Between the Poles

Integrating geospatial into construction: the challenge

I spent most of last week at the Geospatial World Forum 2013 (GWF 2013) in Rotterdam, which was an amazing event, because of its focus on monetizing geospatial value in vertical industries,  Industries for which there were symposia at GWF 2013 include construction and infrastructure, electic power and gas, mining and exploration, water as a resource, water distribution management, and agriculture in addition to more traditional sectors such as land management, photogrammetry and the environment.

I spent most of my time in Construction and Infrastructure sessions.  There were many absolutely fascinating pesentation on the applicaton of geospatial technology in this sector.  Among the most far-reaching in terms of potential impacts were three or four talks that explicitly addressed the challenge of finding a practical way to integrate geospatial into construction processes.

Value of geospatial information

To put this in context, there is a strong drive in the Netherlands to integrate geospatial information into govenrment organizations.  Geonovum is leading the charge in this area.   By way of motivation there is a very interesting cost-benefit analysis in the context of the European INSPIRE initiaive by Ecorys and Grontmij in November 2009.  The scope of study was the cost and benefits of the collection, maintenance and dissimilation of geographic information, but just within governmental organizations in the Netherlands.  The study did not attempt to estimate the value of geospatial information to society as a whole.  It concluded that over 15 years, the total net benefit to government organizations in the Netherlands would be € 34 million (Ralf Duinmeijer, Joulz ICT private communication).

Cost of poor interoperability

To put this in the context of interoperability and what poor interoperability costs the economy and individual firms, in 2004 in a remarkable study the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) attempted to identify and estimate the efficiency losses in the U.S. capital facilities industry resulting from inadequate interoperability.  The NIST study focussed on interoperability problems attributed to the highly fragmented nature of the industry, the industry’s continued paperbased business practices, a lack of standardization, and inconsistent technology adoption among stakeholders.  It concluded that inadequate interoperability cost the U.S. capital facilities industry $15.8 billion in annually in 2002, but qualified the conclusion by saying that this is likely a conservative figure because there were additional significant inefficiency and lost opportunity costs associated with interoperability problems that were beyond the scope of NIST analysis.

At GWF 2013 it was reported that Rijkswaterstaat, responsible for public works and water management as part of the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure, has estimated that poor interoperability costs it € 800 million per year.

Barriers to integrating BIM and geospatial

Bram Mommers, who is with ARCADIS Netherlands, set the stage by looking at what the barriers are that are hindering the integration of geospatial into the constrcution process.  (ARCADIS is a large international company that provides consultancy, design, engineering and management services in the fields of infrastructure, water, environment and buildings.)

Traditionally the challenge has been that civil engineering on one hand and geospatial on the other have been different cultures.  The way Carl Steinitz put is that they work at different scales.  Geospatial scientists deal with the universal, engineers with the very specific. 

Bram gave some examples of these parallel worlds. Geospatial folks make maps, engineers and architects make drawings.  Engineers and architects use CAD or BIM design tools.  Geospatial folks use GIS.  The geospatial standard for buildings and infrastructure is CityGML.  The AEC standard for BIM models is Industry Foundation Classes (IFC).

ARCADIS has been involved in projects that integrated geospatial into the desing process.  On the HOV Nijmegen project it was found that integrating geospatial and engineering design in a single database resulted in a single copy of each data element and multiple use.  It simplified communication and increased the quality of the final design.  It also enabled automated analysis of the consequences of design choices with the result that the planning cycle was shorter.   Bram mentioned several other projects that benefitted from the integration of geospatial with the construction process.

Based on their experience with these projects, Bram and his colleagues concluded that there are three main barriers to the integration of civll engineering and geospatial.

• Semantics - for example, different terms used for the me things by geospatial analysts and civil engineers and designers
• Different topology - examples,  (1) geospatial uses point, lines, and polygons; CAD/BIM uses splines, nurbs, and other parametric curves and treats polygons in a different way from geospatial topology; (2) features with location vs objects with location as an attribute
• Data formats - for example, geospatial data is stored in shape files, GML, and CityCML; CAD/BIM uses DWG, DGN, RVT files, and IFC

Mapping semantics

To address the first issue of semantics, a Dutch initiative called Concept Library (CB-NL) sponsored by the Dutch Council on Building Information (BIR), a joint government and industry initiative, has been created with the objective of developed an open, on-line system to map between the terminologies used in different domains.  The goal is a single integrated model for construction (buildings and infrastructure) that would allow design, construction, maintenance and operations to share the same data.  The concept library would be extended to include geospatial.  The overall goal as Bram stated it is

• Ontology for the build environment - multiple sets of domain terminologies mapped on to it
• One language
• Combines geospatial and construction

The impacts of this appproach that Bram sees are

• Store once, use multiple times - avoid redundant data
• Integrated information management - based on data custodians
• Geolocation as a property of an object - in additon to features

Bram listed a number of organizations in the private construction sector that are supporting this initiative.

