, policy, standards, and procedural activities start in
• Airport and/or public agency utility design or reloca- advance of a design or construction project. Project cost con-
tion designers trols, constructability, and project safety are all better man-
• Airport and/or public agency project design engineers aged when accurate and complete information about utilities
or their consultants is available as early as possible.
• Airport and/or public agency utility engineer
• Airport and/or public agency survey section personnel Following is a checklist of specific effective activities that
• Airport and/or public agency property department span the life cycle of typical airport construction programs.
• Airport and/or public agency maintenance personnel Each of these is described in more detail in the sections that
• Airport and/or public agency construction inspectors follow:
• Airport and/or public agency consultants for construc-
tion inspection • Organizational structure that promotes utility data
• Airport and/or public agency roadway department exchange
• Design or planning consultant hired by the airport and/ • Procedures for SUE data collection and exchange
or public agency • Data standards that promote usability
• Survey consultant hired by the airport and/or public • Policies that enforce standards and procedures
agency • Qualified consultants
• State One-Call center • SUE Training
• Utility company records personnel • Data collection techniques
• Utility company engineering personnel • Coordinate with construction activities
 29

• Coordinate with maintenance activities are developed, consistent terminology, specifications,

• Deliverables that accurately depict utilities and references are provided (Virginia DOT).
• Consolidate utilities data as it is received. • Data standards for consistency and usability: Data
standards are established for the storage of utilities data.
The following paragraphs describe in detail the SUE- The U.S. National CADD Standard for CADD data and
related processes that airports have found most effective: the DOD’s SDSFIE, the FAA’s AC150/5300-18B for
GIS data, and the current FGDC CSDGM or ISO-19115
• Organizational structure that promotes data for metadata are adopted and adapted to meet airport-
exchange: As noted in the chapter on state of the prac- specific needs. ASCE 38 QLs are tracked within the
tice, natural divisions between departments and organi- metadata as well. Common CADD and GIS symbology
zations often introduce barriers to sharing information are applied from sources such as the National CADD
on subsurface utilities. Project costs, the risk of utility Standard or developed by the airport or its consultants.
breaks, and safety concerns all decrease as informa- Standards such as these provide consistency, structure,
tion becomes more available. To achieve this, airports and scalability to the vast and exponentially growing
are increasingly relying on documented policies and stores of utilities data that organizations are collecting.
procedures to encourage awareness and information • Policies that enforce procedures and standards:
exchange among those who have a right to know. Procedures and standards for collecting, storing, and
using utilities data are typically enforced through writ-
Some airports have appointed asset managers, GIS/ ten policies that are included in airport contracts, lease
CADD managers, and records librarians who are empowered agreements, and other agreements that involve utilities
to seek and share data across organizational boundaries. The information. Policies establish penalties for failure to
individuals often become a focal point for data exchange and submit stamped drawings that accurately depict as-built
become aware of data sources and needs throughout the air- conditions and conform to the airport’s standards. In
port. They are often invited to project kickoff, program coor- addition, funding is made available for airport staff or
dination, and planning meetings and therefore can serve as a another consultant to develop as-builts if others do not
conduit that not only spans departments but also projects and submit them in a timely manner.
programs within departments. Program and project manag- • Qualified consultants: Consultants involved in SUE
ers also play an important role in the sharing of utilities data, tasks are typically pre-qualified (see sample prequalifi-
for it is they who are often the first recipient of delivered data cation requirements in Appendix C) and selected based
and/or questions from consultants seeking data. on professional qualifications, although cost may often
be considered as well in conformance with the airport’s
• Procedures for utility data collection: There are procurement practice. Having an on-call SUE consul-
myriad ways to collect, store, and use utilities data in tant available can provide continuity and familiarity
an effective manner. Clearly documented procedures with the airport’s facilities, procedures, and policies.
are important to successfully carrying out SUE-related Airports participate with and coordinate with local
tasks. These procedures identify the applicable stan- One-Call systems.
dards and specifications that must be met, describe • SUE training: Project managers, engineers, and other
how utilities data are to be submitted to the airport and airport staff members are trained in utilities issues,
how they will be checked, and describe the ways in technologies, and procedures. Training is also provided
which utilities data can be used. The procedures also to consultants and contractors on airport-specific poli-
document how field utilities data collection will be cies and procedures.
coordinated with airport construction projects as well • Data collection techniques: When utilities data are
as tenant improvement inspections. Points of contact collected in the field, high-accuracy GPS equipment
for obtaining necessary airport security badges, coor- capable of horizontal accuracies of greater than ±1 ft
dination with airfield operations, potential sources of is used. On projects where utilities are a potential fac-
useful information, and other relevant stakeholders are tor, utilities data at the appropriate QL (often QLB)
identified. Information on soil resistivity, pavement should be collected as early as possible in the project
reinforcements, and other airport-specific factors that life cycle. QLB searches within the project area are
can affect the performance of geophysical detection conducted for both known and unknown utilities. The
equipment, as well as positive/negative results from search for unknown utilities also has security implica-
past geophysical efforts, are provided to help new con- tions (Anspach 2005). It is effective to consider the
sultants identify which tools and methods will likely level of accuracy and/or investigation required of
work best. Procedures are specific, but allow for some the not-visible underground utilities as comparable to
flexibility for consultants to perform work in a manner the visible features that are included in an accurate and
that is efficient for their company and not impede the comprehensive topographic survey and obtain them in
standard of care by dictating means and methods. As the same relative time frame of project development.
procedures and related standards and policy documents On-call or airport staff members tasked with collecting
30

new or relocated utilities data in the field are in close veyor signs or stamps these deliverables to ensure their
coordination with construction crews so that utilities reliability in accordance with ASCE 38. The deliverables
data can be captured before they are buried. Field sur- are formatted so that planners, designers, engineers, and
vey data are tied to established airport control points contractors can easily find the information they need and
such as PACS/SACS and/or the National Spatial Refer- so that the data can easily be merged into consolidated
ence System. CADD master drawings or a GIS data repository.
• Coordinate with construction activities: The level of • Consolidating utilities data as it is received: Utili-
effort required for utility mapping is discussed during ties data from all available sources are consolidated into
the planning phase of any construction project. ASCE master utility CADD drawings and/or a centralized GIS
38 serves as a guideline for developing a scope of work database. This is done in as timely a manner as pos-
for utility mapping. As design proceeds, a standard- sible, especially on large-scale construction programs
ized utility conflict matrix is developed. Just prior to where each subsequent phase can benefit from up-to-
construction, any One-Call locating activities are coor- date and accurate information on subsurface utilities.
dinated with the mapping process so that discrepan- Close conformance to SUE standards and procedures
cies with the mapping can be resolved and potentially (as mentioned earlier) will ensure that data can be inte-
fixed in the mapping record (along with the appropri- grated with existing resources in a timely and effective
ate metadata). During construction, abandoned utilities manner. This integrated data can then be best deployed
are removed from the ground where feasible; the util- to planners, designers, engineers and contractors work-
ity records are adjusted accordingly. At the beginning ing on subsequent phases.
of, and at relevant junctures throughout a construction
project, CADD/GIS personnel meet with project rep- Implementing GIS so that advanced users can employ high-
resentatives to ensure that the necessary data are being powered desktop software to perform sophisticated queries and
collected in a proper format. As-builts are submitted analyses, while casual users can quickly and intuitively find
where possible at the end of major construction phases, the information they desire, is an effective way to disseminate
as opposed to months after construction activity is com- utilities data. Standardized metadata identifying the source of
plete. If these phased deliverables do not meet the air- the data, the project(s) responsible for installing or relocating
ports data standards requirements, progress payments the utility, the date the data were collected, the method of col-
are withheld or other corrective measures are imposed. lection, and QL as defined in ASCE 38-02 are recorded for each
Utilities data are incorporated into UCR, whether they individual utility component or feature as opposed to the over-
are in CADD or GIS format, so that airport staff, con- all layer or feature class (e.g., metadata are recorded for each
sultants, and ­others with a need to know have informa- manhole as opposed to generalize metadata being recorded for
tion that is as up-to-date as possible (SHRP2 R01). all manholes).
• Coordinate with maintenance activities: As mainte-
nance is performed on airport facilities and equipment, To ensure consistency, the consolidation (not the collec-
any relevant information on utilities discovered, changes tion) of utilities data is the responsibility of a single airport
in condition to known utilities, or any new utility instal- department and/or on-call consultant. The data management
lations is recorded. If accurate location information is personnel that work with the data include a licensed surveyor
needed, coordination with airport staff or on-call con- and/or engineer who is familiar with airport utility engineer-
sultants is important so that accurate information is cap- ing and ASCE 38, as well as CADD/GIS technicians’ profi-
tured before the utility is covered. This information is cient in entering and editing the data.
submitted in a format, often by means of a CMMS, to
a CADD or GIS manager who can have the data inte- Drawings are submitted in a timely manner to those respon-
grated into the airport’s UCR. sible for data consolidation. Tenant permit applications and
• Deliverables that accurately depict utilities: Utility inspections are used as a means of tracking utility installations
data research, field data collection, and utilities installed by tenants and others not directly under contract with the air-
or encountered during construction are recorded on port. Budget is set aside to help fill in the gaps in utilities data
CADD drawings and/or GIS data sets that conform to not collected under capital improvement or tenant improve-
the airport’s data standards. A registered engineer or sur- ment projects.
 31

