Alternative approach to Corridor/Template Design - 3D Linear Method

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.

Parents
  • This is not really a new or revolutionary approach you are suggesting.  There's quite a few consultants that model their projects in pieces and parts using various methods (we've seen it all).  Bentley does not force or suggest that you have to use a full width template to do your modeling tasks.  We simply teach what has been a historically common practice in regards to modeling with templates.  Our tools provide our users with the flexibility to model how they would like.  Use whichever method works for your projects.

    Scott Urbas, PE │Senior Content Engineer │ BENTLEY SYSTEMS, INC. │

  • Thanks for your reply Scott. Nice to know a Bentley official has taken an interest in this post. 

    You say that there are a lot of consultants who use these methods. However, to my knowledge, this post is the first time I have seen this alternate approach (or similar) broadcasted on a public, accessible setting. While Bentley does not force consultants or DOTs to create full width templates, when ever I have discussed this approach with others I get the same responses every time: “This is not the way Bentley teaches.” “This is not the way my DOT teaches.”

    By continually demonstrating an historical common practice of design, whether intended or not, an assumption is made by average users that this is the ONLY way to design because Bentley says so. Once a project reaches a certain complexity, a model must be broken apart into smaller, manageable pieces, because there is always an inherent limitation to how much processing a computer can handle - this is unavoidable. I hear the same complaints from users over again regarding the use of a single template, all mentioned multiple times in this post. As soon as it is broken down into smaller corridors, either all the way to the component level or somewhere in between, their model has increased stability and functionality. But the ingrained thinking caused by being exposed to only one way of designing limits creative thought on the general user, and they are not always aware the software can operate another way. Please note I can’t speak for all users world wide. I can only go from my experience, which is limited to the following areas: South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Hai Phong Vietnam, Kabul Afghanistan, Northern Illinois, St Louis MO and Dallas TX.

    Secondly, the tools available are geared towards the creation of singular templates. From native mass-reporting tools, the inability to mass-sync templates, and inability to mass corridor-reattach are just a few of the functions missing to truly allow flexibility to design in both methods. This post details several good enhancements that would benefit all users and give the full flexibility to design with multiple techniques.

    I would like to take this conversation further, as there some things Bentley could do to the software which would make their civil suite of programs not just better, but superior to all other civil programs available on the market. Feel free to contact me directly at:

    Email: abadaoui@terraengineering.com

    Phone: 312-467-0123

    Once again, thanks for your comment. Look forward to hearing from you soon.

  • I have been teaching my version of this for many years. I call it "Puzzle Piece Modeling".

     
    Civilly yours,
    The Zen Dude (also known as "Mark")
    Civil Software Guru & Philosopher
    InRoads User since its birth in the 80's
    OpenRoads Documentation / Training / Support
    Zen Engineering, Owner
  • I have heard some call it "LEGO Method", but "Puzzle Piece Modeling" has a nice ring to it!

  • If you have seen any of my modeling presentations you will notice very rarely do I use a full width template when doing advanced modeling tasks.  I've worked on numerous large design build projects and the method that seems to work best in my opinion is to model pavement and end conditions as separate corridors.  Separate corridors allows for more work sharing.  But again, every project is different and you need to consider your plan of attack up front before starting a project. 

    The reason why you don't see some of these other methods broadcast publically is because some consultants prefer to keep their methods to themselves because they see their method as a competitive advantage or unique to their firm.  Also, some of the really high end modelers I know never post on this forum.

    Scott

  • Please provide links to these videos.

    Every Bentley presentation I have seen, either in person at IBUG (Illinois Bentley User Group) conferences, at Bentley conferences in Australia, or any video post online from a Bentley official that discusses templates and/or corridor creation only ever demonstrate full width template modeling.

Reply Children
  • These videos show a modular approach to linear modeling, using multiple corridors to represent different elements of a section rather than a single full-width template, exactly the technique discussed in this post.

    Without the links provided, it is was not intuitive to find within Bentley Learn Server. Iterating Zane's point, the DOT clients are taking direction from Bentley for their setup and workflow. I am certain none of the DOTs I have worked with have been exposed to these kinds of official Bentley videos showing alternative approaches to modeling. All they know about it seems is constructing singular templates, and using civil cells for intersections. This line of thinking forms the basis for their workflows, standards, and policies for 3D modeling. General users then follow suit, taking the lead from DOTs, and we are back to where we started. Advanced users who understand the software better attempt to model using alternative techniques are met with hostile resistance from the DOTs because "This is not the way Bentley teaches it."

    It has been made clear from your earlier post that:

      Bentley does not force or suggest that you have to use a full width template to do your modeling tasks. 

    This message needs to be conveyed by Bentley themselves to all DOTs you are supporting. Because the opposite message is being received by DOTs, and subsequently the general user.

  • I am going to have to agree with Alex.  I have heard through very reliable sources that our DOT will not accept a model that is not made with the templates that Bentley developed for them.  The reason being that they want familiar templates and civil cells so that all future users will be able to understand the model.  What I mean by this is that company A may model the job in phase 1 and turn it into the DOT.  Then the DOT will send the model to Company B to progress the model to phase 2 design.  They truly do not want to even listen to any other method besides full template modeling.

    Forcing us to use pre-developed templates severely limits modeling operations.  Real world design goes beyond dynamic templates most of the time on the jobs I have worked on.  I find my time much better spent modeling linearly (and getting the job done) than struggling to get a dynamic template to do what you hope it will do.

  • My experience, from the perspective of one DOT, is that the people doing the configuration - whether they be Bentley, internal staff, or some other consultant - offer up multiple alternatives and permutations of those alternatives so the DOT can make its decisions.  In our agency we considered a standard template library that designers would have to use for all projects.  We ultimately ended up with a seed template library containing most of the components designers would need as well as some example templates.  We made the decision based on input from multiple outside parties (including Bentley) and our institutional experience.  Our resources and design practices do not preclude Alex's workflow.  The cost of that flexibility, though, is that we end up with designs that are not always consistent from project to project.  Consistency is extremely important for an agency that administers many projects over a wide geographic area and some DOTs may have decided that achieving their level of consistency is worth the loss in flexibility.

    Our training has focused on the more traditional modeling methods because that's what most designers in our part of the world use and that's what most available training uses.  We do not have the resources to train users on multiple methods so we focus on the most common and most easily supported by our staff.  In our case, we do not limit our designers to any one method or workflow as long as they can deliver the desired product.  Those are our decisions.

    In short, those decisions are made by the DOTs, not their consultants who are creating the workspaces.

  • These videos are great, but they are all for Open Roads Designer "Connect" stuff.  My company sticks with what our local DOTs are using/requiring and that's just the older SS4 Open Roads stuff.  I would never find these videos because I search for subjects on the software I have, so I would have totally missed these videos. If I was a beginner I'm not sure they would help with the SS4 software because from what I've seen with OpenBridge the connect stuff differs greatly from the SS4.  I really do appreciate these links though.  Thanks so much Scott.