SPAR 2013: Digital highways require integrated engineering and geospatial data

At SPAR 2013 I had the opportunity to hear very forward looking presentations by Ron Singh, Chief of Surveys/Geometronics Manager at the Oregon Department of Transportation.  What Ron sees in the future and what motivates a lot of what Don sees needs to change in the highway construction process is autonomous vehicles, which will provide a major motivation for what Ron refers to as digital highways.

Automation over the last 25 years

If you look at the last 25 years there has been quite a lot of automation in the form of survey automation such as electronic data collection, GPS, and basic 3D laser scanning;  design automation such as computer aided design and drafting, and a bit of construction automation.  The primary focus has been on speeding up the project development process, but the end goal remains  2D paper construction documents.  Some people have been using what is called 2..5 D, a 3D roadbed prism with 2D objects on it.  In Ron's view the current way of designing and building highways has reached the end of it's lifetime and a complete transformation to a new paradigm is required.  The way Ron refers to this is standing the current process on its head and I blogged about it yesterday.  Fundamentally it involves intelligent 3D models replacing the current as-builts and a process that speeds up project development because it leverages existing engineering data rather that requiring a complete resurvey at the beginning of every project..

A new paradigm for intelligent highways

The objective is intelligent highways that will support autonomous and partially autonomous vehicles.  The new paradigm needs to be data-centric and real-time.  It will involve automated construction.   From a data management perspective it will require highway infrastructure lifecycle management, which will involve a very different approach to the survey/design/construct/maintain process that is currently used for highway projects in North America.

First of all, it will involve geospatially enabled 3D digital data. A key requirement is a low distortion geospatial coordinate system that will provide the foundation for geolocatiig all infrastructure including utilities.  It will require interoperability using industry standards for data exchange. Most importantly it will support a construction process that uses post-construction surveys to replace as-built plans with a full 3D engineered model that supports GIS/engineering data integration. 

It will require geospatially-enabled enterprise data management including version control and the ability to search for things geospatially.  It will provide tools for geospatially enabled asset management.  It will provide a framework for developing and maintaining engineering and geospatial data including 3D engineered models as well as scanned data for existiing structures for the entire life cycle of a highway.

IEEE PES Smart Grid Technologies: The next challenges in grid modernization

At the IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies in Washington DC,  Patricia Hoffman, Asst Secretary Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, gave the  keynote address. 

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts

In the past the focus for the Department of Energy and for utiltiies has tended to be on individual technologies such as smart meters and AMI, self-healng networks, synchrophasars, substation automation, and so on.  Ms Hoffman's message is that we need to start focussing on the smart grid as a whole and in particular we need to focus on grid resiliency.  Things will happen, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, derechos and other natural and man-made problems.  We need to ensure that the grid is resilient so that we can recover from disasters quickly.  The example she gacve was one that I have blogged about,  Southern Co.'s use of  smart meters to track outages caused by tornadoes in April, 2011 and then help with restoration. 

Ms Hoffman then discussed specific areas where there are opportunities to make the grid more resilient.

Transmission operations

There is a lot of data that is becoming available, primarily because about 1000 synchrophasars have been deployed over the national transmission grids.  What are needed are improved interoperability, analytic, and visualization to better manage the transmission grid.  For example, it took almost a year to analyze the data and determine the cause of the 2003 Northeast blackout.  The 2011 San Diego blackout  required about 3-4 months, so fault analysis is getting better, but we need to be able to use the available data to predict the state of the transmission grid in real-time.

Distribution operations

In the area of electricity distribution, Ms Hoffman singled out peak load reduction as the area where there are the greatest econimic and environmental benefits.  Reducing peak load means that the construction of new power plants (peakers) that may only be used a hundred hours a year can be avoided.  The other areas she identified include distribution automation, especially automated self-healing networks using devices such as intelliRupters,  improved outage management, using predictive analytics to replace equipment before it fails, and microgrids.

Customer empowerment

Areas that directly impact the customer are residential diagnostics to help the customer understand how power is being used in the home and ways that it can be used more effectively, at lower cost, and as much as possible moved to off-peak.  Photovoltaic cells and plug-in electric vehicles are becoming much more prevalent and utlities need to be prepared for these.  Improving reliability and resiliency directly impacts customers by reducing the number and duration of outages.  An area that is getting a lot attention is rate structures, for example, pricing electric power to motivate shifting load from peak to off peak.  A new technology that is being investigated by DoE is transactive control signals.  This is a  smart grid signaling approach that communicates prices and other information, such as expected future prices, to encourage the customer to change his/her electric power usage.