chapter six

Research in Progress

The following research projects or programs currently under- Mapping the Underworld
way are related to or further support the information con-
tained in this report. Mapping the Underworld (MTU) is a 10-year U.K. research
program largely funded by the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council. MTU started in 2005 with four
Asset and Infrastructure Management complimentary research projects covering the feasibilities
for Airports (ACRP 01-16) of a multi-sensor location tool; mapping and position; data
integration to yield a single repository for records; and RFID
The objective of this ACRP project is to develop a document tags to assist future pipe location. The current project builds
that will help airport managers and staff understands the com- on this research by seeking to develop a multi-sensor device
ponents of an asset and infrastructure management program, integrated with intelligent data fusion using GPR, acoustics,
as well as the costs and benefits of implementing one. The and electromagnetic technologies to locate all infrastructure
project will also provide a guidebook that will help airports in all ground conditions without the need for excavation.
of various sizes implement an asset and infrastructure man-
agement program that meets their needs. ACRP 01-16 and It is a multi-disciplinary and multi-university research
this project (i.e., ACRP S11-09-03) can be complimentary project bringing together experienced researchers with a
because many of the assets and infrastructure at an airport are range of different expertise. The project builds directly on
related to utilities. the findings of the MTU Phase 1 feasibility study, which con-
cluded that only the combination of the different technolo-
Evaluating CMMS practices gies will allow for reliable detection of the buried assets and
(ACRP Anticipated Project 09-05) has the potential to be used for condition assessment.

The objective of this ACRP project is to help airports select,

operate, and support CMMS. The guidance developed will Strategic Highway Research Program
help airports understand the various products and options (SHRP) R-01A: Innovation in Technologies
to Support the Storage, Retrieval, and
that exist, determine the appropriate level of sophistication Utilization of 3D Utility Location Data in
for their specific needs, and apply the technology in the best Highway Renewal
manner possible for the airport. Because utilities are one of
the primary types of assets at airports that require mainte- This project aims to identify and develop best practices for
nance, the findings of this report will identify CMMS-related modeling, structuring, storing, retrieving and utilizing 3D
gaps between the state of the technology and current state of utility location data. Its main goals are to reduce project delays
the practice. by keeping utility mapping data current throughout the proj-
ect development process, reduce the necessity for repeating
complete utility mapping for the next project in the same area
FAA National Airspace System
by tracking all utility-related changes, and reduce excavation
Enterprise Architecture
damage to utility lines during the construction phase.
The purpose of the FAA’s NAS Enterprise Architecture (EA)
is to increase the understanding of and provide a basis for
Strategic Highway Research Program
modeling the evolution of the NAS. It will provide architec- (SHRP) R-01B: Multi-Sensor Platforms for
ture information to support enterprise-level decision mak- Utility Location & Characterization
ing about the NAS. The EA seeks to describe NAS-wide as
well as program-specific elements using the Department of This project seeks to modify and improve existing advanced
Defense Architecture Framework. Utilities infrastructure is GPR and EM equipment, and add the capabilities of a new
an important component of the NAS. Accordingly, the NAS type of elastic wave system based on seismic reflection and
EA represents an opportunity to promote SUE best practices refraction techniques. The goal is to enable these instruments
among airports and off-airport utilities that serve the NAS. to work together to gather dense data sets that can interpret
32

utility signatures better than each instrument separately. Con- ment efforts to reduce excavation damage have focused on
tinuous precise positioning during data collection is of para- accurately locating the pipe or detecting damage once it has
mount importance to allow these data sets to be stacked and occurred. Relatively limited technology development has
aggregated. It is hoped that these data sets will be rich enough been aimed at preventing the two primary causes of excava­
to be able to determine other characteristics of a utility beyond tion damage—excavators that do not utilize the One-Call cen-
location. These new tools may have the ability to also measure ter and excavators that encroach upon locator markings. Two
characteristics of pavement, sub-base material, voids, depth to separate but related systems will be developed to notify util-
water table, and other geotechnical considerations. ity companies of encroachment. The first system, One-Call
Monitoring System, will be developed to monitor construc-
Strategic Highway Research Program
tion activity to ensure that all excavations have a valid One-
(SHRP) R-01C: Expanding the Locatable Call ticket associated with the work being performed. This
Zone for Underground Utilities will be accomplished by attaching a GPS-enabled monitor
onto excavation equipment. This monitor will periodically
This project is attempting to develop technology to address send location information from the excavation equipment
two specific utility detection issues, that of deep utilities to the One-Call center where it will be cross-referenced with
beyond the capabilities of current instrumentation, and of util- existing tickets. If excavation activity is detected that does not
ities that are stacked underneath shallower ones that “hide” have a valid One-Call ticket, an inspector will be sent to the site
their presence. Technologies include seismic reflection, long- to investigate the reasons. The second system (an Encroach-
range smart tags (RFID), and electromagnetic and acoustic. ment Monitoring System) will be developed to ensure that
excavation equipment does not get within the tolerance zone
Excavation Encroachment Notification of markings. This will be accomplished by equipping facil-
(EEN) System ity locators with high-accuracy GPS equipment to record the
precise location of mark-outs. This information will then
This project is under research and development, with the be used to ensure that the excavation equipment does not
Gas Technology Institute in the lead role. The objective is get within the tolerance zone of the markings. Additionally,
to develop a system that utilizes GPS technology to pre- excavators can be continuously aware of their proximity to
vent excavator encroachment. Most research and develop- underground facilities, even if markings have been removed.
 33

chapter seven

Conclusions

Many airports have formal programs to support utility data ports. This research would produce significant cost
collection, storage, and use. Some airports are applying the savings, while at the same time increasing data qual-
basic principles of subsurface utility engineering (SUE), but ity at airports. A research project to identify applicable
not all use it effectively. Airports and their consultants may geotechnical factors for investigation, coupled with a
not be aware of ASCE 38 and its benefits. There are a few trial project or two to analyze results and costs savings,
airports that have contracted for and received SUE mapping might be useful.
for individual projects, and a few have begun successful pro- • Development of SUE prequalification criteria: Many
grams to integrate project data into an overall airport map- state DOTs have developed specific SUE prequalifica-
ping program. tion materials. Airports may benefit from research into
SUE prequalification checklists and other materials.
Literature clearly notes that utilities present risks to proj- • Standard scopes of work for utility mapping: There
ects of all kinds, and that applying the principles of SUE are many standard items that can be placed in a scope of
is an effective way to mitigate and manage those risks. work for utility mapping. Research into a standardized
Airports possess many of the right tools to have an effec- scope of work for utility mapping that shows manda-
tive overall subsurface utility management program: geo- tory items along with optional items may be useful for
graphic information system (GIS), control over activities airports.
on the airport property, adequate survey control density, • Cost guidelines: The Maryland State Highway Admin-
and clear lines of sight to Global Positioning System (GPS) istration provides cost guidelines for SUE work per
satellites. They also have personnel with experience in GIS linear foot along state highways. While helpful for
capabilities. highway projects, metrics based on linear foot may
be more conducive to linear transportation networks
A significant impediment to an effective program to man- such as streets and highways. Research into airport cost
age utility data and use it effectively is a lack of SUE focus. metrics that are based on area and can be appropriately
Project managers, airport engineers, and GIS/Computer- weighted to apron areas, runway and taxiway areas, and
Aided Design and Drafting (CADD)/asset managers need non-aircraft operating area portions of their property
more information on how to effectively integrate SUE into may be helpful to airports. Because SUE services are
their project development process. The following sugges- often required during design, the typical percentages
tions for further research and technology transfers might of overall project design costs will also help airports
remedy that situation: assess the amount of money SUE services will require.
Such metrics may assist airports competitively procure
• Increase awareness and training on SUE practices: SUE services.
Airport staff and consultants need resources to learn • Development of a utility data model: Currently, a
about and better understand effective SUE practices gap exists between the overly detailed Spatial Data
and published guidelines. A guidebook may be help- Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure and the Envi-
ful in leveraging lessons learned, research, and work ronment, inconsistent data models published by soft-
completed by others. ware vendors, and the simplified utilities structure in
• Integration of utility mapping with geotechnical the FAA’s AC 150/5300-18B. Research into devel-
investigations: Geotechnical investigations are typi- opment of an airport industry data model or standard
cally conducted with a variety of surface geophysics that is compatible with FAA, ASCE, and other rel-
and exploratory boreholes. Utilities interfere with these evant guidelines may be useful to airports.
investigations by contributing to energy fields in the • Improved CADD–GIS interoperability: As a grow-
regions of investigation. As such, there is an attempt ing number of airports use GIS, it is becoming more
to eliminate utility “noise” so that interpretations are important to exchange data between GIS and CADD
more valid. Research would helpful in describing software packages. Research into airport CADD–GIS
advanced geophysics now available for the purposes exchange standards and/or nonproprietary data formats
of mapping utilities that may have application to air- would be helpful to airports.
34

