Use case 6 studies the special case of interactions between infrastructures and their environments at different stages of a project. The objective is to examine how these studies could incorporate BIM.
During phase 1, two cases were considered:
- studies linked to noise, in particular the case in which a noise barrier is built together with an infrastructure;
- studies relating to wildlife crossings and compensatory measures linked to the existence or construction of an infrastructure.
By studying these special cases, the aim was to better understand practices, the use of data and the difficulties of using 3D data.
The work in phase 1 demonstrated that there is major specialisation in terms of skills and actors on the one hand, and that there is a great deal of complexity in the use of data and software on the other. As each project involves a large number of tasks, actors are specialised in particular domains (see report UC6.1 on noise, for example). Modernising by shifting towards the use of digital data does not therefore require a single element to be changed, but rather a collection of software, processes and methods. The software used is often multifunctional, and learning how to use it is no trivial matter. The most acute problem is surely the fact that the digital data describing infrastructures are not seen as databases but as the internal elements of proprietary software, which does not facilitate their interoperability.
The reports written by the UC6 group in phase 1 introduce elements that show the complexity of the processes, software, actors and exchanges. Given the specialisation in terms of skills, it was not possible to obtain, as we would have liked, information on the use of 3D digital data for wildlife crossings or on the archiving of data, which are two points we consider essential for the future. These studies will form the subject of phase 2.
The acoustic study looked at the flow of the data required for the acoustic study from the point at which they enter the discipline process to the production of deliverables (the handeled objects only, and not the reports, for example); the technical outputs of the acoustic study should usually enter the project database (electronic document management system).
Input barriers have been identified:
- in data relating to surveys of existing elements;
- in outputs from other disciplines that feed into the acoustic study model;
- in the acoustic discipline tool in the integration of input data (data re-entry and transformation, etc.).
- limited export formats;
- no possibility of connection to an electronic document management system.
It should be noted that it is possible to use the open format CityGML in a CadnaA model, but this requires improvement to allow recognition of the different classes of object, and attributes, and prevent modelling of all the objects in a single object class. It would also be helpful to check that CityGML (with noise ADE extensions) is sufficient for exchanging the objects that come up in acoustic studies.
This action dealt with the challenge of monitoring environmental measures implemented to reduce and compensate for the environmental impacts of linear infrastructures, from the point of view of data exchange and information monitoring. The involvement of various types of actor in the generation and use of the data was also examined.
The use case is a section of highway undergoing widening and/or environmental requalification with the construction of a wildlife crossing (impact reduction measures) and compensatory measures. A distinction was drawn between two cases:
- that in which a wildlife crossing is built;
- that in which a highway is built without a wildlife crossing but where compensatory measures are required.
The work made it possible to identify, by differentiating between what already exists and what we wish to obtain through well-structured, comprehensive and accessible digital data:
- the data to be taken into account throughout the construction of a wildlife crossing. The actors concerned were also identified;
- the interfaces between infrastructure data and other data;
- the indicators (referred to as metrics) that enable characterisation of the environment around infrastructures to monitor the impact of the infrastructure on the environment;
- the compensatory measures: the issue of calculating the compensatory measures and checking their effectiveness over time is addressed, with the analyses relying on the existence of digital data.
The issues regarding archiving were also tackled with the aim of responding to the following question: What should be retained and how in order to most effectively manage the infrastructure interactions over time?
The role of simulations in deciding where wildlife crossings should be located was also examined. Currently, location decisions are not based on simulations as is the case for noise protection measures. Areas for progress in this area have been presented. They concern digital data that describe the environment, infrastructures and transitions.
This work makes it possible to establish the bases for phase 2 of MINnD, which will use data and software to perform a concrete analysis of the interoperability challenges for data and software in designing the construction of a wildlife crossing on an infrastructure, based on the environmental resources and data archiving that would be required. The general conclusion will therefore be presented in phase 2.