Energy infrastructure cyber protection

Ms Hoffman's message on cyber protection is that it needs to be dynamic and multi-dimensional.  Infrastructure is complex and changing and new vulnerabilities are detected every day.  In addition multiple organizations are responsible for the grid.  Effective cyber security management has to deal with a dynamic landscape of control and information systems.  There are a broad range of threats and motivations including unintentional, natural phenomena, and those with malicious intent including theft, revenge, and national security.  It is also important to recognize the interdependencies among critical infrastructure.  A gas explosion can affect the telecommunications and electric power networks.  Loss of electric power can affect many other networks including water and telecommunications.  Disruption of communications, for example, severing a fiber optic cable can directly affect the electric power grid.

To address these challenges cybersecurity solutions need to be mutli-dimensional.including cyber-physical, wide area monitoring and protection, cryptography, anti-tamper devices and advanced architectures. 

One of the most serious challenges that Ms Hoffman singled out specifically is developing the cybersecurity workforce that is going to be responsible for implementing these measures.

Where are we headed ?

The next major challenge is turning the smart grid into a driver of economic development.  The example Ms. Hoffman used was Chatanooga.  The Electric Power Board (EPB) saw the smart grid as not only benefiting the utility and improving the quality of life of its cusomers, but also as a driver of economic development.  The city’s decision to deploy one of the country’s highest capacity fiber-optic networks not only improved power quality, reliability, customer service and energy efficiency but also made Chananooga more attractive to business.  For instance, because bandwidth is virtually unlimited, EPB is able to offer its customers Internet upload and download speeds of up to one gigabit/sec, making Chattanooga very attractive for businesses that rely on the internet for critical aspects of their operations.

Geospatial World Forum: Dutch 3D standard integrates CityGML/GeoBIM and large scale geography

At the Geospatial World Forum in Amsterdam, Jantien Stoter of the Delft Univeristy of Technology and an advisor to Geonovum, gave an overview of the ongoing work on the Dutch 3D standard, which is being piloted by about 100 organizations in the Netherlands.  Geonovum is the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) executive committee in the Netherlands. Its goal is to provide better access to geo-information in the public sector and is responisble for developing and maintaining the standards for geospatial information that are necessary to achieve this goal.

The Dutch 3D standard integrates CityGML and the Dutch IMGeo standard. 

• CityGML is an Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standard for 3D information (geometry and semantics) about cities, external to buildings. GeoBIM is a CityGML Application Domain Extension (ADE) intended to extend CityGML to include detailed, semantic information about the inside of buildings.  GeoBIM was initiated in 2009. The last official update was completed in 2010.
• IMGeo is the Dutch standard for the exchange of large scale geography such as roads, tunnels, water bodies, land use, and so on.  IMGeo is intended to be a scale-independent object model providing a uniform nationwide coverage.  IMGeo 2.0 contains a mandatory part, the Basisregistratie Grootschalige Topografie (BGT). which has legal status in the Netherlands, plus additonal data. IMGeo is 2D, but is extensible to 2.5D and ultimately to 3D.  Like CityGML, IMGeo recognizes levels of detail (LOD).

There are six work groups involved in the Dutch 3D standard effort. For example, one is responsible for compiling killer applications using the 3D standard.

Relationship to IFC

One of the work groups could have broad implications, potentially beyond the borders of the Netherlands, This work group is responsible for aligning the CityGML ADE GeoBIM standard and the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) BIM standard maintained by BuildingSmart.  IFC is intended to enable the exchange of BIM data between applications developed by different software vendors in a vendor-neutral way.  The objective of the work group is to define a standard, semantically meaningful mapping between IFC and GeoBIM.

Open Geospatial Consortium meeting on smart grid location standards

The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is inviting interested parties to a Smart Grid Location Standards Meeting to be held on March 20 from 8:00-10:00 a.m. at the OGC Technical Committee Meeting in Austin, Texas, USA. This meeting is sponsored/hosted by the OGC, in cooperation with the University of Texas at Austin.  The OASIS eMIX (Energy Market Information Exchange) standard uses the OGC Geography Markup Languate (GML) Encoding Standard. The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) CIM (Common Information Model) standard is "harmonized" with WXXM (Weather Information Exchange Model), which is an industry profile based on GML. More standards coordination and development, however, is required to enable efficient geospatial communication within smart grids and between smart grids and "neighboring" activities such as emergency response, disaster management, urban planning and building energy management.  Many of the OGC's domains of activity – sensor webs, weather, indoor/outdoor location integration, 3D city models, location services, data fusion and others – have significance for the Smart Grid. Many OGC members have a stake in the Smart Grid information technology market, the growth of which depends on the evolution of a standards infrastructure that includes location standards.