• Development of a metadata profile: Metadata are • Integrating utilities into the project development
attached to CADD and/or GIS utilities data used by process for airports: Other transportation sectors have
airports. Research into an airport metadata profile may developed a multitude of flow charts, coordination check-
describe the source, method of collection, quality level, lists, design criteria, utility avoidance strategies, and other
date or validity of the data collected, and feature level. items that can be incorporated into a project’s planning,
This may be helpful to airports describing their sub­ design, and construction process. Research into develop-
surface utilities. ing such an application to airports may be useful.
 35

Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Acronyms

Following is a glossary of terms used in this synthesis report, SDSFIE Spatial Data Standards for Facilities,
including abbreviations and acronyms commonly used is Infrastructure and the Environment
relation to SUE services performed at airports. SMS Safety Management System
SOA State of the art
Abbreviation Full Term SOP State of the practice
SOT State of the technology
AAAE American Association of Airport SUE Subsurface utilities engineering
Executives TIF Tagged Image File format
ACIP Airport Capital Improvement Program UC Utilities coordination
AGC Associated General Contractors of America UCR Utility composite record
AIP Airport Improvement Program UMP Utility mapping program
ALP Airport Layout Plan USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
APWA American Public Works Association
BIM Building Information Modeling The key terms and phrases used in this report are defined here:
CADD Computer Aided Design and Drafting
CD Compact Disk Attribute information is alphabetical and/or numeric
CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management information that describes particular characteristics of a
System geospatial feature, such as its type, dimensions, usage,
COTS Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf occupant, etc.
CSDGM Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Engineering information includes hard copy and electric
Metadata drawings, maps, imagery, operations and maintenance
DOT Department of transportation manuals, survey data, and many other forms of techni-
EA Enterprise Architecture cal data.
EEN Excavation Encroachment Notification An Enterprise GIS is a collection of geographic informa-
EML Electromagnetic Pipe and Cable Locators tion, GIS applications, and business processes built upon
EMTC Electromagnetic Terrain Conductivity a common framework to support collaborative decision-
FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee making across divisions and among management, staff,
GIS Geographic information system and consultants.
GPR Ground penetrating radar Geographic features are depictions of natural or manmade
GPS Global Positioning System elements that occupy a specific location. Examples include
IDLE Integrated Distance Learning Environment a runway, building, river, or underground pipe. Geospatial
ISO International Organization for features or a particular type (i.e., all runways) are often
­Standardization referred to as a feature type, data set, or layer of spatial data.
IT Information technology Geographic information is data that depict geographic
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging features on a map, drawing, or photo. It includes hard copy
MAG Magnetics and electric engineering drawings, maps, aerial imagery,
MTU Mapping the Underworld and survey data.
NAD North American Datum Metadata are information about the data themselves such
NAS National Airspace System as source, accuracy, dates for which the data are valid,
NAVD North American Vertical Datum and security classification. Metadata are essential in help-
NGS National Geodetic Survey ing users determine the extent to which they can rely on a
PACS Primary Airport Control Station given datum to make decisions.
PDP Project Development Process Profile is an extension or adaptation of a standard to meet a
PDF Portable Document Format specific industry’s requirements.
PFC Passenger Facility Charge Subsurface utilities engineering is a branch of engineering
QL Quality level practice that involves managing certain risks associated
RFID Radio Frequency Identification with utility mapping at appropriate quality levels, utility
ROI Return on investment coordination, utility relocation design and coordination,
RTK Real-Time Kinematic utility condition assessment, communication of utility
SACS Secondary Airport Control Station data to concerned parties, utility relocation cost estimates,
SAULT Selection Assistant for Utility Locating implementation of utility accommodation policies, and
Technologies utility design (ASCE 2002).
36

References

Following is a specific bibliographic list of the reports, web- Ariatnum, S., Integrating GPS and Laser Technology to
sites, and data sources utilized in preparing the synthesis Map Underground Utilities Installed Using Open Trench
report. Method, Construction Research Congress 2010, Innovation
for Reshaping Construction Practice, 2010, pp. 627–636.
Normative Sources Ball, M., “Autodesk Brings a BIM Approach to Utilities,
Promoting Spatial Design for a Sustainable Tomorrow,”
Strategic Highway Research Program Projects R-01A, Spatial Sustain blog, Apr. 6, 2011 [Online]. Available:
R-01B, and R-01C. www.vector1media.com/spatialsustain.
American Association of State and Highway Transportation Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Mapping of Under-
Officials (AASHTO), Right of Way and Utilities: Guide- ground Utility Infrastructure, S250-11, Mississauga, ON,
lines and Best Practices, Standing Committee on High- Canada, 2011.
ways (SCOH), Strategic Plan Strategy 4-4, Washington, Code of Federal Regulations, Certification of Airports,
D.C., Jan. 6, 2004 Title 14—Aeronautics and Space, Part 139, Dec. 5, 2011.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Construction Industry Institute (CII), Constructability: a
Officials and Federal Highway Administration (AASHTO/ Primer, University of Texas at Austin, 1986.
FHWA), CCC: Making the Effort Works! AASHTO and Dziadak, K., “Model for the 3D Location of Buried Assets
FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, Based on RFID Technology,” Journal of Computing in
D.C., 2002. Civil Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2009, pp. 148–159.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), North Ellis, R., M. Venner, C. Paulsen, J. Anspach, G. Adams, and
American Profile (NAP) of the ISO 19115: Geographic K. Vanderbergh, Integrating the Priorities of Transpor-
Information—Metadata, ANSI, Washington, D.C., 2009. tation Agencies and Utility Companies, SHRP2 Report
American Public Works Association (APWA), “APWA Guid- S2-R15-RW, Transportation Research Board of the
ance Position Statement on Subsurface Utility Engineer- National Academies, Washington D.C., 2009.
ing Surveys,” APWA, Washington, D.C. 2007 [Online]. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Cable Cuts: Causes,
Available: http://www.apwa.net/Documents/Advocacy/ Impacts, and Preventive Measures, Special Review, Safety
Positions/Guidance/Revised%20SUE%20st. Quality Assurance Division, Federal Aviation Adminis-
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), CI/ASCE tration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,
38-02, Standard Guideline for the Collection and Depic- D.C., June 1993.
tion of Existing Subsurface Utility Data, ASCE, Reston, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Subsurface Utility
Va., 2002. Damage Prevention, ANI Common Work Instruction,
Anspach, J. H., “Reducing Existing Underground Utility ANI1Q-QCW1342.1, FAA, Washington D.C., 2004.
Risks on Airport Improvement Projects: Subsurface Util- Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Introduction to
ity Engineering,” Proceedings of the 25th International Safety Management Systems (SMS) for Airport Opera-
Air Transportation Conference, Austin, Tex., June 14–17, tors, Advisory Circular 150/5200-37, FAA, Washington,
1998. D.C., 2007.
Anspach, J. H., “ASCE 38-02 and Airport GIS Systems,” Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Underground Update
Proceedings of the American Association of Airport (DVD), FAA Advanced Implementation Technologies
Executives GIS Conference, Boston, Mass., 2004. Team, Washington, D.C., 2008.
Anspach, J. H., “Developing GIS Utility Information for Site Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), General Guidance
Security Issues,” Proceedings of the American Associa- and Specifications for Submission of Aeronautical Sur-
tion of Airport Executives GIS Conference, Dallas, Tex., veys to NGS: Field Data Collection and Geographic Infor-
2005. mation System (GIS) Standards, 150/5300-18B, FAA,
Anspach, J., NCHRP Synthesis 405: Utility Location and AAS-100, Office of Airport Safety & Standards–Airport
Highway Design, Transportation Research Board of the Engineering Division, FAA, Washington, D.C., 2009.
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, 44 pp. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), Content Stan-
Anspach, J. H., “Collecting and Converting Two-­Dimensional dard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM), Version
Utility Mapping to Three-Dimensional,” 89th Annual 2 (FGDC-STD-001-1998), Washington, D.C., 1998.
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washing- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Subsurface
ton, D.C., Jan. 10–14, 2010. Utility Engineering Handbook, Publication No. FHWA-
Anspach, J. and M. McLaughlin, “VDOT’s Successful RFID PD-96-004, Office of Engineering, Federal-Aid Program
Experiment,” Damage Prevention Professional Maga- Branch, Federal-Aid and Design Division, Washington,
zine, Fall 2011. D.C., 1995.
 37

