Fellow Engineers, Modelers, Bentley Operators, etc.
Last year in July 2017 at the 9th International Visualization In Transportation Symposium I presented an abstract detailed an alternative approach to working with Corridor/template design.
This approach is called "3D Linear Method". It is the complete opposite on what Bentley encourages in their teaching workshops, and consequently the opposite what is demonstrated by every major Department of Transport I have encountered. A brief outline on how it works:
Instead of single templates/corridors spanning the whole width of each roadway alignment, the corridors are broken up by element. 1 corridor per curb, lane, shoulder, guard rail, end condition, wall, barrier, etc. Each piece is connected to each other, eventually connecting directly or indirectly to control lines.
While this creates 100's of extra corridors, the advantages make this technique far superior to the designer, and end user (client of contractor) than the current approach for the following reasons:
1) Templates are simple, easy to create, and have no complex display rules so they are functional for the novice user
2) The same template can be re-used 1000's of times, across any project, making the data consistent 100% of the time, giving reliable consistent symbology when the data is visualized
3) The consistent nature of common templates used always simpler digital quantities to be extracted, as similar objects can be collected by symbology
4) Changes are more manageable - change only the parts you need to change, and the connectivity of all the other corridors will automatically be adjusted
5) More than 1 user can work on the same road in the same section at the same time as everything is broken into smaller pieces
6) Simpler to train - for those unfamiliar with a 3D environment, this 3D Linear Method is identical to criteria
7) Processing is substantially reduced - it is quicker to process 100's of small corridors with no complex rules than 1 or 2 massive corridors with lots of display rules by a factor of 10.
This technique has been implemented across every designer I have worked directly with in Illinois over the past 4 years, and there has been 3 distinct reactions:
a) Those with some 3D knowledge embraced it fully, recognizing that this is the ONLY way to utilize the software, no exceptions
b) Those with minimal or zero 3D knowledge dismissed it entirely, citing "This is not the way Bentley teaches it"
c) Those with medium experience recognize its power, and use a toned down version of 3D Linear method - they build templates that span all lanes, 1 for shoulders, then 1 for end conditions, for example.
Overall it has been received positively from those who understand the software's limitations, and widely used across Illinois Tollway I-294 project currently underway.
This modeling technique has caused quite a controversy here from the State Government in Illinois (IDOT) due to the radically different approach. So I wanted to hear from the greater community regarding this technique.
If you would like to contact me directly about this, feel free to do so:
Alexander Badaoui, PE: P 312.467.0123 | abadaoui@terraengineering.com
The presentation I made showing this in more detail is found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se8oQvVNw_w&feature=youtu.be
The attached PDF is a summary of the abstract presented.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7jwku3ns2cu7aql/Abstract%20-%20Developing%20Visualization%20Transportation%20Models%20-%203D%20Linear%20method.pdf?dl=0
This was geared towards a non-technical audience. The following power point below is more technically driven, detailing how the naming convention operates in Illinois:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dxq9nrm5z5vc63i/2018-03_AB%20to%20IBUG_May%202018%20-%20Part%201.pptx?dl=0
Thanks in advance for your feedback on this technique.
Alex,
Thank you for sharing.
It looks like we have at least 2 ways to skin the cat. In one go or strip by strip.
The advantage of the 3D Linear Method is assembly line production; where is that automation button? Scripting anyone? If the operations are so simple and repetitive, they must be automated.
We have a few legacy MX users around, they've started on *nix machines. These guys cannot pick up C3D, nor Inroads, they think different. It's a pity to fire them, so it looks like this way we can get them on-board, moreover we can benefit from their experience. Win-win!
Will try it out and see how other people reacts.
Regards,
Val.
Good luck Val. Let us know how it goes.
Regarding your automation requests, I have mentioned earlier in this post for ANY Bentley person to make a comment on this technique. If someone knows how to tag a Bentley user so they can see this, and provide official feedback, please do so. It is very obvious from the comments that the designer community see this technique as a more functional solution than what is encouraged by Bentley in template and corridor creation. And since this is the case, perhaps Bentley should consider adjusting their software to fit with this method.
I agree that any insight in what Bentley thinks of this process would be a huge help. Is there any reasons that we should not use it? So far it has been a success in any job that I have incorporated it on.
I am sure that Bentley is listening and watching, practically anything that can enhance the use of their software is helping them.
It's obvious that once the software is released there will be users that will challenge how the software is used. There is no 'one size fits all' scenario, two projects are not the same, nor are two users the same.
As I have mentioned, the great benefit is that we have another method of using the software, of course if we could get some official support it would be great.
For now let us focus on how to get the best of both worlds.