This meeting (an "ad hoc" meeting in the OGC's formal meeting nomenclature) has been set up to assess the level of interest in the community to tackle open geospatial standards for the Smart Grid.  The Smart Grid Location Standards Ad Hoc meeting is open to the public and admission is free, but Smart Grid Location Standards Ad Hoc Meeting attendees who don't plan to attend other OGC Technical Committee sessions must register via email at register@opengeospatial.org.

Ensuring electrical devices are "smart grid-ready"

I blogged recently about the progress in smart grid standards over the past year including the NIST Smart Grid Framework and the SGIP Catalog of Standards.

NIST SGIP has just announced the process by which test laboratories and certifying organizations are accredited for evaluation of smart grid products.  To enable a competitive market for smart devices, the NIST SGIP and others are working to define standards for interoperability for electrical devices from power generator to household appliances.  To make sure that these devices really are interoperable will require testing, not something that the SGIP is mandated to do.  This will require accredited testing labs and certification bodies. The IPRM v2.0 process that SGIP has outlined defines the process for accreditation.

BIM for Infrastructure: Infrastructure Modeler available in more languages

Earlier this year, Autodesk announced new software for conceptual design as part of its BIM for Infrastructure portfolio. Infrastructure Modeler represents the convergence of design, GIS and 3D visualization and is intended to help users create models that represent the existing natural and built environment using GIS, digital terrain models, CAD, BIM, and a variety of imagery data; sketch and evaluate multiple alternative conceptual designs for projects; and use 3D visualization technology to communicate what these design alternatives will look like to stakeholders.

Infrastructure Modeler 2012 is now available in French, German, and Simplified Chinese versions. Portuguese, Russian, and Japanese versions are expected soon.

Autodesk Map 3D Enterprise and Milsoft Windmil EA interoperability certified by MultiSpeak

AutoCAD Map 3D Enterprise 2012 has been certified as a MultiSpeak 3.0 Interoperable Product, specifically with Milsoft EA as a target application.  Multispeak certification is the result of a joint initiative of Autodesk, which is a certified MultiSpeak Software Developer, and Brockwell IT.

Multispeak is an interoperability initiative initiated by NRECA and software vendors.  Interest in the MultiSpeak initiative is growing including among investor owned utilities. For example the Southern Company has recently joined the initiative.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which has developed a Smart Grid Conceptual Reference Model as part of its Smart Grid Standards Framework and Roadmap, has chosen Multispeak as a standard for the NIST smart grid reference model.

FGDC US Address Standard Nears Completion

In 2005 URISA petitioned the Federal Geographic Data Committee to allow it to develop a standard for addresses in the US.  The petition was granted and the project to develope the United States Thoroughfare, Landmark, and Postal Address Data Standard was initiated.  The standard has been built on previous FGDC work by the URISA Address Standard Working Group with extensive consultation with NENA, USPS, ISO, and FGDC subcommittees and other interested organizations and individuals.  It was sponsored by the Subcommittee on Cultural and Demographic Data, URISA and NENA.

At the URISA conference last week, the URISA Address Standard Working Group gave an update on the development of the standard, which after a five year effort is on schedule for completion and formal sign-off by the FGDC early next year.

• June 16 - Completion of Public Review
• Sep 30 - Final version and adjudicated comments report to Standard Working Group
• Oct 30 - Standards Working Group Approval
• Jan 15, 2011 - Signature by Chair, FGDC Steering Committee and publication

Two profiles of the standard have been developed 

• USPS - To support USPS Publication 28 and UPU Standards
• NENA - To manage emergency address uses

Already a number of jurisdictions in North America have adopted the address standard including Massachusetts, Oregon, and British Columbia.

The aspect of the development of this standard which differentiates it from other Federally sponsored standards initiatives and makes it an exemplary model for similar types of initiatives is that this was a community process, which Martha Wells, who gave the presentation, called "outside the beltway", meaning that it was a grass roots project that was entirely done my volunteers, Martha Wells, Ed Wells, Carl Anderson, Sara Yurman, and Hilary Perkins, rather than by Federal bureaucrats.  Apparently, the only Federal money involved was a $20,000 grant at the start of the project to cover expenses such as conference calls.  Really an incredible achievement !

New FDO Provider for SpatiaLite

Haris Kurtagic of SL-King has just released a new FDO provider King.SpatiaLite for SpatiaLite.  SpatiaLite is an extension to SQLite to support spatial geometry and conforms to Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards.

Haris is an experienced FDO developer who has contributed FDO2FDO, for copying between FDO spatial data sources, as well as several FDO data providers including the King.Oracle open source Oracle provider, the King.Informix IBM Informix Dynamic Server provider and the King.KML provider for KML.

Jason Birch has already tried the new data provider with the SpatiaLite test database and reported on his experience in his blog.  The image shows data stored in SpatiaLIte displayed in AutoCAD Map 3D using the King.SpatiaLite FDO data provider.