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Cost Savings on Consortium Special Reports Series No. 9, Washington,
Highway Projects Utilizing Subsurface Utility Engineer- D.C., 2000.
ing, prepared by Purdue University Department of Build- Sterling, R., E. Allouche, J. Anspach, J. Matthews, J. Ber-
ing Construction Management, FHWA Contract Number chmans, and J. Simicevic, Development of the Selection
DTFH61-96-00090, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 1999. Assistant for Utility Locating Technologies, SHRP 2
Geonics Corporation, User Manual for the EM-31, Missis- Report S2-R01-RW-2, Transportation Research Board of
sauga, ON, Canada, 2000. the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011.
Green, R. E., Generation of Utility Mapping Data via Pro- The Survey Association (TSA), The Essential Guide to
cessing of Multichannel Signals Collected by Arrays Utility Surveys, Issue 3, Mar. 2011, Nottinghamshire,
of Ground-Penetrating Radar and EM Antennae, 85th U.K., 2011.
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Ground-­Penetrating
Washington, D.C., Jan. 22–26, 2006. Radar Soil Suitability Map of the Conterminous United
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geo- States, Natural Resources Conservation Service, ­Washington,
graphic Information—Metadata (ISO-19115:2003), 2003. D.C., 2009.
Nelson, N., “JFK Goes ‘SUE Happy,’ ” Airport Improve- Young, G. N., Geophysical Mapping Versus Locating Utili-
ment Magazine, Washington D.C., Nov.–Dec. 2008. ties: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here?
Nguyen, K. and J. Anspach, “Reducing Utility Damages that 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Affect Air Traffic Control Operations,” Proceedings of Board, Washington, D.C., Jan. 10–14, 2010.
the Aviation Technical Committee Symposium, Federal
Aviation Administration, Washington D.C., 2003.
Informative Sources
Noone, J. N., “Use of ASCE 38-02 and Subsurface Utility
Engineering for Better Design, Cost Savings and Damage Consultant Prequalification Manual, Georgia Department of
Prevention in Airport Planning and Design,” Proceedings Transportation, Atlanta, Jan. 15, 2009 [Online]. Available:
of the Pipelines 2004 International Conference, American http://www.dot.state.ga.us/doingbusiness/consultants/
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Calgary, AB, Canada, Documents/Consultant%20Prequalification%20Manual
2004. 11509.pdf.
One Hundred and Twelfth Congress of the United States of Damage Prevention, Safety Study NTSB/SS-97/01, National
America, FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C., 1997.
(H.R. 658), Feb. 14, 2012. Description and Minimum Requirements for Prequalifica-
Osman, H. and T. El-Diraby, Subsurface Utility Engineer- tion, Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield,
ing in Ontario: Challenges and Opportunities, Centre for Oct. 2011.
Information Systems in Infrastructure and Construction, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Airports Surveying,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, GIS Program, FAA, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Avail-
ON, Canada, 2005. able: https://airports-gis.faa.gov/public/faqs/index.html.
Ott, J., “Airport Funding Reduced in 2012 FAA Budget,” Iowa Department of Transportation, SUE Prequalification
Aviation Daily, Feb. 15, 2012. Requirements, Ames. National Transportation Safety
Pillar, R. L., J. Flemings, and S. Kutchins, “Case Study of Board (NTSB), Protecting Public Safety Through Exca-
the New DFW International Airport,” Proceedings of 8th vation, NTSB, Washington, D.C., 1994.
International Conference on Automated People Movers, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT),
ASCE, 2001. Costs for Subsurface Utility Engineering, Scopes of Work
Reid, H., “CAD, GIS Integration: Why Would You Want to Do Survey, Utilities and Right-of-Way Section, Bureau of
This Anyway?” Directions On-line Magazine, Dec. 2003. Design, Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Feb. 28, 2008.
Scott, C. P., “Subsurface Utility Engineering: An Engineer- Sample SUE & Utility Coordination Scope of Work for Con-
ing Process for Obtaining Reliable Underground Infor- sultant Services, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
mation,” Routes/Roads, Vol. 4, No. 292, Oct. 1996. Department of Transportation [Online]. Available: http://
Singha, S. K., H. Thomas, M. Wang, and Y. Jung, Subsur- www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/htmldoc4.cfm.
face Utility Engineering Manual, Pennsylvania State Costs for Subsurface Utility Engineering Scopes of Work
University, University Park, 2007. Survey, Bureau of Design, Utilities and Right-of-Way
Sterling, R., J. Anspach, E. Allouche, J. Simicevic, C. Rog- Section, Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Feb. 28, 2008.
ers, K. Weston, and K. Hayes, Encouraging Innovation Subsurface Utility Engineering Pre-Qualification Require-
in Locating and Characterizing Underground Utilities, ments, Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus.
SHRP2 Report S2-R01-RW, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009. Additional documents used for broad background on subsur-
Sterling, R., Utility Locating Technologies: A Summary of face utility engineering can be found on-line at http://www.
Responses to a Statement of Need, Federal Laboratory fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/suebibli.cfm.
38

Appendix A
Interview Questionnaire

Following is a brief questionnaire intended to identify how airports and other organizations collect, store, and use information about
subsurface utilities. We will use these questions as a guide during a phone interview. Answers to these questions from a variety of
airports will be consolidated to identify industry best practices, technological trends, and opportunities for further research that will
benefit airports and utility providers. These findings and recommendations will be published in an Airport Cooperative Research
Program synthesis report. The specific information you provide will not be publicly available in a manner that can be associated
with you or your airport. Consolidated statistics, which combine results from many airports, will be published in the final report.

Participant Name: __________________________________________________________

Contact Information: ________________________________________________________

Qualifying Questions

• Are you willing to participate? Yes. No

• Do you have experience with collecting or using utilities information? Yes. No
• Do you have 30–45 minutes for a phone interview? Yes. No. Later _____________

General

• What airport (or organization) do you work for? __________

• What is the organizational structure of your airport?
�  Part of an authority that operates an airport(s)
�  Part of the city
�  Part of the county
�  Other: ____________________________
• In what department do you work (please indicate closest match)?
� Planning
� Engineering
�  Property management
� Maintenance
� Operations
�  Other: ________________________

Collecting Information About Utilities

• What sources of subsurface utilities information do you use (check all that apply)?
�  Record drawings from completed projects
�  Maintenance shop drawings
�  Consolidated utility drawings (CADD)
�  Use a spatially-enabled database (GIS) to pull up utility information
�  Consolidated utility model (GIS)
• Which utilities cause more problems from a data collection standpoint than others? Why?

• Do you use Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE)? Yes. No

If yes, describe your use of SUE:

• Has your organization contracted with a consultant/contractor within the last 3 years to provide SUE services? If so, were these
services contracted via:
�  No, we have not contracted for subsurface utilities engineering services
�  Within the scope of design contract(s)
�  Within the scope of construction contract(s)
�  Separate subsurface utilities engineering contract(s)
�  On-call subsurface utilities engineering contract(s)
• Other: ________________________________
• Do you require your consultants to use SUE? Yes. No
 39

• Do you use SUE on a project by project basis? Yes. No

• Do you use SUE to globally map airport utilities to improve the base utility information? Yes. No
• Do you have a pre-qualification process for SUE consultants?
• Do you procure SUE on a qualifications-based selection or low-bid?
• On what percentage of CIP projects do you use the following field data collection techniques?
___ % Airport or consultant survey of one-call marks
___ % QLB (marks and survey by same company and stamped as QLB)
___ % Aerial or field survey of utility structures and use records to fill in the gaps
___ % Pothole/no survey
___ % Test holes leading to QLA data (survey of exposed utility stamped)
___ % Other: ________________
• On what percentage of projects do you use the following technologies?
___ % RFID Marker Balls
___ % GPS-enabled cameras
___ % 3-D multi-channel radar
___ % 2-D single channel radar
___ % other advanced geophysics (i.e., not standard pipe and cable locators)
___ % lidar survey for exposed utilities
___ % other advanced survey techniques for exposed utilities
___ % Field tablet comparison of observations vs. utilities in GIS with corrections as necessary
____ Other:
• Do you record and/or require metadata (i.e., information about the data such as who collected it, how, and when) about your
utilities information? Yes. No. Unsure
• Do you currently have access to information on the location of utilities installed by the FAA (i.e., electrical or telecommunica-
tions lines to control tower and navigational aids) at your airport?
• Does the FAA have access or request any utility information from you before their projects?

As-Built or Record Drawings

• For what percent of construction projects that involve utilities do you request “as-built” drawings?
� 75%–100%
� 50%–75%
� 25%–50%
�  Less than 25%
• For what percent of construction projects that involve utilities do you receive “as-built” drawings?
� 75%–100%
� 50%–75%
� 25%–50%
�  Less than 25%
• Are these “as-builts” typically
�  Annotations to design documents
�  CADD documents updated to accurately depict as-built conditions
�  GIS data deliverables
�  Other: ____________________________
• Are the “as-builts” you received stamped by a surveyor or engineer? Yes. No
• How long does it take to receive “as-built” drawings from consultants/contractors after a project is completed?
�  Within 30 days
�  30–90 days
�  More than 90 days
� Never
• Do you have written standards for “as-builts”? Yes. No. If Yes, what do these standards cover (e.g., layering, format, accuracies)?

• Do the “as-builts” you receive meet your needs? Please explain.

• What methods do you use to enforce or incent your consultants, tenants, FAA, or others to supply “as-builts” according to your
standards?
• Do you incorporate “as-built” drawings into master utility drawings and/or a central GIS database? Yes. No
� If so, describe the process and the groups involved. How long does it take to get as-built drawings into the GIS database and
make them accessible?
• Do you require maintenance personnel to supply utility information during routine maintenance dig-ups if it doesn’t agree with
records and to what degree of accuracy?

Storage of Utilities Information

• Where is the utilities information you use kept (please check all that apply)?
�  Document management system
�  Central GIS database
40

�  Record documents physically stored in a central place

�  Tenants keep their own, airport retrieves as required
�  FAA keeps their own
�  Other: _____________________________________________
• Are utilities record drawings kept in a central document management system? Yes. No
�  How far back are historical records available?
�  What is the process for entering new records drawings into the system?
�  Are documents geo-referenced and searchable using a map? Is it GIS capable?
�  Do consultants have access to these records? If so, what is the procedure for gaining access?
• Is there or was there a military presence at your airport? If so, how did or do you get information on utilities installed by the
military?
• Is utility information readily available to everyone who needs it in a timely fashion?
• Do you require that your utilities data be kept in compliance with standards? If so, which standards do you use?
�  ASCE 38 for collection and depiction
� SDSFIE
�  National CADD Standards
�  FAA Airports GIS
�  Utility models from GIS/CADD software vendors
�  Internally developed
� Other:
• Do there need to be better standards developed? If so, describe.
• Are there any problems with how the utility information is presented in the output you receive?

Use of Utilities Information

• Which departments in your airport use utilities data on a regular basis (please check all that apply)?
� Planning
� Engineering
�  Property management
� Maintenance
� Operations
�  Other: ________________________
• How important are accurate utilities information viewed by the rest of your colleagues who use utility data?
• Do you feel your colleagues get the maximum value out of the utilities data you already have?
• How often do external stakeholders (i.e., consultants, tenants, FAA, utility companies, city/county, etc.) require utilities data
from the airport?
�  Which department is responsible for providing this information to them?
�  Do you have any written agreements that govern the use of these data?
• Which utilities cause more problems from a design and construction standpoint than others? Why?
• How many change orders do you typically get per year/or on a project? __________
�  On average, what percentage of those is due to utilities? ________________
� Approximately what percentage of these change orders could have been avoided with better utilities information?
_____________%
�  What are the causes of the change orders that could not have been avoided with better information?
• Approximately, how many unintentional utility breaks have occurred at your airport over the past five years? (confidential)
_____________________
• What percentages of CI projects use these procedures to manage utility data?
____% Utility meeting at start of project
____% Utility meetings during project in some periodic fashion
____% Utility Conflict Matrix
____% Utility relocation cost estimates
____% Database of historical utility relocation costs
____% Appointed project utility coordinator
____% Formal/standard utility data-gathering and use flowchart/procedures
• How and when do you communicate capital improvement project information to affected utility owners?
• Do you allow your consultants to choose how and when they will map utilities or does the airport mandate the process?
• Are Design+Build projects handled any differently than when design is contracted separately from construction?
• What organization/department is the official “One Call” responder for airport-owned utilities on airport property?
• Do one-call responders use airport utility records? Yes. No
�  What kind?
• Do One-Call responders notify anyone if the records disagree with their field findings?
• Do you have a formalized Buried Asset Management Program? Buried Asset Management is a standardized program within
an organization that can address all aspects of its underground infrastructure including but not limited to inventory, location,
condition, 3R (replacement, renewal, and repair) decisions, capacity, data management and dissemination, operation and main-
tenance, and output display. Its objective is to maximize the value derived from an asset stock over the whole life cycle, within
the context of delivering appropriate levels of service to customers, communities and the environment, and at an acceptable
level of risk.
 41

If so, briefly describe.

• Does your airport use the following types of software in conjunction with utilities information?
�  Desktop GIS _______________________
�  Desktop CADD ______________________
�  Enterprise/web GIS ___________________
�  Asset or financial management systems ____________
�  Mobile applications on cell phones or PDAs _____________
• Describe some of your utility conflicts “horror stories.” (confidential)

Quality of Utilities Information

Please indicate below the relative quality of your utilities information. Please consider quality as encompassing accuracy, timeliness,
comprehensiveness, and availability of the data.

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Disagree
Meets my needs
Meets my colleagues’ needs
Is better than it was 5 years ago
Is better than other airports
Is better than our city/county

On a scale from 1–10, where 1 is no data and 10 is sufficiently accurate, timely, and comprehensive utilities data, where does your
utilities data currently fall?______

Please indicate below the positional accuracy you typically require of your utilities data

<3 in. 3–12 in. 1–3 ft 3–10 ft >10 ft

Horizontal location of appurtenances
Vertical location of appurtenances
Horizontal location of subsurface features
Vertical location of subsurface features

• What improvements would you want to make to the quality of your utilities information?

Best Practices (again, this information will be kept in confidence).

• Do you feel your airport collects, maintains, and uses utilities information in the best manner possible? Yes. No. If no, please
indicate what improvements could be made?
• Which airports (if any) collect, maintain, and use utilities information better than your airport (this information will be held in
confidence)?
• Which organizations or types of organizations (other than airports) collect, maintain, and use utilities information better than
airports?

Additional Comments
42

Appendix B
SUE Consultant Survey

Following is the survey questions that were e-mailed to a variety of consultants who have performed SUE services for airports.

Name of Firm

Name of Interviewee

Are you aware of airport mapping requests at airports that you did not get or pursue?

Why did you not pursue them?

Have you performed utility mapping on airports?

Which ones?

Did the airport hire you directly?

If so, which department?

Did the airport’s program manager hire you?

Did you work for a consultant?

Which department at the airport did you primarily interact with?

How many departments did you have to interact directly with?

Was the work related to a CIP or general layout?

Were records available?

Were they all in one place?

Were they adequate for your needs?

Do they meet your needs better or worse than record drawings available from non-airport clients?

Did the airport have record drawings in a searchable document management system?
 43

If so, could the drawings be searched by location either using a map or textual descriptions of location?

Did your firm have direct access to this document management system on-site at the airport or via the Internet?

Did the airport have utilities data in a GIS?

Did your firm have direct access to this GIS on-site at the airport or via the Internet?

Were you asked to stamp deliverables in accordance with ASCE 38?

Was your hiring based upon qualifications or low bid?

Were any utility systems more difficult to map than others?

Why?

Did you employ any advanced geophysics?

  GPR

  3-D GPR

  Terrain Conductivity

Were your deliverables in CADD?

Have you ever been required by an airport to provide data in a GIS format?

If so, were standards used to define the required format? If so, which standards were used?

Did the airports or AE firms specify formatting?

What would you recommend to airports as a best practice regarding utility mapping?
44

Appendix C
SUE Prequalification Criteria

Georgia DOT SUE Must demonstrate to have sufficient personnel to accommo-

Prequalification Requirements date multiple projects simultaneously.
The state of Georgia Department of Transportation defines
the following prequalification requirements for SUE (Area The number of professional and technical support personnel
Class 5.08), which can be found in the “Consultant Prequali- must be recorded and updated.
fication Manual” (http://www.dot.state.ga.us/doingbusiness/
consultants/Documents/Consultant%20Prequalification%20 (3) Equipment
Manual11509.pdf).
Must have adequate equipment to demonstrate the ability
Class 5.08—Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) to designate both metallic and non-metallic types of under-
ground utility facilities in accordance with the current ASCE
This class of work is defined as the engineering processes standard CI/ASCE 38-02 “Standard Guidelines for the
that involve managing certain risks associated with accurately Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data.”
and comprehensively identifying, characterizing, and map-
ping overhead and underground utility facilities. The major Must have adequate equipment to demonstrate the ability to
activities include utility records research, mapping, desig- locate underground utility facilities in a minimally intrusive
nating, utility impact analysis, locating, and data manage- manner.
ment. Other activities associated with this class of work are
utility relocation design, coordination, and training. These
activities, when coordinated with utility owners, Depart- Must have adequate equipment to demonstrate the ability to
ment personnel, and surveyors, provide high quality utility accurately and efficiently survey and reduce field information.
information for use during project development, design, and
construction. These activities should conform to standards Must have adequate equipment to prepare engineering plans,
and guidelines as described in FHWA and ASCE Subsur- reports and specifications to the Department’s current Elec-
face Utility Engineering publications in conjunction with the tronic Data Guidelines and SUE Standards.
Department’s current standards, guidelines, and processes
and SUE scope of services.
(4) Past Record, Experience, and Capability
(1) Professional Status
Satisfactory experience must be demonstrated in the activi-
ties required by this class by the individual(s) who are bona
Registration as a Professional Engineer with the Georgia
fide employees for the firm thereof.
State Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors
and proven proficiency in the field of Civil Engineering with
emphasis on transportation and utility design.
Iowa DOT SUE
Prequalification Requirements
Registration as a Land Surveyor with the Georgia State Board
of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors and proven
proficiency in the field of route surveying with emphasis on Description: This category of work is defined as an engineering
designating utilities. process for accurately identifying subsurface utility facility loca-
tions. The firm should be able to precisely identify, locate, and
map the horizontal and vertical position of underground utilities,
(2) Adequacy of Personnel as well as the type, size, condition, material, and other character-
istics. These services shall be performed by using existing utility
At least two professionals, one of each as stated in item one records, survey, surface geophysical techniques, and nondestruc-
(1) above are required. One of the professionals is required tive digging methods. Firms should able to present this informa-
to perform independent checks of data, calculations, plans, tion in CADD and tie it into project plans. Work in this category
and reports of the other. includes:

At least two designators are required. • Mapping at designated quality levels

• Utility coordination
At least one key personnel must demonstrate a strong work- • Utility relocation design and coordination
ing knowledge of the Department’s current Plans Develop- • Utility condition and assessment
ment Process (PDP). • Communication of utility data to concerned parties
• Utility relocation cost estimates
Must have sufficient personnel to prepare engineering plans, • Implementation of utility accommodation policies
reports and specifications to the Department’s current Elec- • Utility design for highway plans during the development
tronic Data Guidelines and SUE Standards. of a highway project.
 45

Minimum Qualification Standards Firms may designate one or more individuals, holding a cer-
tificate of registration granted by the Iowa Engineering
MQS: Statement B or Statement C. Also, the project man- and Land Surveying Examining Board as a professional
ager should have been involved in the management of at engineer, as responsible for the practice of engineering in
least three SUE projects. Iowa by the firm. The designated individual or individu-
als shall have full authority to make all final engineering
Statement B. Professional status in the category of work decisions on behalf of the firm with respect to the work
shall be demonstrated on Form 102113 by reference to performed by the firm. This designation shall not relieve
at least one person registered by the Iowa Engineering the firm of any responsibility or liability imposed upon it
and Land Surveying Examining Board as a professional by law or by contract.
engineer. Resumes of personnel so referenced shall indi-
cate the extent and nature of experience in the category of Statement C. All requirements expressed in Statement “B”
work. Other personnel supporting prequalification in the above shall apply with the exception that in lieu of reg-
category shall be referenced on Form 102113. Satisfac- istration as a professional engineer, registration as a land
tory experience in the category shall be demonstrated on surveyor is required.
Form 102113 by reference to completed projects.
46

Appendix D
SUE Sample Scope of Work

The FHWA has prepared the following “Sample SUE & Utility 13. UNC: Utility Notification Center.
Coordination Scope of Work for Consultant Services.” 14. Utility Quality Level: A professional opinion of the
quality and reliability of utility information. Such reli-
ability is determined by the means and methods of the
Subsurface Utility Engineering professional.
and Utility Coordination Services
Non-Project-Specific B.  Work Locations.
I. General
1. Potential projects on which SUE may be required are at
undetermined locations statewide. The specific projects
A.  Definitions and Terms. will be as determined by DOT.
2. Work under this contract will be authorized by means of
 1. CI/ASCE 38-02: “Standard Guideline for the Collec- task orders specific to the applicable project. The Consul-
tion and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data,” tant is reminded that this contract does not guarantee the
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2003. amount of work, if any, available under the contract.
 2. DOT: State Department of Transportation and/or its
authorized representative(s), as the context implies.
 3. Consultant: The individual or firm directly, or indirectly C.  Range of Services.
through sub-consultants, providing engineering and
design-related services as a party to the contract. 1. The work to be performed will be only as specified in
 4. Contract Manager: The designated DOT representative individual task orders, and may include any or all of the
responsible to coordinate, authorize, and monitor the activities described herein.
status of task orders issued pursuant to the contract. 2. The intent of this contract is twofold: (a) to achieve accu-
 5. Project Manager: The designated DOT representative, racy and economy in project-driven utility inventories,
typically from the involved DOT region, responsible on conflict assessment, and relocations, through the appli-
a specific project to evaluate and prescribe SUE needs, cation of SUE techniques that are not otherwise readily
and to monitor the performance of approved tasks. available to DOT; and (b) to enable DOT to assign vari-
 6. R.S.: Revised Statutes, as amended [Replace this ref- ous tasks (such as utility coordination, utility relocation
erence with the name of applicable State statute]. design, cost estimating, agreement development, etc.)
 7. MUTCD: “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,” that DOT may otherwise perform in-house.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Millennium Edition, 3. However, the primary services anticipated to be rendered
December 2000. hereunder are QL A and QL B mapping.
 8. QL A: Utility Quality Level A as further described herein.
Generally, QL A indicates the precise horizontal and ver-
tical location of utilities obtained by the actual exposure D.  Work Inspections.
(or verification of previously exposed and surveyed utili-
ties) and subsequent measurement of subsurface utilities, 1. The Consultant shall make reasonable provision for
usually at a specific point. DOT representatives to observe the Consultant’s work
 9. QL B: Utility Quality Level B as further described in progress.
herein. Generally, QL B indicates information obtained
through the application of appropriate surface geophysi-
E.  DOT Assistance.
cal methods to determine the existence and approximate
horizontal position of subsurface utilities.
10. QL C: Utility Quality Level C as further described herein. DOT will furnish the following at no cost to the Consultant:
Generally, QL C indicates information obtained by sur-
veying and plotting visible above-ground utility features 1. Copies of applicable manuals, policies and procedures,
and by using professional judgment in correlating such forms, or other standard documentation.
information to QL D information. 2. Copies of applicable “as constructed” plans showing
11. QL D: Utility Quality Level D as further described herein. information pertinent to the work.
Generally, QL D indicates information derived from 3. Information, if known, on involved utilities, such as
existing records and oral recollections. owner name, contact person, permit records, or utility
12. Subsurface Utility Engineering, or SUE: A branch of maps; provided, however, that DOT does not warrant the
engineering practice that involves managing certain accuracy or completeness of such information.
risks associated with utility mapping at appropriate 4. Prints or electronic files of project plans, profiles, cross
quality levels, utility coordination, utility relocation sections, details, or correspondence pertinent to the work.
design and coordination, utility condition assessment, 5. Alignment, centerline, profile, and survey control data.
communication of utility data to concerned parties, util- 6. Liaison with utility owners and property owners as nec-
ity relocation cost estimates, implementation of utility essary to facilitate the Consultant’s access to pertinent
accommodation policies, and utility design. records or property.
 47

F.  Work Standards. 3. The Consultant shall identify each unit of magnetic media
submitted, with adhesive labels affixed to the media and
1. Except as may be modified or specified herein, or other­wise containing identifying and archival information pre-
approved by DOT, the collection and depiction of informa- scribed by the Project Manager.
tion, and any required submittals, shall conform to the appli- 4. A letter must accompany the magnetic media and shall
cable provisions of CI/ASCE 38-02, “Standard Guideline contain the same information as required to be affixed to
for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface the media, and shall also contain a description of the soft-
Utility Data.” A copy of CI/ASCE 38-02 is available for ware utilized.
inspection by contacting the DOT Contract Manager; or
may be ordered from the American Society of Civil Engi- II.  Miscellaneous Tasks
neers at www.asce.org.
2. It is intended that this Scope of Work be construed har- A.  Training and Orientation.
moniously with CI/ASCE 38-02; however, in the event of
conflict, the provisions of this Scope of Work shall take
precedence. 1. Assist DOT in conducting training and orientation sessions
for interested parties. A training session will cover such
items as available services, detection and excavation tech-
G.  Submittals. nology, project deliverables, and task order development.

1. All required reports, documentation, studies, field notes and B.  Scoping Assistance for Task Orders.
sketches, plan drawings, and electronic data shall be sub-
mitted for review and acceptance by the Project Manager.
2. When applicable, the Consultant shall submit an example 1. Assist DOT in developing the scope of work for a sub-
of an original plan sheet and obtain approval from DOT sequent task order by assessing project SUE needs, gen-
prior to drafting plans. erating alternatives, and/or making recommendations.
3. Final submittals shall incorporate any corrections or revi-
sions resulting from DOT’s review. C.  Work Plan and Schedule.

H.  Certification. 1. Develop a detailed work plan and schedule of activities

showing conformance to the work requirements and time
1. The Consultant’s Professional Engineer or Professional constraints imposed by the task order; and obtain DOT’s
Land Surveyor in responsible charge of the work shall approval of said work plan prior to commencing work.
perform a final review of, seal, and sign all applicable
submittals, including but not limited to original field D.  Mobilization.
notes and sketches (or copies of same if approved by
DOT), hard copies of electronic data, and plan drawings. 1. Deploy necessary personnel, equipment, and supplies
from the Consultant’s central location to the work site, in
I.  Plan Drawings. preparation for the work.
2. Unless otherwise approved by DOT, the Consultant shall
1. Plan drawings shall conform to the requirements set forth not be compensated for more than one mobilization per
in the DOT Drafting Manual, or as otherwise directed or task.
approved by DOT.
2. Drawings with colors shall be reproducible by all printing E.  Traffic Control.
or duplication media in black-and-white.
3. Drafting and lettering shall be of proper density and leg- 1. Whenever the work will affect the movement of traffic
ibility for a 50% reduction during reproduction. or traffic safety, provide traffic control and utilize traffic
4. The depiction of attributes such as line type, material control devices in conformance with the MUTCD, and [if
type, age, condition, ownership, status (e.g., in-service, applicable, the State supplement thereto adopted pursuant
out-of-service, active, abandoned), number of conduits or to State Statute].
direct buried cables, or other required information, shall 2. Traffic Control shall be directed by a worksite traffic
not be eliminated, obliterated, or obscured by the manner supervisor certified by the American Traffic Safety Ser-
of reproduction or by 50% reduction in size. vices Association (ATSSA), or the [State] Contractors
5. Final drawings for reproduction shall have all drafting Association (CCA).
work and image on one side of the sheet. 3. The Consultant’s Traffic Control Plan (TCP) and Method(s)
6. The Consultant shall replace, at no cost to DOT, plan sheets of Handling Traffic (MHT(s)) shall be subject to accep-
that do not comply with the above criteria. tance by DOT prior to commencing work.

J.  Electronic Data. F.  Permits and Rights of Entry.

1. The Consultant’s selected hardware and software, meth- 1. Obtain all necessary permits from DOT and/or local juris-
odology, and format for deliverables, shall conform to dictions to allow the Consultant to work within public
the applicable requirements of the DOT Survey and/or rights of way.
Drafting Manuals, or shall be as otherwise directed or 2. If work must be performed on private property, the Con-
approved by DOT. sultant shall obtain written permission from the property
2. The Consultant shall contact the Project Manager, prior to owner for the Consultant and DOT to enter the premises,
creating any electronic data, to verify the current collec- including names and telephone numbers of contact per-
tion and submission requirements. sons should notification prior to entry be necessary.
48

3. Work on DOT rights of way may require a Special Use C.  Conflict Assessment, Development of Alternatives, Cost
Permit or similar authorization, which will prescribe nec- Estimates.
essary conditions and controls. The DOT Project Man-
ager will provide liaison between the Consultant and the 1. Work with DOT and utility owners to determine con-
involved DOT permit office. flict points between planned construction and existing or
planned utility facilities.
G.  Condition Assessments. 2. Develop and make recommendations on relocation alter-
natives, with emphasis on cost effectiveness and on mini-
1. Perform interior pipewall inspections and/or thickness mizing conflicts.
tests of existing buried utility lines, utilizing video, 3. Develop or facilitate comparative cost estimates.
ultrasonic, and/or visual techniques as appropriate.
D.  Utility Design.
H.  Aerial or Ground-Mounted Utility Facilities.
1. Subject to owners’ approval, design and prepare plans
1. If specified by DOT, Quality Level D or C services as and specifications for utility facilities to be relocated or
further described herein shall include records research, installed on the DOT project.
identification, surveying, correlation, and/or depiction of 2. Incorporate utility design information into project plans
aerial or ground-mounted utilities, notwithstanding that and furnish documentation to DOT and/or utility owners
such surface features may not be associated with an exist- as needed.
ing subsurface utility line or system. 3. Comply with applicable DOT and/or utility design stan-
dards and DOT utility accommodation policies.
I.  Unknown Lines.
E.  Construction Coordination and Monitoring.
1. If, when performing an assigned task, the Consultant
detects line(s) of unknown function, status, or ownership, 1. Provide liaison among DOT, construction contractors,
the Consultant shall obtain, record, and depict informa- and utility owners in the coordination, scheduling, and
tion on such line(s) to a quality level that is commensurate performance of utility work.
with that of the original assigned task. 2. Monitor and report on utility relocation or installation
work.
3. Determine and ensure compliance with construction
III.  Project Utility Coordination/Design plans, specifications, and schedules.
Tasks 4. Negotiate field changes as conditions warrant.
5. Prepare as-built documentation and quantities.
A.  Project Meetings, Site Reviews.
IV.  Quality Level D Tasks
1. Attend project meetings and/or site reviews with DOT
staff and/or other involved parties. Tasks leading to QL D include:
2. Record and report on proceedings.
A.  Records and Information Research.
B.  Preconstruction Utility Coordination.
1. Conduct appropriate investigations (e.g., owner records,
Coordination activities include but are not limited to: DOT records, UNCL records, County records, personal
interviews, visual inspections, etc.), to help identify util-
  1. Implement and comply with established DOT project ity owners that may have facilities within the project lim-
utility coordination procedures. its or that may be affected by the project.
  2. Notify and furnish preliminary project data to involved
utility owners. B.  Records Collection.
  3. Provide liaison among DOT, utility owners, and other
involved parties. 1. Collect applicable records (e.g., utility owner base maps,
  4. Schedule and conduct coordination meetings and field “as built” or record drawings, permit records, field notes,
reviews with utility owners. geographic information system data, oral histories, etc.)
  5. Identify and coordinate the resolution or mitigation of on the existence and approximate location of existing
utility conflicts. involved utilities.
  6. Determine financial responsibility for utility relocation
costs.
C.  Records Review.
 7. Negotiate and secure utility relocation agreements,
owner commitments, or sign-offs.
  8. Facilitate the incorporation of existing/proposed utility 1. Review records for: evidence or indication of additional
facility information into project plans. available records; duplicate or conflicting information;
 9. Prepare project contract documents describing utility need for clarification.
activities and utility/contractor coordination requirements.
10. Prepare project utility clearance documents certifying D.  Aerial or Ground-Mounted Facilities.
that all utility work has been completed, or that all nec-
essary arrangements have been made for the work to 1. Include records research, identification, and depiction of
be properly coordinated with the highway construction aerial or ground-mounted utility facilities in QL D tasks
project. if specified (see “Miscellaneous Tasks”).
 49

E.  Compilation and Presentation of Data. 4. As appropriate, amend the indicated quality level of
depicted information.
1. Transfer information on all involved utilities to appropri-
ate plan sheets, electronic files, and/or other documents as VI.  Quality Level B Tasks
required or directed by DOT.
2. Exercise professional judgment to resolve conflicting Tasks leading to QL B include:
information.
3. For information depicted, indicate: utility type and own-
A.  Inclusive of QL C Tasks.
ership; date of depiction; quality level(s); end points of
any utility data; line status (e.g., active, abandoned, out of
service); line size and condition; number of jointly buried 1. Perform tasks as described for QL C. There is no prescribed
cables; and encasement. order in which QL C and B tasks must be performed.

V.  Quality Level C Tasks B.  Line Detection and Marking.

Tasks leading to QL C include: 1. Select and apply appropriate surface geophysical

method(s) to search for and detect subsurface utilities
within the project limits, and/or to trace a particular util-
A.  Inclusive of QL D Tasks. ity line or system.
2. Based on an interpretation of data, mark the indications of
1. Perform tasks as described for QL D. There is no prescribed utilities on the ground surface, for subsequent survey. Uti-
order in which QL D and C tasks must be performed. lize paint or other method acceptable to DOT for marking
of lines.
B.  Identification of Surface Utility Features. 3. Utilize the uniform color code of the American Public
Works Association for marking of utilities.
1. Identify surface features, from project topographic data 4. Unless otherwise directed, mark centerline of single-
(if available) and from field observations that are surface conduit lines, and outside edges of multi-conduit systems.
appurtenances of subsurface utilities. 5. Unless otherwise approved, maintain horizontal accuracy
of ±1.5 feet (450 mm) in the marking of lines.
C.  Aerial or Ground-Mounted Facilities. 6. As an alternative to the physical marking of lines, the
Consultant may, with DOT’s approval, utilize other means
1. Include survey and correlation of aerial or ground- of data collection, storage, retrieval, and reduction, that
mounted utility facilities in QL C tasks if specified (see enable the correlation of surface geophysical data to the
“Miscellaneous Tasks”). project’s survey control.

D.  Surveys. D.  Surveys.

1. Survey surface features of subsurface utility facilities or 1. Survey all markings that indicate the presence of a sub-
systems, if such features have not already been surveyed surface utility.
by a registered professional. If previously surveyed, check 2. Perform surveys to a horizontal accuracy consistent with
survey data for accuracy and completeness. applicable DOT survey standards. Reference surveys to
2. The survey shall also include (in addition to subsurface the project’s survey control.
utility features visible at the ground surface): determi- 3. If requested, record depth information as may be indi-
nation of invert elevations of any manholes and vaults; cated by the particular detection method used.
sketches showing interior dimensions and line connec-
tions of such manholes and vaults; any surface markings E.  Correlation, Interpretation, and Presentation of Data;
denoting subsurface utilities, furnished by utility owners ­ esolution of Discrepancies.
R
for design purposes.
1. Exercise professional judgment to correlate data from dif-
E.  Confined Space Procedures. ferent sources, and to resolve conflicting information.
2. Update (or prepare) plan sheets, electronic files, and/or
1. Whenever the work requires the entry of personnel into other documents to reflect the integration of QL D, QL C,
confined spaces (including but not limited to manholes, and QL B information.
vaults, and pipes), comply with applicable OSHA (Occu- 3. Recommend follow-up investigations (e.g., additional
pational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Depart- surveys, consultation with utility owners, etc.) as may be
ment of Labor) procedures and requirements. needed to further resolve discrepancies.
4. As appropriate, amend the indicated quality level of
F.  Correlation, Interpretation, and Presentation of Data; depicted information.
­Resolution of Discrepancies.
VII. Quality Level A Tasks
1. Exercise professional judgment to correlate data from dif-
ferent sources, and to resolve conflicting information.
Tasks leading to QL A include:
2. Update (or prepare) plan sheets, electronic files, and/or
other documents to reflect the integration of QL D and
QL C information. A.  Inclusive of QL B Tasks.
3. Recommend follow-up investigations (e.g., additional
surveys, consultation with utility owners, etc.) as may be 1. Perform tasks as described for QL B. There is no prescribed
needed to further resolve discrepancies. order in which QL B and A tasks must be performed.
50

B.  Selection of Test Locations. F.  Collection, Recording, and Presentation of Data.

1. DOT may require QL A data where the precise horizontal Measure and/or record the following information on an appro-
and vertical location of utilities, obtained by exposure and priately formatted test hole data sheet that has been sealed and
survey of the utility at specific points, is needed for con- dated by the Consultant:
flict assessment/resolution purposes.
2. The Consultant may recommend test locations based on
the requirements of the project and on existing subsurface   1. Elevation of top and/or bottom of the utility tied to
utility information. the project datum, to a vertical accuracy of ±0.05 feet
(15 mm).
C.  Selection of Method.   2. Elevation of existing grade over utility at test hole.
 3. Horizontal location referenced to project coordinate
1. When available, verifiable information on previously datum, to a horizontal accuracy consistent with appli-
exposed and surveyed utilities (such as survey records cable DOT survey standards.
during utility line construction) shall be furnished in lieu   4. Field sketch showing horizontal location referenced to
of new excavation, exposure, and survey at that same a minimum of three (3) swing ties to physical structures
point, or at a suitable nearby point. existing in the field and shown on the project plans.
2. Otherwise, when utility lines must be exposed and sur-   5. Approximate centerline bearing of utility line.
veyed at specified locations, the Consultant shall use mini-   6. Outside diameter of pipe, width of duct banks, and con-
mally intrusive excavation techniques, acceptable to DOT, figuration of non-encased multi-conduit systems.
that ensure the safety of the excavation, the integrity of the   7. Utility structure material composition, when reasonably
utility line to be measured, and that of other lines which ascertainable.
may be encountered during excavation.   8. Identity of benchmarks used to determine elevations.
3. DOT intends that excavation shall be by means of air- or   9. Utility facility condition.
water-assisted vacuum excavation equipment manufactured 10. Pavement thickness and type when applicable.
specifically for the purpose, provided, however, that approval 11. Soil type and site conditions.
of water-assisted vacuum excavation may be subject to addi- 12. Identity of utility owner/operator.
tional findings by DOT that such method poses minimal risk 13. Other pertinent information as is reasonably ascertain-
of damage to the highway facility or utility lines. able from test hole.
D.  Compliance with UNCL Requirements.
G.  Site Restoration.
1. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable provi-
sions of [State Law] when planning or performing exca- 1. Replace bedding material around exposed utility lines in
vations at utility test hole sites. accordance with owner’s specifications or as otherwise
2. Compliance actions include, but are not limited to: notify directed or approved.
owners or operators of underground utility facilities at least 2. Backfill and compact the excavation in a manner accept-
two (2) business days prior (not including the day of actual able to DOT. If approved, re-use excavated material with
notice) to making or beginning excavations in the vicinity appropriate moisture/density control.
of such facilities; call the UNCL at __________________ 3. Install color-coded warning ribbon within the backfill
for the marking of member utilities; contact non-member area and directly above the utility line.
utilities directly; coordinate with utility owner representa- 4. As applicable, provide permanent pavement restoration
tives as required for inspection or other on-site assistance; within the limits of the original cut using materials, com-
immediately cease excavation work and report any resul- paction, and pavement thickness acceptable to DOT.
tant utility line damage to owner. 5. Repair or replace backfill or pavement that fails (i.e., subsid-
ence and/or loss of pavement material) within two (2) years
E.  Excavation of Test Holes. of the original restoration work.
6. For excavations in unpaved areas, restore disturbed area
1. Clear the test hole area of surface debris. as nearly as practicable to pre-existing conditions.
2. In paved areas, neatly cut and remove existing pavement, 7. Furnish and install permanent surface marker (e.g., P.K.
which cut shall not exceed 225 square inches (0.15 square nail, peg, steel pin, or hub) directly above the centerline
meters) unless otherwise approved. of the structure and record the elevation of the marker.
3. Excavate the test hole by the method(s) acceptable to DOT
and to the standards set forth herein (see also “Selection of Interpretation of Data and Resolution of Discrepancies.
Method” above). The nominal diameter of the test hole shall
not exceed 15 inches (375 mm) unless otherwise approved.
4. Expose the utility only to the extent required for identifi- 1. Exercise professional judgment to correlate data from dif-
cation and data collection purposes. ferent sources, and to resolve conflicting information.
5. Avoid damage to lines, wrappings, coatings, cathodic 2. Update plan/profile sheets, electronic files, and/or other
protection, or other protective coverings and features. documents to reflect the integration of QL D, QL C, QL
6. Hand-dig as needed to supplement mechanical excava- B, and QL A information.
tion and to ensure safety. 3. Recommend follow-up investigations (e.g., additional
7. Revise the test hole location as necessary to positively surveys, consultation with utility owners, etc.) as may be
expose the utility. needed to further resolve discrepancies.
8. Store excavated material for re-use or disposal, as 4. As appropriate, amend the indicated quality level of
appropriate. depicted information.
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications:

AAAE American Association of Airport Executives

AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation