Hif 16011 B

Bridge Information Model Standardization
VOLUME I: INFORMATION
EXCHANGES
April 2016
FHWA-HIF-16-011
Foreword
Advancing the capability of computer modeling and analysis tools and techniques is clearly in
the best interest of the U.S. bridge engineering practice. Without industry consensus standards
for Bridge Information Modeling (BrIM) and related data exchange protocols, there is no
common way to integrate the various phases of a bridge design and construction project and
benefit from that information in the inspection, maintenance, and operational phases associated
with its asset management. This work seeks to develop, validate, identify gaps, implement, and
build consensus for standards for BrIM for highway bridge engineering.
The contributions and constructive review comments received from many professionals across
the country are greatly appreciated. In particular, I would like to recognize Scot Becker of
Wisconsin DOT, Christopher Garrell of National Steel Bridge Alliance, Danielle Kleinhans of
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, Josh Sletten of Utah DOT, Steven Austin of Texas DOT,
Brad Wagner of Michigan DOT, Todd Thomson of South Dakota DOT, Ahmad Abu-Hawash of
Iowa DOT, Mike Keever of Caltrans, Ali Koc of Red Equation Corporation, Hanjin Hu of
Michael Baker International, and all those who participated in our workshops described in the
Report.
Joseph L. Hartmann, PhD, P.E.

Director, Office of Bridges and Structures
Notice
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation
in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of
the information contained in this document.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or
manufacturers’ names appear in this Report only because they are considered essential to the
objective of the document.
Quality Assurance Statement
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve
Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards
and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its
information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to
ensure continuous quality improvement.
ii
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
FHWA-HIF-16-011 No.
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Bridge Information Modeling Standardization Report
Volume I – Information Exchanges 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Primary - Tim Chipman/Aaron Costin/
Donghoon Yang
Contributing – Charles Eastman
Editor – Roger Grant
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
National Institute of Building Sciences
1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, 7th Floor 11. Contract or Grant No.
Washington, DC 20005 DTFH6114C00047
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Office of Bridges and Structures
Federal Highway Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296
15. Supplementary Notes
This document is the second of a multi-volume set of documents on Bridge Information
Modeling Standardization. The volumes can be read individually or sequentially as part of the
set. Reading the Introduction first is recommended to provide context and a summary of the
work and its findings.
16. Abstract: Bridge Information Modeling Standardization is a multi-volume report that
analyzes options for standardized approaches for modeling bridges across their lifecycle. The
goal of the Report is to identify and evaluate candidate open standards that can be used to
document all aspects of bridges to identify viable standards that can be used by bridge owners to
specify information delivery requirements and by software providers to meet those requirements.
After evaluation of the viable available options, the Report goes on to provide an in-depth
analysis based on test cases of real bridge projects of the viable alternative. Accompanying the
Report is a comprehensive exchange specification to assist software developers to implement the
recommended alternative to the benefit of bridge owners. This volume, Exchange Analysis, the
second of four volumes, evaluates process models for the bridge life cycle developed in a
previous FHWA project, in use by industry in other domains and represented by existing
requirements from state Departments of Transportation, and then recommends a new process
map built on the best practices identified in the analysis.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
bridge, design, construction, modeling, No restrictions. This document is available to the
models, open, standards, public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
19. Security Classif. (of 20. Security 21. No. of 22. Price
this report) Unclassified Classif. (of this Pages - 79
page) Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized
iii
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONV ERSIONS TO SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm
ft feet 0.305 meters m
yd yards 0.914 meters m
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km
AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2
yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2
VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL
gal gallons 3.785 liters L
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3
NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3
MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg
T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t")
TEMPERAT URE (exact degrees)
o o
F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius C
or (F-32)/1.8
ILLUMINATION
fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N
lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa

APPROXIMATE CONV ERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
m meters 3.28 feet ft
m meters 1.09 yards yd
km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA
mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME
mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
L liters 0.264 gallons gal
m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 m3
cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3
MASS
g grams 0.035 ounces oz
kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb
Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T
TEMPERAT URE (exact degrees)
o o
C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit F
ILLUMINATION
lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2
*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. (Revised March 2003)
A 508 compliant version of this table is available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/convtabl.cfm.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2 Bridge Lifecycle Workflows ................................................................................................... 4
2.1 The FHWA Bridge Process Map (2013) ........................................................................ 4
2.1.1 Phases .......................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Disciplines................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Process Map ................................................................................................................ 6
2.1.4 Activities ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.5 Exchanges ................................................................................................................. 10
2.1.6 Review of the exchanges .......................................................................................... 13
2.2 Industry Exchanges ....................................................................................................... 15
2.2.1 Exchanges in the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) MVD ...................... 16
2.2.2 Exchanges in the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) MVD .............. 21
2.2.3 Exchanges in the American Concrete Institute MVD.............................................. 26
2.3 State DOT Standards..................................................................................................... 31
2.3.1 Requirements Model ................................................................................................. 32
2.3.2 Survey Model ............................................................................................................ 33
2.3.3 Utility Model ............................................................................................................. 33
2.3.4 Structural Model ....................................................................................................... 33
2.3.5 Documentation Template .......................................................................................... 34
2.3.6 Construction Contract Model .................................................................................... 34
2.3.7 Bid Information Model ............................................................................................. 39
2.3.8 Fabrication Model ..................................................................................................... 40
2.3.9 Construction Status Model ........................................................................................ 40
2.3.10 Inspection Model ...................................................................................................... 40
3 Development of a New Integrated Process Map ................................................................... 41
3.1 Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN)............................................................. 42
3.2 BPMN Notation ............................................................................................................ 43
3.3 Process Map .................................................................................................................. 45
3.4 Actors and activities ...................................................................................................... 48
3.4.1 Planning Engineer ..................................................................................................... 48
3.4.2 Surveyor .................................................................................................................... 49
3.4.3 Utility Manager ......................................................................................................... 49
3.4.4 Estimator (Owner) .................................................................................................... 49
v
3.4.5 Structural Engineer ................................................................................................... 50
3.4.6 Transportation Engineer............................................................................................ 51
3.4.7 Contractor ................................................................................................................. 52
3.4.8 Fabricator .................................................................................................................. 52
3.4.9 Load Rating Engineer ............................................................................................... 53
3.4.10 Inspector .................................................................................................................... 53
3.4.11 Routing and Permitting Engineer.............................................................................. 53
3.4.12 Asset Manager .......................................................................................................... 53
3.5 Exchanges ..................................................................................................................... 53
4 Summary................................................................................................................................ 60
Appendix A:1 – Bridge Modeling Terminology .......................................................................... 61
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 66
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. General steps for defining data exchange in IFC ............................................................ 1

Figure 2. Bridge Lifecycle Management Process Map ................................................................... 3
Figure 3. General Phases of Project Development and Asset Management ................................... 5
Figure 4. Notation of the process map from the FHWA BrIM Report 2013 .................................. 6
Figure 5. The process map from the FHWA BrIM Report 2013 .................................................... 7
Figure 6. Bridge Planning and Conceptual Estimate Cycle ............................................................ 9
Figure 7. Exchanges Between two Actors; Planner and Estimator .............................................. 10
Figure 8. Excerpt from the table C – Critical Design Elements of NYS DOT IPP ...................... 14
Figure 9. BPMN notation for Event .............................................................................................. 43
Figure 10. BPMN notation for Task ............................................................................................. 43
Figure 11. BPMN notation for Sequence Flow ............................................................................ 43
Figure 12. BPMN notation for Message Flow .............................................................................. 43
Figure 13. BPMN notation for Association .................................................................................. 43
Figure 14. BPMN notation for Pool .............................................................................................. 44
Figure 15. BPMN notation for Lane ............................................................................................. 44
Figure 16. BPMN notation for Data Object .................................................................................. 44
Figure 17. BPMN notation for Message ....................................................................................... 44
Figure 18. BPMN notation for Group ........................................................................................... 44
Figure 19. Bridge Lifecycle Management Process map (initiation to final design) ..................... 45
Figure 20. Bridge Lifecycle Management Process map (bidding to maintenance) ...................... 47
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Directory of State Departments of Transportation ......................................................... 36

Table 2. List of Exchanges............................................................................................................ 41
vii
1 Introduction
Information about a bridge is generated throughout its full life cycle including design,
engineering, construction, operation, maintenance, and demolition. The information is used for
many purposes and by many different stakeholders. The use may involve many computer
software applications, people, and organizations. In order to support such uses, the bridge
information should be represented in a neutral, readily understandable, computer interpretable
form that remains sufficient and consistent when exchanged and stored.
An Information Modeling Standard aims to specify a digital organization and exchange structure
that is in a computer interpretable format used for storing, accessing, transferring and archiving
data in a formal manner suitable for communication, interpretation, or processing by human
beings or computers. (ISO TC184/SC4, 1992) A modeling standard is not only for supporting
neutral file exchange but also for implementing and sharing information databases and archives.
The standard procedures developed by the National Institute of Building Sciences for using the
Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) (ISO TC59/SC13, 2010) to specify information modeling
standards consist of defining the targeted use case(s), developing a generic process map
identifying required information types for a specific activity and purpose, identifying detailed
data types for the required exchange information, and finally mapping detailed data types into a
neutral computer interpretable form and validating the result. The process is summarized in
Figure 1. This Volume describes the development of the process map for the bridge life cycle,
which identifies types of information flow (exchange requirements) among activities in the
process. Volume II and III further discuss the required information and data types.
Figure 1. General steps for defining data exchange in IFC
A complete BrIM standardization effort is a large multi-year, national and potentially

international, undertaking. The planning and execution of such an undertaking can vary widely
in scope, cost and temporal effectiveness. For example, adopting the Precast/Pre-stressed
Concrete Institute (PCI) Model View Definition (MVD) took more than half a decade to fully
execute. (Eastman, Precast BIM Standard Project, 2012)
The project team has participated in meetings of related organizations that have helped inform
and expedite the analysis and development of the resulting bridge process map:
• buildingSMART International, the international organization that manages IFC and
reviews the evolution of IFC exchange efforts.
1
• Three building focused efforts (sponsored by American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC, 2011), Precast/Pre-stressed Concrete Institute (Eastman, Precast BIM Standard
Project, 2012), and American Concrete Institute (Eastman, Cast-in-Place National BIM
Standard, 2012), respectively).
These earlier building specific efforts adopted the processes and phasing recommended by the
National Institute of Building Science (NIBS) (National Institute of Building Sciences, 2015) as
outlined in Figure 1, based on extensive involvement of the various user communities. The user
communities need to be augmented by software vendor groups that will be the implementers of
the exchange software. The development of the process map requires strong leadership because
of the front-end costs and generally delayed benefits. Recognizing these issues this project
attempted to expedite the national BIM standard process by:
1. Instead of developing a full set of exchanges for various types of bridge projects, the team
selected two common representative bridge types to focus efforts.
2. The elements and sequencing of project activities can be different by contract types. The
design-bid-build delivery method has different activities and sets of exchanges from the
design-build delivery method. This project focused on the design-bid-build approach, the
most common delivery method for bridges and the method already identified in the
previous work, instead of extending or annexing other approaches to reduce the time.
3. The design-bid-build approach involves data exchange from design to construction, which
involves flow of information on a full and detailed bridge model. The BrIM team identified
that this exchange is the most well-defined and has the highest potential return from being
fully automated out of the whole design-bid-build process for bridge projects.
4. The project team concluded from the previous efforts that having a working exchange in a
short time is more beneficial and effective to communicate intent and to get feedback than
providing full implementation of multiple exchanges simultaneously over a longer period
of time. Therefore, instead of identifying information items from various user communities
and augmenting those by software vendors, the project team decided to use the contract
document set prepared by the engineer of record (EOR) for the owner in order to identify
required information item types.
The full bridge lifecycle can be information intensive and complex, with numerous phases,
actors, and activities. In order to help reduce the complexity and make the process more
understandable, a process map has been introduced to define the context for specifying
objectives. Processes in construction vary because of different contexts, locations, and
requirements. No process map is likely to describe completely the activities in the bridge life
cycle. A process map generally classifies the information flows between the different actors and
activities throughout the project phases. The classification provides a guide for identifying
salient exchanges for a given purpose and scope.
Process modeling refers to activities involved in defining what an actor does, who is responsible,
to what standard a process should be completed, and how the success of a process can be
determined. Its purpose is not to have standardized work flow, but to gain an in-depth
2
understanding of the relationships between the activities to achieve the data exchanges, the actors
involved, and the data required, consumed and produced. (buildingSmart International, 2012) This
project developed a new, comprehensive bridge process map, Figure 2.
Figure 2. Bridge Lifecycle Management Process Map
The process map characterizes the activities that have specific inputs and outputs. Inputs are
typically from other activities and other data sources and the activities generate outputs to other
subsequent activities. The outputs from precedent activities (e.g. preliminary design) are inputs
for subsequent activities (e.g. final design) of a data exchange (e.g. from preliminary design
software to final design software). Exchange requirements further specify the required inputs in a
specific data exchange. The process map defined in this Report is based on the Design-Bid-Build
delivery approach where design is 100% complete before construction begins. Other delivery
methods such as Design-Build could require that some exchanges be modified. What this process
map is based on and how it was developed is further explained in the rest of this volume.
3
2 Bridge Lifecycle Workflows
At the outset of this phase of work, three existing sources of bridge processes were identified for
evaluation towards further developing a new, more comprehensive and procedurally correct
bridge lifecycle process map that would establish the full exchange requirements for bridges. The
three sources of bridge processes evaluated were:
1. FHWA Bridge Map (2013) - The process map generated from the FHWA BrIM Report
2013 by the University of Buffalo (Chen S. S., 2013) (Chen S. S., 2013) was the starting
point for the exchange modeling efforts of this phase of work.
2. Industry Product Models - product models from the Architecture / Engineering /
Construction (A/E/C) industry for fabrication and engineering by the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) for concrete framing
and detailing, and the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) for steel framing
and detailing.
3. State Departments of Transportation (DOT) Standards - high-level classes of exchanges
used in DOT agencies were identified according to published standards at DOT agencies.
The following sections present background on each of the three process sources evaluated along
with the analysis that led up to the development of a new integrated process map in Section 4.
2.1 The FHWA Bridge Process Map (2013)

The FHWA BrIM Report 2013 defined a process map for design-bid-build bridge projects,
which identified at which points the data exchanges of interest occur in order to develop future
implementations. Within the data exchanges, five high priority exchanges (final roadway
geometry model, final structural model, contract model, erection analysis model, and final
detailing model) were identified, and information items were collected from TransXML, ISM 1,
IFC, and CIS/2 2 to describe geometries, sections, materials, cambers and etc.
The process map, identified exchanges, and information items from the FHWA BrIM Report
2013, were updated based on the review of related works. Details of the updated process model,
exchanges and information items are discussed in the corresponding sections of this Report
1
ISM (Integrated Structural Modeling) (Bentley, 2012) is a technology for sharing structural engineering project
information among structural modeling, analysis, design, drafting and detailing applications. ISM was developed by
a commercial software company, Bentley Systems, Inc. It can work with major Bentley software products.
2
CIS/2 (CIMsteel Integrated Standards Release Two) originated from the CIMsteel (Computer Integrated
Manufacture of Constructional Steelwork) (Crowley, 2000) Project from the European Construction Steelwork
Industry. It is a set of formal computing specifications that allow software vendors to make their engineering
applications mutually compatible. AISC endorsed CIS/2 as the format for data exchange among structural steel
related software applications.
4
leading to recommendations for modification and improvement that are incorporated into the
Bridge Lifecycle Management Process Map.
2.1.1 Phases
In construction, four general phases characterize most typical design-bid-build projects:
planning, bidding, construction, operation and maintenance (O&M). Phases are temporal discrete
segments of time, usually occurring sequentially and not overlapping each other.
Figure 3. General Phases of Project Development and Asset Management
Each high level phase can then be broken down into smaller, sub-phases. For example, planning
can be broken into initiation and design. In order to build a bridge, the plan first needs to be
initialized (what the problem is, what the constraints are, etc.). Afterwards, the bridge needs to be
designed (type of bridge, capacity, aesthetics, etc.). These sub-phases can further be broken
down into smaller sub-phases. Sub-phases are disjointed partitions of the phase or sub-phase they
are part of. The FHWA BrIM Report 2013 identified the phases for bridge construction. Below
is a list of the phases identified in the bridge lifecycle process, in which each term is followed by
its classification number from the OmniClass Construction Classification System (OCCS) (OCCS
Development Committee, 2006):
• Initiation (I), 31-10 14 17
• Scoping (S), 31-10 14 24
• Preliminary Design (PD), 31-20 10 00
• Final Design (FD), 31-20 20 00
• Bidding and Letting (BL), 31-30 30 00
• Post Award / Pre-Construction Construction Planning / Detailing (CD), 31-40 10 00
• Fabrication (F), 31-40 40 14 21
• Construction (C), 31-40 40 14
• Inspection and Evaluation (IE), 31-50 20 21
• Maintenance and Management (MM), 31-50 20 31
5
2.1.2 Disciplines
In order to make an activity happen, there needs to be one or more people to carry out the tasks.
These people are called ‘actors’ because they act upon a certain activity in the process. The same
person may carry out different activities having different roles for each activity. Anybody that
has a role in a process is considered a resource, which can be a person, an organization, or a
person acting on behalf of an organization. The FHWA BrIM Report 2013 classified actors into
the following disciplines in its process map, , in which each term is followed by the
corresponding OCCS number (OCCS Development Committee, 2012).
• Transportation Engineering (TE), 33-21 99 45 21
• Planning, Aesthetics, Landscaping (PAL), 33-11 00 00
• Structural Engineering (SE), 33-21 31 14
• Detailing (D), 33-21 31 14
• Estimation (E), 33-25 11 00
• Construction Management (CM), 33-41 14 00
• Fabrication (F), 33-25 41 11
• Construction Engineering (CE), 33-41 00 00
• Inspection (I), 33-21 31 14
• Load Rating (LR), 33-21 31 14
• Routing and Permitting (RP), 33-21 31 11
• Maintenance and Management (MM), 33-55 24 00
2.1.3 Process Map
Figure 4. Notation of the process map from the FHWA BrIM Report 2013
6
Figure 4, a segment of the process map shown in Figure 5displays the notation used in the
process map. The map is broken up into lanes (rows and columns). The leftmost column shows
the disciplines of actors (stakeholders). The topmost lane identifies the phases (or stages) in the
process in order of involvement (i.e. the far left is the start of the project and the far right is the
end).
The activity lane, denoted by the actors’ disciplines, displays the activity (A) (white rectangles
with rounded edges labeled starting with letter A) carried out by the actors at a specific phase in
the project. The lanes labeled “exchange” display the exchange maps and are there to facilitate
exchange flows. The green box exchange maps (EM) (square edged rectangle attached to
rounded edge rectangles labeled starting with letters EM) identify digital maps, and the yellow
box non-map exchanges (NME) (square edged rectangle attached to rounded edge rectangles
labeled starting with letters NME) are non-map files (e.g. PDF, notes, etc.).
Figure 5. The process map from the FHWA BrIM Report 2013
7
Since each exchange is potentially unique, they have been named according to phase and
disciplines of actors. The format is EM. Phase/Sender-Receiver(s). For example, the
“Preliminary Roadway Geometry Model” is in the Preliminary Design (PD) phase and is sent
from Transportation Engineering (TE) to Structural Engineering (SE). Therefore the name is
EM.PD/TE-SE.
Non-model exchanges are denoted by NME rather than EM. The direction and flow of the
activities are shown by solid arrows, and the direction and flow of the exchanges are shown by
dashed arrows.
Figure 5 represents the entire process map from the FHWA BrIM Report 2013. The process map
identified 34 activities and 18 model based exchanges described in the following sections.
Further information on process maps is provided in the section titled Development of a New
Integrated Process Map.
2.1.4 Activities
Within each sub-phase, various activities are expected and usually scheduled to reach a specified
goal. An activity applies resources (people, time, equipment, computation, expertise, etc.) to
complete the activity.
Activities can be repetitive, or iterated until the outcome of that activity is achieved. Often,
activities are dependent on conditions that are realized by other activities. The second activity
depends on the state of the first activity; the second activity can only be meaningfully applied if
the first activity has been completed. In addition, if the first activity is iterated, the second
activity may also have to be repeated.
For instance, initiation has two activities: “bridge planning” and “conceptual estimate”. The
“bridge planning” activity determines the project plan, which may include a description of the
problem, preliminary project objectives, a description, project elements to be investigated and a
preliminary schedule. The “conceptual estimate” activity creates a preliminary cost estimate
report of the bridge plan. Therefore, any changes to the plan will create changes in the cost
estimate report, which makes the “conceptual estimate” activity dependent on the “bridge
planning” activity. Since there is a dependency, the two activities iterate until a final bridge plan
is achieved and the associated cost estimate is generated.
8
Figure 6. Bridge Planning and Conceptual Estimate Cycle
The FHWA BrIM Report 2013 identified the majority of the activities important in the life-cycle
of a bridge. However, it is important to note that the list is not a fully comprehensive list of all
the activities needed to model bridges, but addresses the most common cases.
1. Bridge Planning
2. Conceptual Estimate
3. Structure Type, Size and Location Design
4. Preliminary Estimate
5. Preliminary Roadway Geometry Development
6. Preliminary Aesthetic Design
7. Preliminary Structural Design
8. Updated Preliminary Cost Estimate
9. Final Roadway Geometry Development
10. Aesthetic Design Development
11. Structural Design Development
12. Preliminary Detailing Design
13. Detailed Engineer’s Cost Estimate
14. Initial Load Rating
15. Construction Documentation Preparation
16. Initial Cost Estimate
17. Bid Development
18. Final Review / Integration of Structural System
19. Detailing Design Development
20. Construction Planning and Scheduling
21. Production Scheduling
22. Erection Plan and Analysis
23. Modification / Integration of Final Detailing Documents
24. Product Manufacturing
25. Structural As-Built Data Development
26. Project Contract Claim / J.O.C. Cost Estimates
9
27. Construction Coordinating and Monitoring
28. Construction Execution
29. Post-construction Load Rating
30. Inspection Review
31. Inspection
32. Updated Load Rating
33. Maintenance
34. Routing and Permitting
2.1.5 Exchanges
An estimator needs specific and reliable data from the planner in order to make an accurate cost
estimate report. If the data are erroneous or unreliable, the cost estimate report is inaccurate,
which can cause later problems in the project. To ensure that the estimator obtains the needed
reliable information an exchange is established. An exchange is the process of transferring the
needed information at a given phase in a process from one actor to another. The information sent
from the planner to the estimator, in the form of the bridge plan, is one type of exchange. The
information sent back from the estimator to the planner, in the form of the cost estimate report, is
a separate exchange.
Figure 7. Exchanges Between two Actors; Planner and Estimator
Note that the exchanges below may have multiple actors importing data in an exchange.
However, in practice, multiple correct models may not be merged into a single one without using
an application supporting the integration or via a manual interpretation. An example is structural
analysis models for a structure and the physical representation of the structure. Some
applications support the synchronization of the two models internally, while others do not. An
emerging technology supporting the coordination of model data between different applications
are model servers. Today however, links between separate models are not currently supported in
practice. Merging of models must be done within an application.
10
1. [EM.I/PAL-E] Bridge Concept Model
Sender (33-11 00 00) Planning, Aesthetics and Landscaping
Receiver (33-25 11 00) Estimation
Purpose These models are created by engineers to help define candidate a project based on
program goals.
2. [EM.S/SE-E] Bridge Engineering Concept Model

Sender (33-21 31 14) Structural Engineering
Purpose This model helps stakeholders better understand problems and define project scope,
cost and schedule.
3. [EM.PD/TE-SE] Preliminary Roadway Geometry Model

Sender (33-21 99 45 21) Transportation Engineering
Receiver (33-21 31 14) Structural Engineering
Purpose This model has been developed to provide minimum safe geometrics for the bridge
project.
4. [EM.PD/PAL-SE] Preliminary Aesthetic Design Model

Purpose The model contains aesthetic design data.
5. [EM.PD/SE-E-PAL] Initial Structural Model

Purpose This model is created to help structural engineer select the most appropriate
alternative to be advanced.
6. [EM.FD/TE-SE] Final Roadway Geometry Model

Sender (33-21 99 45 21) Transportation Engineering
Purpose This model contains updated roadway geometry data.
7. [EM.FD/PAL-SE] Final Aesthetic Design Model

Purpose This model contains updated aesthetic design data.
11
8. [EM.FD/SE-D-TE-PAL] Advanced Structural Model
Receiver (33-21 31 14) Detailing, and (33-21 99 45 21) Transportation Engineering, (33-11 00
00) Planning, Aesthetics and Landscaping
Purpose This model is used for an independent technical progress review, and then used to
finalize completed contract plans and specifications.
9. [EM.FD/D-E-LR] Final Structural Model

Sender (33-21 31 14) Detailing
Receiver (33-25 11 00) Estimation, and (33-21 31 14) Load Rating
Purpose This model is used to develop detailed cost estimate and assemble acontract package
to enable the bridge owner to advertise, let, and award.
10. [EM.BL/SE-D-E-CM-CE] Contract Model

Receiver (33-21 31 14) Detailing, (33-25 11 00) Estimation, (33-41 14 00) Construction
Management, and (33-41 00 00) Construction Engineering
Purpose For contractors to develop contractor's cost estimate, construction planning and
detailing.
11. [EM.CD/D-SE] Advance Detailing Model

Purpose Bridge detailing for bridge owner and designer to review modeling.
12. [EM.CD/CE-F-CM] Erection Analysis Model

Sender (33-41 00 00) Construction Engineering
Receiver (33-25 41 11) Fabrication, and (33-41 14 00) Construction Management
Purpose This model is used for development of a construction schedule.
13. [EM.F/D-F] Final Detailing Model

Receiver (33-25 41 11) Fabrication
Purpose Provide steel components and/or reinforcing concrete components detail layout, with
all members defined and rebar placed, for fabrication.
12
14. [EM.C/CE-SE-E-LR] As-Built Model
Sender (33-41 00 00) Construction Engineering
Receiver (33-21 31 14) Structural Engineering, (33-21 31 14) Structural Engineering, and (33-
21 31 14) Load Rating
Purpose This model is used by structural engineers to calculate load rating factors and by an
inspector for bridge inspection.
15. [EM.IE/I-SE] Prior Inspection Model

Sender (33-21 31 14) Inspection
Purpose This model contains the bridge information from the previous inspections.
16. [EM.IE/I-LR-SE] Structural Deterioration Model

Sender (33-21 31 14) Inspection
Receiver (33-21 31 14) Load Rating, and (33-21 31 14) Structural Engineering
Purpose The model is used for structural engineers to make load rating calculation, and for the
bridge owner to permit and route vehicles.
17. [EM.MM/SE-MM] Retrofit Model

Receiver (33-55 24 00) Maintenance and Management
Purpose This model is used for development of a bridge retrofit /rehabilitation program.
18. [EM.MM/SE-RP] GIS Model

Receiver (33-21 31 11) Routing and Permitting
Purpose This model is used for development of a bridge GIS model.
2.1.6 Review of the exchanges

The project team reviewed the exchanges from the FHWA BrIM Report 2013 and identified
areas to improve in defining model based exchanges. This section identifies the changes made in
the development of the new integrated process map described in section 4.
Bridge Concept Model

The bridge concept model defines 1) a description of problem, 2) the preliminary project
objectives and descriptions, 3) project elements to be investigated, 4) preliminary environmental
classification, 5) issues or circumstances which may arise (e.g. community concerns and
environmental issues), and 6) preliminary schedule. (NYSDOT, 2012)
13
Figure 8 is a part of Table C – Critical Design Elements from the Initial Project Proposal / Final
Design Report (IPP/FDR) shell (NYSDOT, 2012) from the New York State Department of
Transportation. The IPP template defines design criteria applicable to the bridge design such as
design speed, lane width, approach lane width, shoulder width, approach shoulder width, bridge
roadway width, approach roadway width, maximum grade, horizontal curvature, super elevation,
stopping sight distance, horizontal clearance, vertical clearance, pavement cross slope, rollover
and others. This type of information prescribes the design criteria but not the actual design of a
roadway that can be transferred. There is no physical design model that has explicit shape (such
as terrain, alignment, section and etc.) defined in the bridge concept model as given in the IPP.
Therefore, this exchange can be represented as a non-model based exchange.
Existing Proposed
Element Standard 2
Condition Condition
50 mph (80 km/h)
1 Design Speed
11 ft (3.3 m)
2 Lane Width
4 ft (1.2 m)
3 Shoulder Width BM Section 2.3.1 Table 2-1, and App. 2A Tables
& [OR] HDM Section
Undivided Arterial
Approach roadway width=2(11+4)=30 ft (9 m)
Bridge Roadway Existing traveled way plus 4 ft min.
4
Width shoulders=2(10+4)=28 ft (8.4 m)
Wider of the two is 30 ft (9 m) =std.
BM Section 2.3.1 and Table 2-1
7%
5 Maximum Grade
HDM Section
Horizontal 758 ft (229 m) Min (at emax=8%)
6
Curvature HDM Section
8% Max.
7 Superelevation
HDM Section
Figure 8. Excerpt from the table C – Critical Design Elements of NYS DOT IPP
Bridge Engineering Concept Model

Structural engineers generate the bridge engineering concept model in the scoping phase based
on the bridge concept model. The information items contained in the bridge engineering concept
model are 1) project area's information, 2) project objective(s), 3) design criteria, 4) feasible
alternative(s), and 5) key environmental issues.
14
The project scoping report template (NYSDOT, Project Scoping Report / Final Design Report
(PSR/FDR), 2015) from New York State Department of Transportation also indicates that these
information items are lists of textual descriptions that specify the criteria, which does not
necessarily involve a model based exchange. Therefore this exchange needs to be represented as
a non-model based exchange.
Prior Inspection Model and Structural Deterioration Model

The Inspection activity identified in the FHWA BrIM Report 2013 produces two types of
models, a Prior Inspection Model and a Structural Deterioration Model. The Structural
Engineering discipline uses the Prior Inspection Model in the Inspection Review activity, and it
also uses the Structural Deterioration Model in the Inspection Review activity. The Structural
Deterioration Model is used in two other disciplines. The Load Rating discipline uses it for the
Updated Load Rating activity. The Routing and Permitting discipline uses it for the Routing and
Permitting activity.
Inspection happens periodically throughout the lifecycle of the bridge. Inspection level and
frequency criteria are established for such inspections as underwater, scour critical, fracture
critical members, complex, damage, in-depth and special inspections. (U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2009)
The Prior Inspection Model is in fact the Structural Deterioration Model from the previous
Inspection. The FHWA BrIM Report 2013 describes how the inspectors identify areas where
defects were found in previous inspections, which allows them to determine if the defects
previously identified have been repaired or have increased in size and severity. The defects
found in the previous inspection are recorded in the Structural Deterioration Model from the
previous inspection. Because of this, it is recommended to modify to the process model to
represent looping of recurring Inspections and consolidate the Prior Inspection Model and the
Structural Deterioration Model into one exchange.
2.2 Industry Exchanges

This section is an initial assessment of the integration of product models from the Architecture /
Engineering / Construction (A/E/C) industry for fabrication and engineering in the bridge
construction process, the roles of the participants involved, and the specific data required.
An important opportunity exists to recognize and take advantage of already defined exchanges
and software workflows identified in closely related fields. The objective is based on not re-
inventing processes already studied and adopted by other groups, and on adopting existing
processes being developed in the construction industry, for other structures that are highly
overlapping. There is significant overlap of process and information between buildings, bridges,
process plants and power lines. For contracting and related processes, it is important to take
advantage of these business, industry and practice activities where appropriate. The following
analysis reviews three sets of exchanges with bridges:
15
• Section 2.2.1 reviews exchanges in the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI)
Model View Definition (MVD)
• Section 1.1.1 reviews exchanges in the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
Model View Definition (MVD)
• Section 2.2.3 reviews exchanges in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Model View
Definition (MVD)
Each of these three exchange sets was created largely independently, but with well-defined
linkages with each other. For example, reinforcing and pre- and post-tensioning elements are
integrated in concrete and steel detailing; steel decking is typically defined by the steel detailer,
but strongly coordinated with two way exchanges in the concrete layout and the structural
analysis. Connections between systems (foundations, shear plates) for concrete-steel connections
are directly related or linked to each other. At a detailed implementation level, functional
libraries are defined that often need to reflect their fabrication.
The material attributes for steel structures and rebar and mesh are the same in most cases. An
objective of reviewing these three domains was to assess the effort involved in integrating them
with bridge engineering to determine the effort needed to support or improve current practice to
identify differences and resolve them where needed. In general, properties and attributes are easy
to include or drop; missing entity types with distinct functions or geometry are much larger gaps.
2.2.1 Exchanges in the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) MVD
PC1. Building Concept (BC)

Phase Preliminary Project Description
Disciplines Architecture, Structural Engineering, and Precaster
Purpose BC consists of the architectural concept model or engineering concept model
passed to the detailer for further preliminary precast structural and fabrication
detailing
BC consists of the concept design layout of precast pieces optionally composed into assemblies.
Geometry is nominal, without camber or twisting. It lacks surface or structural detailing. It
includes structural- and other grid-controls. It optionally includes major architectural finishes,
and site analysis. It identifies interfaces with other structural elements and curtain wall systems.
PC2. Precast Concept (PC)

Disciplines Architecture and Precaster
Purpose Precaster’s preliminary feedback based on design review and concept modeling
16
PC is the precaster’s review of the Building Concept model from architects and specifies major
architectural/structural precast components. This may deal with the precast structural system,
panelization, architectural finishes and site logistics.
PC3. Precast Contract Development (PCD)

Phase Preliminary Project Description and Design Development
Disciplines Architecture, Structural Engineering, Precaster, and General Contractor
Purpose PCD is a general detailed precast design model; with editable geometry; it reflects
the detailed design intent of the precast concrete and structural requirements of the
building for use in integration with all other systems. It also consists of the total
building cost estimate based on the early schematic design.
The model provides precast design intent dealing with both structural and architectural intent. It
defines the structural requirements of the building. It may include loads reactions, precast
connection designs, precast-to-structural steel connection design, foundation design and
connection element capacities.
Precast finishes may be defined and optionally doors, windows, interior wall partitions, and
curtain wall systems embedded in or related to the precast. It is passed between different parties
for review to ensure the building design intent and the structural adequacy is preserved. It is
further refinement of the concept model, providing a basis for the precast cost estimate based on
early schematic design models.
The general contractor adds budget, schedule and specifications for the entire building received
from several precasters / subcontractors to be passed to the owner/architect group to make a
go/no-go decision about the project.
PC4. Engineering Design Development (EDD)

Phase Construction Documentation, Procurement and Product Development
Purpose EDD is based on the architectural and engineering designs that are then detailed
and made production and erection worthy by the precaster. It provides the detailed
BRep precast design model sent for review. It supports multiple Source-Recipient
workflows.
EDD is the detailed precast design model. It includes high-level description of precast piece
detailing and all connection details. It provides assembly and piece layout for review to the
architect and engineer. The architect’s response then identifies those aspects and parts of the
design where design intent has not been met to ensure consistency between the architectural
design and precast detailing models. The general contractor can use the model for the bid
preparation or for coordination merged with other trade models.
17
PC5. Architectural Contract (AC)
Phase Design Development and Construction Documentation
Purpose This model is a construction stage precast model used for coordination of all precast
components with the rest of the building. It integrates the building layout of all
precast pieces with all other building systems to support production of a contract
construction model and for structural and logistical consistency review.
The model integrates the building layout of all precast pieces with all other building systems. It
identifies the shape and logical connectivity of all precast pieces. It includes the layout of surface
finishes, molding, reveals and other decorative features. Other systems interacting with precast
are also represented.
Based on the architectural and engineering designs, this exchange model is used for coordination
of all precast components includes precast slabs, beams, columns, and connections. It conveys
detailed model descriptions of all precast structural elements, using BRep geometry. The model
together with the drawings and specifications are also submitted to the general contractor in
order to be assembled with other models and used for the bid preparation.
PC6. Engineering Contract (EC)

Phase Construction Documentation
Purpose The exchange is prepared as a construction drawing set or construction-level model.
It is focused on the structural design and integrates the structural layout with other
building systems.
The model includes structural elements, connections and details. Both the precast and other
structural systems are fully designed.
PC7. Precast Detailed Coordination (PDC)

Phase Construction Documentation, Procurement, Fabrication Phase
Purpose The model is developed by the precaster to be used by the GC for review and with
other trade models which includes building cost estimate, spatial coordination,
optionally 4D temporal sequencing and simulation. Structural engineers also
include the result of structural design and reinforcement. It relies on assembly-
level layout in BRep geometry.
PDC is a general purpose multi-workflow exchange model defined by diverse sources for
different recipients for detailed coordination. It may be used for the total building cost estimate
based on the early schematic design models. It includes descriptions of all connection details,
18
finishes, joints, embeds, reinforcing, tensioning cable layout and blockouts, pre-tensioned pieces,
and lifting hooks for lifting and transporting.
Structural design of logical connections is specified. This model also conveys the results of
structural design and reinforcement review by the engineer of record to the precast fabricator
during the fabrication phase with information about design constraints, design loads and
structural design.
PC8. Structural Review & Coordination (SRC)

Phase Procurement and Fabrication
Disciplines Structural Engineering, Precaster and Plant Management
Purpose The model contains the precast structural system, to verify it maintains structural
intent. This model is developed by the precaster and contains all the fabrication
model of all precast pieces and assemblies that are required for structural design
and reinforcement review.
The model includes geometry and assembly relations of buildings and spaces. Common
categories of information for various types of products are included like layout, related shape and
material information; both at the piece and assembly level.
Connection relations of the pieces except for non-load bearing pieces are specified. Assembly
and nested relations except for connections, and non-load bearing pieces are included. Related
identification information and concrete mixes are included. Layout and grid geometry of facades,
slab toppings, and reinforcement specifications are designated. More low level, detailed
information about products is included. Characteristics of thermal and acoustic insulation are
defined. Nested relations of both field applied and plant applied connections are specified.
Finally, related specifications of other building parts and systems are included. It includes
detailed description of precast piece detailing, all connection details, finishes, joints, embeds,
reinforcing, tensioning cable layout and blockouts, pre-tensioned pieces, and lifting hooks for
lifting and transporting. Connections, design constraints, design loads and structural design are
defined, using BRep geometry.
PC9. Engineering Analysis Results (EAR)

Phase Procurement, Product Development and Fabrication
Disciplines Structural Engineering, Precaster, and General Contractor
Purpose Detailed analysis review of the precast concrete structural model. This model
conveys the results of structural design and reinforcement review by the engineer
of record and also the detailed fabrication model of precast pieces and assemblies
provided by the precast fabricator.
EAR includes all structural precast elements. Slab layout and topping are defined. Assembly,
nested and connection relations of load bearing and voided pieces are specified. Assembly and
19
nested relations of logical connections and both field and plant applied connections are defined.
Related identification information and concrete mixes are included. Reinforcement specifications
and layout are designated. Structural design for load-bearing pieces and design loads for slabs
are specified. Important common categories of information include layout, shape, and material
types and surface treatment, both in the piece and assembly level. Openings and opening frames
are defined. Detailed information for some types of products is included. Layout and grid
geometry of facades are designated. For load-bearing, non-load bearing and voided pieces, joint
and connection relations are specified also. Logical and physical connections are defined. Lifting
devices are indicated. Thermal and acoustic insulation characteristics are defined. Structural
design of logical connections is specified.
PC10. Final Precast Detailing & Coordination (FPCD)

Phase Fabrication and Erection
Disciplines Precaster, General Contractor, and Plant Management
Purpose This is the fully detailed model of precast elements, as assembled in the project,
prepared by the precast fabricator for coordination with precast and other systems,
mostly by the contractor.
FPCD includes fully detailed information about products and their assembled composition in the
project - layout, shape, geometry and finishes of all precast products. Assembly relations of the
pieces and connections are specified. Connections with other systems, including embeds, are
included. Openings and opening frames are defined (not opening fillers). Identification and
related production information for different pieces are included. Reinforcement specifications are
defined. Relevant information for different types of products is provided. Facade layout and grid
geometry are defined. Voided pieces, nested, connection and joint relations are specified. Nested
relations of both field-applied and plant-applied connections are specified. Specifications of
other related building parts and systems are included. Concrete mixes and finish material types
are defined. Lifting devices are included. Surface treatment areas are included.
PC11A. Production and Erection Data (PED)

Phase Product Development and Erection
Disciplines Precaster, General Contractor, and Plant Management
Purpose In this exchange model the fabricator passes the model of precast pieces and
assemblies to the general contractor for coordination and then during the erection
phase, the general contractor sends the orders for piece delivery to the plant
manager.
In this exchange, important common categories of information are provided including layout,
shape, material types, and information about product finishes both at the piece and assembly
level. Also, assembly relations of products except for foundation parts are specified. The piece
marks for identification are included. Detailed information for some types of products is
20
included. Layout and grid geometry of facades are designated and slab topping thickness,
material and surface treatment are defined. For load-bearing and non-load bearing pieces,
assembly, nested, joint and connection relations are specified. Relevant information about
reinforcement is included. Nested and assembly relations of both field applied and plant applied
connections are specified. Specifications of other building parts and systems like lifting devices
that are affected, are indicated.
PC11B. Architectural Review and Coordination (ARC)

Phase Product development and Fabrication
Disciplines Architecture and Precaster
Purpose This exchange is for the transfer of coordination action items to the fabricator from
the architect for piece detailing. This exchange passes back to the precast
fabricator a report of the design intent issues identified by the architect for precast
assembly-level piece layout, based on information supplied by the precast
fabricator for the architects’ review/approval.
In this exchange, design constraints of buildings and spaces are indicated, where relevant.
Product information that raises issues about the design intent are reported, including layout,
shape, material types, geometry and material finishes of products, both in the piece and assembly
level. Also, assembly and connection relations of pieces are specified. For load-bearing and non-
load bearing pieces, assembly and joint relations may be identified as problems. The
specifications of joints are defined. Nested and assembly relations of both field applied and plant
applied connections are specified. The piece marks for identification are included. Detailed
information for different types of products is included. Facade layout and grid geometry may be
designated; slab topping thickness, material and surface treatment may be returned. Related
specifications of other building parts and systems are indicated.
2.2.2 Exchanges in the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) MVD
EM1: Concept Model

Concept Model is for the architect to provide information of shapes and dimensions of steel
structures in the preliminary design stage. This model is related to both the Preliminary Roadway
Geometry Model and the Preliminary Aesthetic Design Model of the FHWA BrIM Report 2013.
Disciplines Sender: Architecture
Receiver: Structural Engineering, Steel Product Manufacturing
Description Function of the model is to present a schematic architectural model with enough
information about physical geometry to design the basic structural system by
structural engineer and to do an initial estimate of materials to allow the fabricator
21
to do the preliminary estimate of the material and fabrication costs for concept
analysis and/or budget purposes.
EM2: Initial Structural Model

Initial Structural Model is an output of the initial status of the structural engineering. The
contents and the level of detail correspond to the Initial Structure Model identified in the FHWA
BrIM Report 2013.
Disciplines Sender: Structural Engineering
Receiver: Architecture, Steel Detailing Engineering
Description The function of the model is to present the preliminary design of the structural
system which has been developed using general assumptions for member sizes and
the lateral restraint system. The model is exported into detailing software to
provide the preliminary steel system detailing information.
EM3: Initial Steel Structural Model

Initial Steel Structural Model in the AISC MVD is similar to Preliminary Structural Design of
the FHWA BrIM Report 2013, which only represents the simple steel structure without
connection details. This model has enough information to finalize a preliminary estimate.
Disciplines Sender: Steel Detailing Engineering
Receiver: Plant, Scheduling and Management
Description Function of the model is to provide a simple design of steel systems using general
assumptions for member sizes and the lateral restraint system to let the plant
manager develop the initial production schedule. The resulting model will be
exported into project management software to do a preliminary estimation.
EM4: Architectural Design Model

Architectural Design Model is similar to the Preliminary Roadway Geometry model and the
Preliminary Aesthetic Model of the FHWA BrIM Report 2013.
Phase Design Development
Receiver: Structural Engineering
Description The purpose is to provide the Architectural design model and to pass physical
geometry to the structural engineer for reference in creation of the Engineering
Design Model. The structural engineer sends back review comments regarding
structural design restraints. The Engineering Design Model is also passed back to
the Architect for reference and spatial coordination.
22
EM5: Structural Analysis Model
In the AEC / FM and structural steel domains, structural analysis and structural design are
usually separated. The structural analysis model is used to define physical structural member
design and is related to the Initial Structural Model of the FHWA BrIM Report 2013, while it
does not differentiate structural analysis and structural member design. This needs clarification
from domain experts if the differentiation is required and if there is need for data exchange
between structural analysis and structural member design.
Receiver: Architecture
Description The structural engineer has created the analytical model by taking the physical
geometry of the structure and load information to generate an analysis program for
structural analysis, design, and optimization. This exchange is part of an iterating
round loop between architect and structural engineer, finalizing the design content.
The resulting structural model with updated steel member sizes and end reactions
will be sent to the steel detailing engineer for connection design in the next phase.
EM6: Architectural Contract Model

This exchange is related to the Final Roadway Geometry Model and Final Aesthetic Design
Model of the FHWA BrIM Report 2013. While it only addresses the architectural aspect of
design, the Architectural Contract Model has the same level of detail as the Contract Model.
Receiver: Structural Engineering, Steel Detailing Engineering
Description The function of the model is to reflect the detailed design intent related to steel
system as integrated with all other systems. The building model and
documentation provides the structural engineer and detailer the framework
regarding steel design intent. It also provides the general contractor with design
intent sufficient for bidding. Finally, the model is sent to the steel detailer as one of
the inputs needed to design the steel structure layout.
EM7: Structural Contract Model

Structural Contract Model is one of the further detailed exchanges in AISC MVD that identifies
all information items for this specific exchange. The Structural Contract Model has the same
level of detail as the Advanced Structural Model and the Construction Contract Model in the
FHWA BrIM Report 2013.
Receiver: Architecture, Steel Product Manufacturing, Construction Management
23
Description The purpose of the model is to provide a detailed structural model with enough
information to help the steel detailer to design the final steel structure layout, to
help the steel manufacturer provide the detailed material take-off and also to help
the contractor develop the bid document.
EM8: Mill Order Model

Mill Order Model contains enough information for fabrication planning of the inventory of raw
material and the factory operation schedule. This exchange is represented as a non model based
exchange in the FHWA BrIM Report 2013, where it is modeled as a non model exchange from
construction planning and scheduling to production scheduling. In structural steel, it is important
to identify member size in order to plan fabrication.
Receiver: Structural Engineering, Plant and Scheduling Management
Description The function of the model is to provide detailed steel structure layout for
manufacturing and erection of the steel system. It is also sent to the plant manager
to develop the detailed production schedule. In the process of finalizing the mill
order model, it is sent to structural engineer to provide comments.
EM9: Final Structural Analysis Model

Final Structural Analysis is a further developed Structural Analysis Model, similar to the
Structural Analysis Model, there is no corresponding exchange in the FHWA BrIM Report 2013.
This needs clarification from domain experts if differentiation is required.
Receiver: Steel Detailing Engineering
Description The function of the model is to provide the final structural system information to
allow the detailing engineer to design and detail the structural members for shop
fabrication. One thing to consider is that connection design can be handled as an
engineer mandated connection design or as member and load data passed
downstream.
EM10: Advanced Steel Detailing Model

Advanced Steel Detailing Model is similar to the Advance Detailing model in the FHWA BrIM
Report 2013.
Phase Product Development
Receiver: Construction Management, Structural Engineering
Description The function of the model and model content is further developed from “Mill
Order Model”. The difference is to gain the comments of structural engineer after
24
final review and integration of structural system. The model provides detailed
steel structure layout for advanced connection design and detailing
EM11: Final Steel Detailing Model

This model contains the fully detailed information that is used directly to drive CNC machines
that can interpret this model. This exchange is the only fully defined exchange and is
implemented in structural detailing software and CNC machine control software. Structural steel
bridge components can utilize this exchange without any limitation. The structural steel member
can be either an AISC profile shape, custom shape or composite section such as a three plate
beam.
Phase Fabrication
Receiver: Steel Production Automation, Plant and Scheduling Management
Description The function of the model is to provide enough detailing information about the
steel members to enable the fabricator to manufacture and shop assemble the steel
pieces. The model is the finalized version of the Advanced Steel Detailing Model
which is provided as the output for any modification and integration of the final
detailing model. During the steel fabrication the plant management software will
add member status to the model.
Following is the list of high level information items in the Final Steel Detailing Model. The full
list can be found at the AISC BIMsteel initiative website (https://www.aisc.org/bimsteel)
• Product Information
o Assembly
o Main Piece
o Accessory
• Connection
o Weld
o Bolt assembly
• Features
o Bolt hole
o Slotted hole
o Cope
o Opening
o Skewed end
• Reused Categories
o Quantity information
o Surface treatment
o Scheduling information
o Status information
o Drawing number
o Version information
o Tolerance for layout
o Piece Identification
25
o Material
2.2.3 Exchanges in the American Concrete Institute MVD

The following exchanges were defined and approved by the ACI-131 committee at the IDM
process model level of definition
EM1: Architect’s mass structural model

Phase Design Development, Construction Documentation
Receiver(s): Structural Engineer
Description Provides the structural engineer with base layout to determine structural design.
The structural engineer may have previously reviewed the project in earlier
phases. Includes major structural concrete elements, major load placements,
elevators and stair shafts concrete walls, and foundations. This exchange is
iterated until all reinforced concrete aspects are identified and resolved when the
model is exported as the architect’s contract model.
EM2: Formwork finish & detail geometry

Receiver(s): Concrete Contractor, Concrete Formwork Contractor, Finish
Contractor
Description Identify formwork requirements for CIP work including for concrete finishes.
Associated finish specification a materials and procedures are available
EM3: Site plan & foundation layout

Disciplines Sender: Civil Engineer
Receiver(s): Structural Engineer, General Contractor, Concrete Contractor
Description Site plan with general layout of complete facility with concrete improvements and
a foundation functional model.
EM4: Mechanical system model (merged)

Disciplines Sender: Mechanical Engineer
Receiver(s): Structural Engineer, Concrete Contractor, Reinforcing Detailer,
Reinforcing Fabricator
Description Provides placement of major mechanical system components sufficient to define
connections, pass-throughs and other aspects requiring spatial coordination with
mechanical system. Also identifies insulation needs and areas where it is needed.
26
Defines connection and other embeds, pads and curbs needed for mechanical
equipment
EM5: Architect’s contract model

Receiver(s): Structural Engineer, General Contractor, Mech. Engineer
Description Provides a variety of users with concrete layout, as iterated and approved by the
structural engineer and serves as a construction document model. Includes all
structural concrete elements, load placements, elevators and stair shafts concrete
walls, and foundations identified in construction documents.
EM6: Structural design model

Disciplines Sender: Structural Engineer
Receiver(s): General Contractor, Concrete Contractor, Site Contractor,
Reinforcing Detailer
Description Provides report of the detailed structural analysis to determine steel reinforcing
sections, lap standard details, and special connections. Optionally provides an
early mill order for reinforcing and identifies early shoring needs.
EM7: Blockout & Insulation placement

Phase Construction Documentation, Concrete Placement & Resource
Disciplines Sender: Mechanical Engineering
Receiver(s): Concrete Contractor, General Contractor
Description Identifies placement of blockouts for pass-through in concrete placement. Also
identifies where insulation is to be placed over or within concrete for thermal or
vibration insulation purposes.
EM8: Reinforcing & tendon review model

Disciplines Sender: Reinforcing Detailer
Receiver(s): Reinforcing Fabricator, Reinforcing Contractor, Concrete Contractor
Description Provides reinforcement layout to all reinforcing disciplines with consideration of
structural requirements and concrete placement.
EM9: Detailed reinforcing & tendon integrated layout (merged)

Phase Concrete Resource & Placement Planning
Disciplines Sender: Rebar Detailer
Receiver(s): Structural Engineer, Concrete Contractor, Reinforcing Contractor,
Reinforcing Fabricator, Reinforcement Distributor
27
Description Integrates placement and reinforcement and tendon layout with both integrated
structure and pour sequence. (tendons may be a separate model)
EM10: Structural embeds & plates

Phase Concrete Resource & placement planning
Disciplines Sender: Reinforcing Fabricator
Receiver(s): Structural Engineer
Description Identifies all plates, reinforcing, and embeds for all concrete pieces. Also to
identify special formwork considerations such as decking for placement and
connections. Reviewed by the structural engineer. Reinforcing fabricator work
may be done by steel fabricator.
EM11: Formwork piece model

Disciplines Sender: Formwork Contractor
Description Identifies prefabricated or fabricated formwork pieces, a re-use schedule,
associated finish specification and materials.
EM12: Construction coordination model

Phase Concrete Placement & Resource Planning
Disciplines Sender: General Contractor
Receiver(s): Site Contractor, Mechanical Engineer, Concrete Contractor,
Formwork Contractor, Reinforcing Contractor, Structural Engineer
Description Coordinates CIP concrete with all other building systems for constructability and
clash resolution; takes place multiple times throughout the project process; relies
on concrete element objects.
EM13: Site planning model

Phase Concrete Placement& Resource Planning
Disciplines Sender: Site Contractor
Receiver(s): Civil Engineer, General Contractor, Concrete Contractor
Description Coordinates site development resources, for delivery of concrete, storage areas for
rebar, formwork, other concrete related resources, as reviewed and coordinated
with other subcontractors.
EM. 14: Detailed concrete model

Disciplines Sender: Reinforcing Contractor
Receiver(s): Reinforcing Contractor, Finish Contractor, Reinforcing Detailer,
Formwork Contractor, General Contractor
28
Description Provides reinforcing contractor detail layout, with all members defined and rebar
placed. Connections to non-concrete elements: wall systems vertical circulation,
mechanical equipment are defined. Used for structural review, finish contractor
coordination, schedule coordination.
EM15: Reinforcement placement sequence

Disciplines Sender: Reinforcing Detailer
Receiver(s): Formwork Contractor, Reinforcing Fabricator, Reinforcing Contractor
Description Coordinates reinforcement and tendon placement with placement sequence and
schedule.
EM16: Formwork placement model

Disciplines Sender: Concrete Formwork Contractor
Receiver(s): Finish Contractor, Concrete Contractor, General Contractor
Description Defines formwork placement plan; which areas use movable formwork; which
require custom work and metal decking, which need form inserts for patterning;
also includes formwork and shoring placement planning and scheduling.
EM17: Finish work package model

Disciplines Sender: Finish Contractor
Description Defines the finishing plan based on the concrete placement and curing plan and
concrete pour geometry.
EM18: Final structural design model

Receiver(s): General Contractor
Description Applies the changes in the structural design based on the feedback from the
general contractor and subcontractors regarding constructability and other issues
and to provide the complete and final structural design.
EM19: Site excavation as-built

Phase Concrete Execution
Disciplines Sender: Site Contractor
Description Purpose: document final site modifications made for concrete work, as carried out
and coordination with all reinforced concrete BIM roles: for placement, queuing,
29
access points, temporary storage. Also, document all site condition details, for
landscaping, walk concrete paving and other later works.
EM20: Construction reference schedule

Disciplines Sender: General Contractor
Receiver(s): Concrete Contractor, Finish Contractor, Structural Engineer,
Reinforcing Contractor, Formwork Contractor, Site Contractor
Description Coordinates layout of all systems for clashes and coordinate schedule of
installation, especially with formwork and finishing tasks; optionally using a 4D
configurator, also used to verify coordination with mechanical systems and
architectural intent.
EM21: Formwork as placed model

Disciplines Sender: Formwork Contractor
Receiver(s): General Contractor, Concrete Contractor, Reinforcing Contractor,
Reinforcing Fabricator
Description Fully coordinates formwork and shoring schedule with general contractor.
EM22: Actual placement submittals

Disciplines Sender: Concrete Contractor
Description Records the actual pour breaks vs. those planned, for archival documentation and
planning.
EM23: Reinforcement as-built

Phase Erection Phase
Disciplines Sender: Reinforcing Contractor
Description Documents all changes to the rebar, post-tensioning specification, and all
placement sequence adjustments due to installation and tensioning operations to
report changes to testing agency.
EM24: Client as-built model

Phase Erection Phase
Disciplines Sender: General contractor
Receiver(s): Owner/client
Description Hand over as-built model of project to client for use in facility management,
operations and maintenance, and for later remodeling.
30
2.3 State DOT Standards
As a check on the FHWA BrIM Report 2013’s process map and the industry process models,
high-level classes of exchanges currently used in DOT agencies were identified. The exchanges
listed are by no means comprehensive; rather, they are enumerated according to published
documents at DOT agencies. They reflect information exchanged outside of DOT agencies, and
do not reflect some of the more specific exchanges that may happen within a DOT agency.
Ultimately, the highest priority information exchanges are those that are between parties under
contract, for which there is added value in using standardized and documented digital exchanges
as opposed to other data formats already in use. These include the following:
1. Requirements Model
2. Survey Model
3. Structural Model
4. Documentation Template
5. Construction Contract Model
6. Bid Information Model
7. Fabrication Model
8. Construction Status Model
9. Inspection Model
The full support for the delivery of the information listed above has been taken as the priority
target exchanges to be supported in this project. Some of these are well addressed by IFC. But in
the same way that bridge engineering codes are different in the aggregate from building codes,
the specific requirements needed for bridges require careful reviews with those for buildings. It
is also important to note that while there is a history of more than ten years of effort towards full
building model automation, mainstream successful implementation is still a future goal.
With this recognition, one of these contract exchanges has been elaborated in detail herein, 6
Construction Contract Model. Volume III of this report describes the modeling of components in
detail taken from the actual plans for two example bridges. Each description of these contract
exchanges below has a section entitled “Preliminary Mapping to Process Models” that identifies
which previous information exchanges these contract exchanges can be mapped to.
This effort will focus on identifying various exchanges and describing general information to be
exchanged, and will go into detail on one of the exchanges – arguably the one most recognizable
in industry and also the most complex – issuing construction plans/specifications at the
conclusion of the design phase. This exchange was recommended for several reasons:
• Transportation agencies have the ability to create information in this format, or require
such a format from engineering firms.
• Contractors bidding a job have incentive to use this information.
• Because of its role, this information is usually well documented and usually complete
providing a good example for early implementation’
31
Initially, such digital formats may be provided as “informational” until agencies and contractors
become comfortable with the data formats and they have been thoroughly tested and validated.
Later, such formats will likely become legally binding.
It should be anticipated that there are likely additional costs and risks incurred upon initially
switching to such formats to support automation. While automation of information delivery may
reduce opportunities for human error on a per-project basis, it also increases opportunities for
human error made system-wide. Software vendors make errors, as do authors of specifications.
Achieving lower costs associated with digital delivery formats may take multiple iterations of
specifications over a large number of projects. Fortunately, for the more common bridges there is
substantially less variation and substantially fewer domain participants, compared to the building
industry. Careful review and full pursuit of standards setting practices is essential before
implementation and deployment.
2.3.1 Requirements Model

In producing design documents, the engineer must follow guidelines and templates specified by
the issuing authority, which in the U.S. is typically a State DOT agency. Such templates may
also be digitally defined within a separate exchange – see 5 Documentation Template.
A bridge is identified using parameters consistent with the National Bridge Inventory, and is
located according to geo-location standards defined by the Open Geospatial Consortium.
Phase Initiation
Disciplines Sender: Public Entity
Receiver(s): Bridge Engineer
Description This exchange describes the location and requirements of a proposed bridge, for
which an engineer may produce detailed design documents.
Major Information Items Project identifying information; geographic location and right-of-
way boundaries; route identifying information; use requirements
such as number of lanes in each direction, and minimum vertical
clearance; structural requirements such as load capacity, and
ability to withstand seismic events; and construction requirements
such as allowable closures and timeframes for affected routes
The contents of this exchange are similar to the Bridge Concept Model and the Bridge
Engineering Concept Model. The Bridge Concept Model deals more with requirements for the
goals and objectives of the project as a whole. The Bridge Engineering Concept Model deals
more with requirements from the environment (location, environmental issues, and etc.). The
contents of the IPP as described in the Bridge Concept Model and Bridge Engineering Concept
Model also conforms to the descriptions of the Requirements Model.
32
2.3.2 Survey Model
The Survey Model contains geographic information for the project site. This exchange is not
identified in the process map of the FHWA BrIM Report 2013. The new process map needs to
include this exchange.
Phase Initiation
Disciplines Sender: Surveyor
Receiver(s): Transportation Engineer
Description This exchange captures terrain elevations and soil conditions, which may be
produced by a surveyor and delivered to an engineer. Such an exchange may be
formally contracted between companies or performed in-house.
Major Information Items Project identifying information; geographic location and surveying
boundaries; and soil layers at drill points, with classification and
associated structural properties
2.3.3 Utility Model

The Utility Model addresses the information related to utilities on the project site. This exchange
is not identified in the process map of the FHWA BrIM Report 2013. The new process map
needs to include this exchange.
Phase Initiation
Disciplines Sender: Utility Manager
Receiver(s): Transportation Engineer
Description This exchange identifies locations of utilities as recorded by the controlling
jurisdiction. The accuracy of such information is intended to assist a utility locator
service in marking utilities on-site; it is not to be relied upon by itself.
Major Information Items Project identifying information; geographic location and utility
survey boundaries; distribution systems, classifications, and
authorities; and pipes or cables assigned to each system, with
locations, axis paths, and profiles
2.3.4 Structural Model

The Structural Model in the FHWA BrIM Report 2013 is further categorized by the phase of
structural design activities ranging from conceptual structure model to retrofit model.
Phase Initiation
Receiver(s): Public Entity
Description This exchange provides a structural analysis model for a bridge design. It may be
generated as part of the design and review process for original construction, or
may be generated later in evaluating or maintaining existing bridges.
33
Major Information Items Project identifying information; bridge identifying information;
physical model of bridge elements and connections (see Plan
Exchange); bridge systems organizing bridge elements (e.g. deck,
superstructure, substructure); structural analysis models
corresponding to bridge systems; structural members (curves,
surfaces, volumes), shape properties, material properties; structural
connections and boundary conditions; structural loads (point,
curve, or surface-based forces and moments); structural load cases
and combinations; structural design methodology applied, load
factors, resistance factors, finite element intervals; structural
results (deflections and maximum stresses in each member); and
physical elements selected and placed according to load
requirements
2.3.5 Documentation Template

The Documentation Template describes tables of information to be presented consisting of one
or more columns in a specified order, where each column indicates units and the precise query
into the bridge model data.
From a pure information modeling perspective, formatting may be considered superfluous, it is
foreseen as critical for parties transitioning between tabular formats in use today and all-digital
formats. It defines standardized conventions for transforming model data into familiar formats.
As conventions may vary with each agency, such translation is captured in an exchange, which
allows for standardized presentation of bridge information to evolve independently of the
underlying data.
Template information for bridge alignment may have relative positioning on an alignment curve
(stations and offsets), and conditions that apply at particular offsets or between two offsets.
Examples of such information may be found at the following links:
http://www.iowadot.gov/design/tnt/PDFsandWebFiles/CurrentBook/eEntireBook.pdf
Phase N/A
Disciplines Sender: N/A, the format is prepared by public entities (i.e. state DOT agency)
Receiver(s): N/A
Description This exchange describes required information content and tabular data formats to
be provided by the bridge engineer upon developing plans and specifications.
Major Information Items Varies by the types of the scope
2.3.6 Construction Contract Model

The Construction Contract Model is the major information exchange in design-bid-build process
between the public entity and the contractor. The major information items of this exchange are
derived from what traditionally is included in the drawing set of the sample ‘workhorse’ bridge
34
analyzed. The major information items must reflect design results, and may or may not also
include design parameters such as formulas and patterns used to arrive at the design results. This
exchange is identified as the contract model generated as an output of the Construction
Document Preparation activity by the Structural Engineering discipline in the FHWA BrIM
Report 2013.
Phase Bidding and Letting
Disciplines Sender: Public Entity (from Bridge Engineer)
Receiver(s): Contractor
Description This exchange captures bridge plan details with sufficient information for a
contractor to submit a bid and proceed with construction.
alignment curves separated into horizontal and vertical curves;
element placement relative to alignment curves; element shape
parameters (paths, boundaries, repetition patterns); element
material parameters (cross-sections, materials, properties); element
3D geometric shape; element 3D presentation of colors and
textures (for indicating architectural details); element 2D
presentation for fill styles and line styles (for deriving plan
renderings, lane striping); composition of elements and voids such
as rebar, conduit, drains; connections between elements, realizing
elements and properties; system connectivity and flow for
distribution elements including drainage; bridge elements for
abutments, piers, framing, decking; building elements for beams,
columns, members, plates; structural elements for footings, piles,
reinforcing; plumbing elements for pipes, valves, waste terminals;
electrical elements for conduit, cables, light fixtures; geographic
elements for land terrain and features; soil boring locations with
material layer depths and classification; structural load cases
indicating designed loads on elements
In addition to originating model information, derived information such as quantities and
structural results are also included in this exchange, as this information is also included in the
originating plans. While such information could be generated by software (in the same way that
it could by a human based on the plans), it is included according to the same rationale –
convenience, verification, or other requirements.
• Quantities applied to elements for count, length, area, volume, gross weight, and net
weight
• Quantity schedule with assigned elements, units, and totals
• Structural result cases indicating governing stresses on elements
In addition to originating model information and derived summary information, to assist users in
the transition to digital models, it may also be useful to include the following 2D plan
35
information such that the same format as found in plans may be derived from the underlying
information.
• Request for bid, indicating bid submission date and qualification requirements
• Bid alternates and combinations, with assigned systems and elements
• Schedule constraints, where bonuses or penalties may be applied according to completion
dates
• Index of plan sheets with layout information mapping page contents to the underlying
model
The structure of the bid may be defined to reflect varying bid scenarios such as a fixed contract
amount, alternates for separate work that may be accepted or rejected independently,
combinations of alternates where discounts may be achieved, line items with unit costs provided
where the actual quantity may vary within a defined range, line items with quantities provided
where the unit costs may vary according to market conditions (e.g. asphalt pricing index), or a
combination of all.
Plan information representative of this exchange may be found at the following links for each
state DOT agency:
Table 1. Directory of State Departments of Transportation
State Directory Example

Alabama http://alletting.dot.state.al.us/WEB http://alletting.dot.state.al.us/Docs/Standar
PROPS/2015/20150130/NTCJan3 d_Drawings/2014%20English/STDUS14_
015.htm 1400.pdf
Alaska http://www.dot.state.ak.us/apps/co http://www.dot.state.ak.us/procurement/pr
ntracts?ACTION=BIDCAL&REG elim/62638/PRELIMINARYPLANS.pdf
ION_CODE=ALL
Arizona http://azdot.gov/business/Contracts http://azdot.gov/business/engineering-
andSpecifications/CurrentAdvertis and-construction/bridge/structure-detail-
ements drawings
Arkansas http://www.arkansashighways.com http://www.arkansashighways.com/bridge

/ProgCon/General/Next_Three_Let _division/list_standard_drawings.aspx
tings.pdf
California http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/w http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_
eekly_ads/all_adv_projects.php plans/HTM/stdplns-US-customary-units-
new10.htm#bridge
Colorado https://www.codot.gov/business/bi https://www.codot.gov/library/bridge/desi
dding/future-bidding-opportunities gn-standards/structural-worksheets-pdfs
Connecticut https://www.bidx.com/ct/lettings N/A
Delaware http://bids.delaware.gov/ http://www.deldot.gov/information/busine
ss/drc/cadd.shtml
District Of http://app.ocp.dc.gov/RUI/informat N/A
36
Columbia ion/scf/indexopps33.asp
Florida http://www.dot.state.fl.us/cc- N/A
admin/Lettings/Letting_Project_In
fo.shtm
Georgia https://www.bidx.com/ga/lettings http://standarddetails.dot.ga.gov/stds_dtls/
estds.jsp?Preview=no
Hawaii http://hidot.hawaii.gov/administrati N/A
on/con/
Idaho http://qap.questcdn.com/qap/projec http://itd.idaho.gov/bridge/cadd/cadddraw
ts/prj_browse/ipp_prj_browse.html ings.htm
?group=1950787&provider=19507
87
Illinois http://apps.dot.illinois.gov/Change http://www.idot.illinois.gov/doing-
Order/ListStatus.aspx business/procurements/engineering-
architectural-professional-
services/Consultants-Resources/bridges-
and-structures-cadd-downloads-and-
guidelines
Indiana https://ecm.indot.in.gov/bidviewer/ http://www.in.gov/dot/div/contracts/stand
default.aspx ards/drawings/sep14/e/sep700.htm
Iowa http://www.iowadot.gov/contracts/ http://www.iowadot.gov/bridge/standards/
lettings.html english/j24-06.pdf
Kansas http://ksdot1.ksdot.org/burconsmai N/A
n/contracts/proposal.asp
Louisiana https://www.bidx.com/la/lettings N/A
Maine http://www.maine.gov/mdot/contra http://www.maine.gov/mdot/contractor-
ctors/#projecttbl consultant-
information/ss_standard_details_division_
500_structures.pdf
Maryland http://sha.md.gov/pages/contractad http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/Business
schedule.aspx WithSHA/bizStdsSpecs/obd/BridgeStand
ards/index.asp
Massachusetts https://www.bidx.com/ma/letting?l http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/
ettingid=20150203 DoingBusinessWithUs/ManualsPublicatio
nsForms/LRFDBridgeManual2013Edition
/PartIIandPartIIIStandardDetails/PartIICo
nventionalConstruction.aspx
Michigan http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/bid http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/design/file
s/index.cfm?letdate=2015-03-06 s/englishstandardplans/files/standard_plan
_book.pdf
Minnesota http://bidlet.dot.state.mn.us/adverti http://standardplans.dot.state.mn.us/StdPl
sement.aspx an.aspx
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bridge/culvert
s.html
37
Mississippi http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Contract%2 http://sp.gomdot.com/Roadway%20Desig
0Administration/BidSystems/Page n/StandardDrawings/1998-10-
s/letting%20calendar.aspx 01/Bridge_Culvert_Standards_1997.pdf
Missouri http://www.modot.mo.gov/eBidLet http://www.modot.org/business/consultant
tingPublicWeb/viewStream.do?doc _resources/bridgestandards.htm
umentType=schedule&key=0
Montana http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/contr http://www.mdt.mt.gov/business/contracti
act/external/reports/future_projects ng/bridge/cad_files.shtml
_schedule.pdf
Nebraska http://www.transportation.nebraska http://www.transportation.nebraska.gov/d
.gov/letting/lettings.htm esign/bridge/downloads-manuals.html
Nevada http://www.nevadadot.com/Doing_ http://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/
Business/Contractors/BidLetting.as NDOT/About_NDOT/NDOT_Divisions/
px Engineering/Specifications/english_2010s
m.pdf
New http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/adminis http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelop
Hampshire tration/finance/bids/invitations/ind ment/bridgedesign/sampleplans/document
ex.htm s/Bartlett13043.pdf
New Jersey http://www.state.nj.us/transportatio http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/
n/business/procurement/ConstrSer CADD/v8/index.shtml#SamplePlansEngli
v/bidopen15.shtm sh
New Mexico https://www.bidx.com/nm/lettings http://dot.state.nm.us/en/Standards.html
New York https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing- https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-
State business/opportunities/const- center/engineering/cadd-
highway info/drawings/bridge-detail-sheets-usc
North https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/P https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Struct
Carolina ages/Bridge.aspx ures/Pages/Structure-Standards.aspx
North Dakota http://www.dot.nd.gov/dotnet/epla http://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/design/d
ns/default.aspx ocs/standards/D255-01.pdf
Ohio https://www.bidx.com/oh/lettings http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engi
neering/Structures/standard/Bridges/Pages
/StandardBridgeDrawings.aspx
Oklahoma http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/cab http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/bridge/stan
ol/a2015/cabol_201502-feb.pdf dards.htm
Oregon http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CS/ http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/EN
CONSTRUCTION/Pages/Letting_ GSERVICES/pages/bridge_drawings.asp
Schedules.aspx x#bridge_300___concrete_beams
Pennsylvania ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/Bureau_of_ http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/BQAD
Project_Delivery/PSSCS/ECMS_P Standards.nsf/bd-archives?readform
lanned_6-
Month_Letting_Reports/detailedlet
schdl.pdf
Rhode Island http://www.dot.ri.gov/contracting/ http://www.dot.ri.gov/documents/doingbu
bids/index.php siness/RIDOT_Bridge_Standards.pdf
38
South http://www.scdot.org/doing/doingP http://www.scdot.org/doing/structural_Dr
Carolina DFs/tentativeLetting/Bridge.pdf awings.aspx
South Dakota http://apps.sd.gov/HC65BidLetting http://sddot.com/business/design/files/Def
/ebslettings1.aspx ault.aspx#bridge
Tennessee http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/constru http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/Chief_Enginee
ction/Bid_Lettings.htm r/engr_library/structures/stdenglishdrawin
gs.htm
Texas http://www.dot.state.tx.us/business https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgch
/obt.htm art/cmd/cserve/standard/bridge-e.htm
Utah http://eprpw.dot.utah.gov/applets- N/A
production/ProjectExplorer/Project
Explorer.asp
Vermont http://vtranscontracts.vermont.gov/ N/A
construction-
contracting/advertised-projects
Virginia http://cabb.virginiadot.org/ N/A
Washington https://www.bidx.com/wa/lettings http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Bridge/Structur
es/StandardDrawings.htm#Expansion
West Virginia http://www.transportation.wv.gov/ N/A
highways/contractadmin/Lettings/
Pages/default.aspx
Wisconsin http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/busi http://on.dot.wi.gov/dtid_bos/extranet/stru
ness/docs/mastercontract.pdf ctures/LRFD/standards.htm
Wyoming https://ipd.exevision.com/wydot/w N/A
s/
2.3.7 Bid Information Model

The Bid Information Model entails the itemized cost of the bidding for the project, which is
represented as a list of costs for the bidding project without any 3D modeling information of the
bridge. This exchange is a non-model based exchange and is represented as Bid Information in
the FHWA BrIM Report 2013.
Phase Bidding and Letting
Disciplines Sender: Contractor
Description This exchange comprises a bid submitted by a contractor to perform construction
work. It identifies the specific project and plan and provides requested rates and
quantities.
and cost schedule with unit prices, quantities, and totals calculated.
39
2.3.8 Fabrication Model
This exchange would be a place holder for a general fabrication exchange, since each domain
may have their own requirements. It is recommended that each domain have their own
fabrication exchange. Fabrication exchanges that have been identified by the Precast Concrete
Institute (PCI), American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), and the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) were described in 2.2 Industry Exchanges.
2.3.9 Construction Status Model

Construction Status Model provides information used for erection including erection calculation,
procedure, method, and crane types. This exchange is a non-model based exchange and modeled
as the Execution Status Report in the FHWA BrIM Report 2013.
Phase Construction
Disciplines Sender: Contractor
Description Identifies line items as submitted within the bid, applies values to each item, and
may optionally reference specific components within the bridge model to assist
the reviewer in verifying task completion.
cost schedule with assigned tasks; tasks with assigned elements
and percentages complete; and modifications to the design model
to reflect changes made during the construction process
2.3.10 Inspection Model

The Inspection Model is the same exchange as either Structural Deterioration Model or Prior
Inspection Model as identified in the FHWA BrIM Report 2013.
Phase Construction
Disciplines Sender: Inspector
Receiver(s): Bridge Engineer
Description This model contains the condition of a bridge at a particular point in time, or
multiple points in time.
performance history identifying information (date recorded, user);
performance of bridge systems (deck, superstructure, substructure);
and performance of bridge elements
40
3 Development of a New Integrated Process Map
Based on the review of exchanges defined in the FHWA BrIM Report 2013, industry exchanges
and DOT agency exchanges, the project team concluded that the exchanges listed below are
those needed during the life cycle of a Design-Bid-Build bridge project.
Table 2. List of Exchanges 3
Exchange Source
Survey Model DOT, ACI(EM3, EM19)
Utility Model DOT
Preliminary Roadway Geometry Model FHWA, PCI(BC), AISC(EM1, EM4)
Preliminary Aesthetic Design Model FHWA, AISC(EM1, EM4)
Initial Structural Model FHWA, PCI(PC), AISC(EM2, EM3, EM5)
Final Roadway Geometry Model FHWA, PCI(PCD), AISC(EM6), ACI(EM1)
Final Aesthetic Design Model FHWA, AISC(EM6)
Advance Structural Model FHWA, PCI(EDD), AISC(EM7)
Final Structural Model FHWA, PCI(AC), AISC( EM9), ACI(EM6, 18)
Construction Contract Model FHWA, PCI(EC), AISC(EM6, EM7), ACI(EM5)
Advanced Detailing Model FHWA, PCI(PDC), AISC(EM10), ACI(EM8)
Erection Analysis Model FHWA, PCI(PED), ACI(EM20)
Final Detailing Model FHWA, PCI(FPCD), AISC(EM11), ACI(EM9,

EM10, EM14)
As Built Model FHWA, ACI(EM23, EM24)
Structural Deterioration Model FHWA
Retrofit Model FHWA
GIS Model FHWA
3
FHWA : Exchanges from the FHWA BrIM Report 2013, PCI : Exchanges from the PCI MVD, AISC : Exchanges
from the AISC MVD, ACI : Exchanges from the ACI MVD, DOT : DOT agency exchanges
41
The resulting exchange set is based on exchange analyses that have been developed with input
from bridge engineers and also separately with steel, concrete and precast fabricators. The
functional details of these exchanges have not been reviewed yet by the information receivers of
those exchanges. While the new integrated exchange set has had some review through
workshops and report reviews in this project, it will still need validation from industry to accept
or further modify the process map.
The intents of the exchanges need to be defined in more detail for future implementation.
Additional work is needed to develop the new exchanges; an exercise that relies heavily on
industry input. Volume II and Volume III provide an example of implementation applied to the
Construction Contract Model. An initial integration of these exchanges is shown in Figure 2 and
the process map is further discussed hereafter.
3.1 Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN)

The process map in this Report is defined using Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN)
(Object Management Group (OMG)). BPMN is a graphical notation that depicts the steps in a
business process. BPMN depicts the end to end flow of a business process. The notation has been
specifically designed to coordinate the sequence of processes and the messages that flow
between different process participants in a related set of activities. (Object Management Group
(OMG), 2013)
Flow objects, data, connecting objects, swimlanes, and artifacts are the five basic element types
in BPMN. Flow objects define the behavior of business process and are the main graphical
elements depicting events, activities and gateways. Connecting elements connect flow objects for
sequence flow, message flow, association or data association. Swimlanes bound the modeling
elements into pools or lane. Artifacts represent additional information about the process by group
or text annotation. (Object Management Group (OMG), 2013)
A Pool in a BPMN diagram is the graphical representation of Actors who sequentially executes
the activities enclosed in the Pool. The process map groups actors as Pools, which is a practice
area or specialty of the actors that carry out the activities and procedures that occur during the
lifecycle of the process. The process map categorizes actors throughout the life cycle of a bridge
into ten types.
A Process is a sequence of Activities in a discipline with the objective of carrying out work. A
Process is depicted as a graph of Activities, Events and Sequence Flows that defines execution
semantics. The process map describes Activities in high level in order to focus on collecting
meaningful input and output instead of describing Activities in details. The process map is a
Collaboration model, which contains a collection of disciplines shown as Pools. Their
interactions are shown in Message Flows that connect Data Objects across disciplines.
42
3.2 BPMN Notation
Following are descriptions of BPMN notation types used in the process map.
Event
Something that happens during the course of a process.
Figure 9. BPMN notation for Event
Task
Activity is a generic term for work that a company performs in a process. A Task is an atomic
Activity that is included within a Process.
Figure 10. BPMN notation for Task
Sequence Flow
Sequence flow shows the order that activities will performed in process.
Figure 11. BPMN notation for Sequence Flow
Message Flow
Message flow shows the flow of messages between two participants.
Figure 12. BPMN notation for Message Flow
Association
Association links information and artifacts with BPMN graphical elements. Text Annotations
and other artifacts can be associated. An arrowhead can indicate a direction of flow if necessary.
Figure 13. BPMN notation for Association
43
Pool
Pool represents a participant in a collaboration. It can also act as a swimlane and a graphical
container for partitioning a set of activities from other pools.
Figure 14. BPMN notation for Pool
Lane
Lane is a sub-partition within a process, sometimes in a pool. Lanes organize and categorize
activities.
Figure 15. BPMN notation for Lane
Data Object
Data object provides information about what activities require to be performed and / or what they
produce.
Figure 16. BPMN notation for Data Object
Message
Message depicts the contents of a communication between two participants. Returning message
(non initiating message) uses shaded envelope while the first (initiating message) message uses
non shaded envelope.
Figure 17. BPMN notation for Message
Group
Groups graphical elements within the same category.
Figure 18. BPMN notation for Group
44
3.3 Process Map
The process map has been updated from the FHWA BrIM Report 2013, which used Pool for
activity name while the updated version uses the actor’s name to conform to the BPMN
specification. The process map has twelve actors grouped into nine phases of a bridge lifecycle
as depicted in the following two views of the process map enlarged for ease of review.
Figure 19. Bridge Lifecycle Management Process map (initiation to final design)
The twelve actors include 1) Transportation engineer, 2) Planning engineer, 3) Structural

engineer, 4) Estimator (owner), 5) Contractor, 6) Fabricator, 7) Load rating engineer, 8)
45
Inspector, 9) Routing and permit engineer, 10) Asset manager, 11Surveyor, and 12) Utility
manager. Changes to the Pools were made as follows:
• Construction engineering pool and construction planning pool are merged into
Contractor’s pool
• Detailing pool is removed
• Preliminary detailing design task is moved to structural engineering pool and renamed to
preliminary detailing
• Detailing design development is moved to contractor’s pool and renamed to construction
detail model
• Modification / integration of final detailing documents is merged into fabrication task in
fabricator pool
46
Figure 20. Bridge Lifecycle Management Process map (bidding to maintenance)
Phases are 1) Initiation, 2) Scoping, 3) Preliminary Design, 4) Final Design, 5) Bidding, 6)

Construction Planning, 7) Construction, 8) Inspection, and 9) Maintenance. Tasks of Actors
belong to one of these phases. The vertical pool in the FHWA BrIM Report 2013 process map is
modified to Group symbol in order to conform to the BPMN specification.
Actors are represented with a BPMN Pool that runs horizontally. Tasks of Actors in the Pool are
connected with Sequence Flows. A Start Event is represented in a circle, and an End Event is
represented in a circle with thicker line. A Task may produce a Data Object that indicates a
model based exchange in the BrIM Process Map. A Data Object from a Task can be used in
multiple tasks on other Pools. Message Flows with Messages indicate non-model based
47
exchanges. Messages in black indicate they are responding to Messages in white. The phases use
the Group artifact of BPMN for their notation.
Figure 19 shows processes for Initiation, Scoping, Preliminary Design and Final Design. Figure
20 shows processes for Bidding, Construction Planning, Construction, Inspection and
Maintenance. The Pools can span through multiple Groups or a single Group depending on the
existence of Actors’ Tasks.
3.4 Actors and activities

Actors can have multiple activities in a process. An activity has specific inputs that are typically
generated from other activities or from other data sources and it also has specific outputs used as
inputs by other activities. Lists of Activities were adopted from the FHWA BrIM Report 2013
and modified to represent activities relevant to model based data exchanges. They involve three-
dimensional shape representations of a bridge. Activities that only generate or consume non-
model based exchanges are opted out to facilitate a concise representation of the process model.
Descriptions in this section on the processes and activities are based on the descriptions from the
FHWA BrIM Report 2013.
3.4.1 Planning Engineer
Bridge Planning
Planning engineer develops the initial bridge program to resolve transportation problems or
needs. At the initiation stage, engineers describe a candidate project and how the project
addresses the program goals.
Preliminary Aesthetic Design Development

Planning engineer produces the Preliminary Aesthetic Design Model that defines physical
geometry. The design model can influence the appearance of the bridge structure and its
surroundings when defining the structure's type, size and location. This may influence the bridge
geometry, superstructure type and shape, substructure type and shape, appearance of
appurtenances, etc.
The preliminary aesthetic design model is used as an input for the preliminary structural design
activity. The preliminary aesthetic design can get feedback from and can be updated according to
preliminary structural design.
Aesthetic Design Development

Planning engineer continues to develop aesthetic design from the preliminary design and
generate the final aesthetic model. Structural engineer uses the model to enhance the structural
model and produce the advanced structural model. When the advanced structural model requires
48
revision, the engineers need to repeat the process. The final aesthetic model should have
sufficient information for the later stages of the project.
3.4.2 Surveyor
Survey
Surveyor generates the information model of terrain elevations, soil conditions and soil layers at
drill points, with classification and associated structural properties. This activity generates the
utility model that can be used by bridge engineers. It is noted that the Surveyor may in fact need
to be divided into other specialists such as Geotechnical and Hydraulic Engineers but is used to
cover these for this iteration of the map. These specializations could be added in the future if
deemed necessary.
3.4.3 Utility Manager
Maintain utility
Utility manager generates a utility information model including geographic location, utility
survey boundaries, distribution systems, classifications, authorities and pipes or cables assigned
to each system with locations, axis paths, and profiles locations. This activity generates the
utility model that can be used by the bridge engineer.
3.4.4 Estimator (Owner)
Conceptual Estimation
Bridge owner uses the bridge concept model to prepare the conceptual cost estimate without
benefit of detailed field investigations or project design details. Rules of thumb based on
experience can be used (cost per mile, cost per square foot, etc.).
This activity uses input from the Bridge Planning activity and outputs cost estimation. Initial
Project Proposal (IPP) template lists initial cost by project phases, duration of phase, funding
source and obligation date. There is no model-based exchange associated with the conceptual
estimation activity.
Preliminary Estimation
Bridge owner updates the conceptual cost estimate according to field investigations, major
design elements identified and major quantities estimated. The estimate methods include Benefit-
Cost (B/C) analysis and Life Cycle Cost analysis based on the bridge shoulder break
methodology that uses a shoulder break square foot unit cost basis. The shoulder break
methodology provides reasonable compensation for positioning abutments anywhere within the
49
shoulder break length along the shoulder break slope line, when bridge particulars, such as
abutment heights and locations, are not known. (Engineering Division - Office of Structures, 2015)
Updated Preliminary Estimate

Bridge owner updates the preliminary cost estimate according to the bridge structural model,
which reflects preliminary design based on detailed field investigation and condition data
collection done by the structural engineer.
Detailed Estimate
The detailed engineer's estimate which is done by bridge owners should be created based on the
items necessary and quantities calculated for the work to be performed. The detailed cost
estimate should be refined throughout detailed design. The estimate at the time of contract plans
(model), specifications and estimate (PS&E) should reflect the anticipated cost of the project in
sufficient detail to permit an effective review and comparison of the bid received.
3.4.5 Structural Engineer

Structural engineers address structural design and detailing including the structural conceptual
design, assigned loads and clearances, load aggregations and combinations and general structural
parameters. From the engineering parameters, the sizes and parameters are derived for
fabrication.
Develop Structure Concept

Structural engineer considers and investigates various project issues, elements and initiatives
which will have an effect on scope, cost, and schedule. At the end of the scoping stage,
stakeholders will have a clear understanding of the problems and needs. They will establish
consensus regarding the proper scope of the project and will make informed decisions.
Preliminary Structural Design

At the preliminary design stage, structural engineer collects detailed structure condition data,
develops feasible alternatives based on the conceptual design, studies social, economic and
environmental impacts, collects detailed structure condition data, and finally selects the most
appropriate alternative to be advanced to final design.
Structural Design Development

Structural engineer reviews and completes the preliminary structural package, and then adds
necessary detailing to the design alternative based on roadway geometry model and aesthetic
design model.
50
Preliminary Detailing Design
Structural engineer modifies and details the design alternative, and finalizes the contract plans
(model), specifications and cost estimate package.
Construction Documentation Preparation

Bridge owner collects and produces contract documentation on which various general
contractors will in turn bid. The final contract package includes plans (model), specifications and
cost estimate regarding transportation, structural design and sometimes landscaping.
Update structural model

Structural engineer modifies contract plans (model) and specifications based on the revisions
provided by contractor to reflect changes in construction. As-built plans (model) are a reflection
of the existing bridge condition.
Inspection Review
Structural engineer and bridge inspector reviews the as-built data and/or the previous bridge
inspections. The inspector identifies areas where defects were found in previous inspections.
This allows them to determine which defects previously identified have been repaired or have
increased in size and severity.
Maintenance
Cyclical maintenance activities need to be performed by bridge owners to reduce the rate of
deterioration of critical bridge elements. These activities are essential for a bridge to reach its
maximum useful life and maintain its designed level of service. The activities include bridge
cleaning, sealing cracks in the wearing surface, etc.
3.4.6 Transportation Engineer
Preliminary Bridge Geometry Development

Transportation engineer specifies the minimum requirements for bridge roadway, facility widths,
and vertical under-clearances for the bridge project. This work is done primarily based on
providing a level of geometric consistency between the bridge and the approach roadway and
recognizing the highway functional classification and traffic that the bridge serves.
Final Bridge Geometry Development

Transportation engineer uses structural models from structural engineer to modify the
preliminary highway geometry design. This revision is based on changes resulting from new
information or review comments from the final structure design. At the end of this stage, the
highway portion of the contract plans (model), specifications and cost estimate package will be
created.
51
3.4.7 Contractor
Cost Estimate
After receiving the construction contract model, general contractor and subcontractors compile a
complete "bid price" for submission by the closing date and time. Bid documents can be based
on the quantities of materials, devices, and labor in the completed construction.
Construction Planning
Contractor plans and schedules construction work properly to minimize construction time and
cost. Contractor prepares and submits a detailed erection procedure to bridge owner for each
structure in the contract. The procedure shall be in conformance with the contract documents.
Construction Detailing
After the project is awarded, general contractor receives the contract (or invited subcontractors)
develop bridge detailing calculations and drawings for fabrication, installation and erection.
Construction
Contractor and engineer-in-charge assigned by bridge owner monitor bridge construction to
verify Quality Control and Quality Assurance.
General contractor and subcontractors execute bridge construction by following construction
plans. Engineer-in-charge assigned by bridge owner is on site for quality assurance.
Contractor generates an as-built model according to the actual construction result.
3.4.8 Fabricator
Fabrication
Manufacturer schedules production process to minimize the production time and cost, by telling
a production facility when to make, with which staff, and on which equipment.
Immediately after receiving comments on the preliminary final detailing model, fabricator shall
address all changes into the final detailing model and submit them to bridge owner for final
approval.
Manufacturer uses the final detailing model to control fabrication machine and produces bridge
steel and/or concrete components in plants according to the final detailing model approved by
bridge owner.
52
3.4.9 Load Rating Engineer
Initial Load Rating

Structural engineer makes initial load rating based on final contract plans and specifications
before bridge is actually built. The initial load rating includes inventory and operating factors.
Post-construction Load Rating

Structural engineer updates the initial load rating based on the as- built bridge model after bridge
construction is completed.
Structural engineer needs to make an updated load rating calculation whenever the capacity of
the bridge changes due to the condition of the structure, impact on the bridge due to approach
roadway or deck deterioration, or if the dead load of the bridge has been increased.
3.4.10 Inspector
Inspection
Bridge inspectors use a systematic method to observe the bridge and ensure that the entire bridge
is inspected. The exact order of the inspection varies depending on the type of bridge being
inspected. The bridge inspector documents their findings in the bridge inspection report.
3.4.11 Routing and Permitting Engineer
Routing and Permitting

Based on load rating data in the bridge inventory, transportation agencies permit and route
oversize and overweight vehicles
3.4.12 Asset Manager
Bridge Programming / Retrofit / Rehabilitation

When the bridge is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, bridge engineers plan a retrofit
/ rehabilitation / replacement project based on the bridge inspection report and load rating
factors.
3.5 Exchanges
Descriptions of the exchanges in the process map are provided here.
Survey Model
Phase Initiation
Creator Surveyor
53
Users Transportation Engineer
Purpose This model captures terrain elevations and soil conditions, which may be
produced by a surveyor and delivered to an engineer.
Major Elements Geographic location and surveying boundaries, Soil layers at drill points,
with classification and associated structural properties
Utility Model
Phase Initiation
Creator Utility Manager
Users Transportation Engineer
Purpose This model identifies locations of utilities as recorded by the controlling
jurisdiction. The accuracy of such information is intended to assist a utility
locator service in marking utilities on-site; it is not to be relied upon by
itself.
Major Elements Geographic location and utility survey boundaries, Distribution systems,
classifications, and authorities, Pipes or cables assigned to each system,
with locations, axis paths, and profiles
Preliminary Roadway Geometry Model

Phase Preliminary Design
Creator Transportation Engineer
Users Structural Engineer
Purpose This model provides minimum safe geometrics for the bridge project.
Major Elements The content of this model includes but is not limited to 1) bridge roadway,
2) facility widths, 3) vertical under clearances, 4) vertical profile of all
roads, and 5) horizontal alignment data.
Level of Detail Preliminary
Special Attributes Vertical clearance
Exporting Tools InRoads, MicroStation
Importing Tools LEAP Geomath
Preliminary Aesthetic Design Model

Creator Planning Engineer
Users Structural Engineering
Purpose This model contains aesthetic design data
Major Elements The content of this model includes but is not limited to 1) location and
surroundings, 2) horizontal and vertical geometry, 3) superstructure type
and shape, 4) pier shape and placement, 5) abutment shape and placement,
6) appurtenance details, 7) colors, 8) textures, and 9) ornamentation.
54
Special Attributes Slenderness ratios
Exporting Tools MicroStation
Importing Tools LEAP Bridge, AASHTOWare BrD
Initial Structural Model

Creator Structural Engineer
Users Estimator, Planning Engineer
Purpose This model is created to help structural engineer select the most appropriate
alternative to be advanced.
Major Elements The content of this model includes but is not limited to 1) substructure
location, 2) span length, 3) full transverse section, 4) boring locations, etc.
Special Attributes Initial component sections
Exporting Tools LEAP Bridge, CSiBridge, AASHTOWare BrD
Importing Tools Estimating Link, Microsoft Excel
Final Roadway Geometry Model

Phase Final Design
Creator Transportation Engineer
Users Structural Engineer
Purpose This model contains updated roadway geometry data.
Major Elements Major elements: the content of this model includes but is not limited to 1)
bridge roadway, 2) facility widths, and 3) vertical under clearances.
Level of Detail Sufficient for final Plans, Specifications, and Estimate
Special Attributes stations, grades, azimuth
Exporting Tools MicroStation, InRoads, LEAP Geomath
Importing Tools LEAP Bridge, AASHTOWare BrD, CSiBridge
Final Aesthetic Design Model

Phase Final Design
Creator Planning, Aesthetics and Landscaping
Users Structural Engineering
Purpose This model contains updated aesthetic design data.
Major Elements The content of this model includes but is not limited to 1) location and
surroundings, 2) horizontal and vertical geometry, 3) superstructure type
and shape, 4) pier shape and placement, 5) abutment shape and placement,
6) appurtenance details, 7) colors, 8) textures, and 9) ornamentation.
55
Level of Detail sufficient for final Plans, Specifications, and Estimate
Special Attributes overhang details
Importing Tools LEAP Bridge, AASHTOWare BrD, CSiBridge
Advance Structural Model

Phase Final Design
Users Transportation Engineer, Planning Engineer
Purpose this model is used for an independent technical progress review, and then
used to finalize completed contract plans and specifications.
Major Elements this model contains 80% of the final structural plan and specification data,
including typical bridge section, bridge plan, girder section, etc.
Level of Detail 80% of final PS&E
Special Attributes bridge components, reinforcement
Importing Tools Tekla, ProStructures
Final Structural Model

Phase Final Design
Users Estimator, Load Rating Engineer
Purpose This model is used to develop detailed cost estimate and assemble a
contract package to enable the bridge owner to advertise, let, and award.
Major Elements Final structural model contains the data of the final structural plans and
specifications including completed general notes, bearing tables, camber
tables, etc.
Level of Detail Sufficient for final cost estimate and contract package
Special Attributes Reinforcing bar list
Exporting Tools Tekla, ProStructures
Importing Tools Microsoft Excel, Estimating Link
Construction Contract Model

Phase Bidding
Users Contractor
Purpose This model is for contractors to develop contractor's cost estimate,
construction planning and detailing.
Major Elements Contract package containing final contract plans, specifications and cost
estimate.
56
Level of Detail Sufficient for contractors to understand the project
Special Attributes
Exporting Tools MicroStation, LEAP Bridge, AASHTOWare
Importing Tools Microsoft Project, Estimating Link, Tekla, ProStructures, UT Bridge
Advance Detailing Model

Phase Construction Planning
Creator Contractor
Users Fabricator, Structural Engineer
Purpose This model is for bridge detailing for the bridge owner and designer to
review.
Major Elements Typical sections of components, shear key details,
reinforcement layout, rebar list, welding detail, bolt locations, etc.
Level of Detail Fabrication detailing – some components
Importing Tools MicroStation
Erection Analysis Model

Phase Construction Planning
Creator Contractor
Users Fabricator
Purpose This model is used for development of a construction schedule
Major Elements Information used for erection including erection calculation, procedure,
method, crane types
Level of Detail As required by contractor and erector
Special Attributes Erection plan, rigging details
Exporting Tools UT Bridge
Importing Tools Microsoft Project, LARSA 4D
Final Detailing Model

Phase Fabrication
Creator Fabricator
Users Fabricator, Structural Engineer
Purpose This model provides steel components and/or reinforcing concrete
components detail layout with all members defined and rebar placed for
fabrication.
Major Elements Typical sections of components, shear key details, reinforcement layout,
rebar list, welding detail, bolt locations
Level of Detail Fabrication detailing – all components
57
Special Attributes Welding, splice, prestressing strand pattern
Importing Tools CNC Software
As-Built Model
Phase Construction
Creator Contractor
Users Structural Engineer, Load Rating Engineer
Purpose This model is used by structural engineers to calculate load rating factors
and by an inspector for bridge inspection.
Major Elements Final PS&E with modifications due to change in bridge construction.
Level of Detail Sufficient for creating as-built drawings
Exporting Tools Microsoft Project
Importing Tools MicroStation, Estimating Link, AASHTOWare BrR
Structural Deterioration Model

Phase Inspection
Creator Inspector
Users Structural Engineer, Load Rating Engineer
Purpose This model is used by structural engineers to make load rating calculation
and by bridge owner to permit and route vehicles.
Major Elements Bridge deterioration data including section loss, strand loss, and crack
information
Level of Detail Sufficient for load rating
Exporting Tools InspectTech
Importing Tools AASHTOWare BrR, LEAP Bridge, CSiBridge, LARS
Retrofit Model
Phase Maintenance
Users Asset manager
Purpose This model is used for development of a bridge retrofit /rehabilitation
program
Level of Detail Sufficient for bridge retrofit
Exporting Tools AASHTOWare BrD, LEAP Bridge, CSiBridge, LARSA 4D
Importing Tools AASHTOWare BrM
58
GIS Model
Phase Maintenance
Users Permit Engineer
Purpose This model is used for development of a bridge GIS model.
Exporting Tools AASHTOWare BrR
Importing Tools LARS, Superload
59
4 Summary
This volume of the BrIM Modeling Standardization Report summarizes the development of a
new process map that captures all aspects of the bridge project development and asset
management lifecycle – the Bridge Lifecycle Management Process Map. The process map
integrates activities, actors and roles, general and detailed phasing of activities, that together
identify, in a general way, the processes used by the industry to carry out its activities (for the
most common bridge types). The process map identifies the major activities and how they are
tied together through coordination supported by data exchanged between activities. The
information flows that support the bridge design process were tested at the information
requirements level to determine what elements need to be represented for bridge exchanges.
Identifying the exchanges for which standardized documentation can be provided to support
open data exchange between parties is critical to the BrIM standardization process.
The development builds upon the process map and exchanges identified by the FHWA BrIM
Report 2013 as the basis for a new process map that expands on the previous effort. These efforts
are augmented by adding analysis from the exchanges developed for the concrete and steel
fabrication industry. Validation against the processes identified in state Department of
Transportation documents is also conducted to ensure that the process is supportive of published
requirements for which contracts between parties are being drawn. These models and exchanges
are all brought together in a new bridge process map that is in line with the process definition
procedures established for the U.S. National BIM Standard and following the buildingSMART
Information Delivery Manual (IDM) standard procedures. The resulting new process map is a
solid platform for the ongoing development of interrelated exchanges that span the full lifecycle
of common bridge types. Finally, all components of the most comprehensive exchange, the
construction contract model exchange, are put to use in detail in Volume III.
Also in this volume, the ability for design processes and data models to support downstream
processes where the labor and resources planning, the construction planning, fabrication, and
assembly of the bridge project are executed is examined. An important issue addressed in this
Report and detailed in Volume III is what information structures are needed to transfer the
construction contract model information from its given form as defined by a set of construction
drawings or models into that needed for modeling bridge components and their detailing in
sufficient detail to support fabrication. Not addressed yet is schedule planning which is being
increasingly used and is described as 4D scheduling of bridge erection modeling.
Integration of the bridge design modeling with different independently defined processes and
data models at the fabrication level for precast, steel and reinforced concrete models was
undertaken. By reviewing the fabrication models, it appears that integration with design and
construction models is practical and cost effective. A further assessment, based on the exchange
requirements between the bridge model and the outlined fabrication models found no challenging
mapping issues, beyond the varying entity types existing in bridge objects and building objects.
60
Appendix A:1 – Bridge Modeling Terminology
Terminology applicable to the process maps, models and corresponding exchanges in this Report
is identified here. The terminology is from the IFC documentation (buildingSmart International,
2015) unless noted otherwise.
actor (Object Management Group (OMG))

person, an organization, or person acting on behalf of an organization
NOTE A specialization of the general term object.
alignment
a 3D curve segment used for positioning physical structures such as components of bridges, that may be
based on a 2D horizontal alignment curve with optional 2D vertical alignment curve relative to the
horizontal curve.
NOTE In some specifications and software implementations, the term “alignment” refers only to the horizontal alignment and “profile” refers
to the vertical alignment; within this document, “alignment” refers to both.
horizontal alignment
a 2D curve used for positioning physical structures relative to coordinates at a fixed elevation,
where such curve segments may include lines, spirals, or circular arcs.
NOTE In some specifications, the term “alignment” refers specifically to the horizontal alignment.
vertical alignment
a 2D curve used for positioning physical structures with elevations relative to a horizontal
alignment, where such curve segments may include lines, parabolas, or circular arcs.
NOTE In some specifications, the term “profile” refers specifically to the vertical alignment, whereas in this document the term
“profile” refers to any arbitrary cross-section.
Attribute (ISO TC184/SC4, 1991)

unit of information within an entity, defined by a particular type or reference to a particular entity
NOTE There are three kinds of attributes: direct attributes, inverse attributes and derived attributes.
direct attribute
scalar values or collections including Set (unordered, unique), List (ordered), or Array (ordered, sparse) as
defined in (ISO TC184/SC4, 1991)
NOTE Similar to the term "field" in common programming languages.
inverse attribute
unit of information defining queries for obtaining related data and enforcing referential integrity
NOTE Similar to the term "navigation property" in entity-relational programming frameworks.
derived attribute
unit of information computed from other attributes using an expression defined in the schema
B-Rep
Boundary Representation describing a 3D solid model by its surfaces, where such surfaces may be flat or
arbitrarily curved, may have linear or curved boundaries, and may include holes defined by inner linear or
curved boundaries.
classification
categorization, the act of distributing things into classes or categories of the same type
61
constraint
restriction for a specified reason
NOTE A specialization of the general term control.
control
directive to meet specified requirements such as for scope, time, or cost
dictionary
collection of words, terms or concepts, with their definition
element
tangible physical product that can be described by its shape representation, material representations, and
other properties
NOTE A specialization of the general term product.
element occurrence
element's position within the project coordinate system and its containment within the spatial structure
exchange (exchange requirement)

the set of information that is passed between actors at a given stage in a process. The purpose of an
exchange requirement is to describe the information that must be passed from one business process to
enable another business process to happen.
exchange model (EM)

a software-neutral and semantically rich data definition of the content needed in the exchange requirement.
entity (ISO TC184/SC4, 1991)

class of information defined by common attributes and constraints as defined in (ISO TC184/SC4, 1991)
NOTE Similar to the term "class" in common programming languages but describing data structure only (not behavior such as methods).
external reference
link to information outside the data set, with direct relevance to the specific information the link originates
from inside the data set
feature
parametric and property information modifying the shape representation of an element to which it applies
group
collection of information that fulfills a specified purpose
identification
capability to find, retrieve, report, change, or delete specific instances without ambiguity
information delivery manual (IDM)1

specifies a methodology that unites the flow of construction processes with the specification of the
information required by this flow, a form in which the information should be specified, and an appropriate
way to map and describe the information processes within a construction life cycle.
instance
occurrence of an entity
NOTE Similar to the term "instance of a class" in object oriented programming.
62
library
catalogue, database or holder of data, that is relevant to information in the data set
NOTE It is information referenced from an external source that is not copied into the data set.
model
a data set, governed by the structure of an underlying schema, to meet certain data requirements
NOTE Information models and building information models are examples for a model.
model view
subset of a schema, representing the data structure required to fulfill the data requirements within one or
several exchange scenarios
NOTE Beside being a subset of a schema, a model view (or model view definition) may also impose additional constraints to the population of
the subset schema
concept
rules on using a subset of the schema structure identified as a concept template to enable a certain
functionality within the context of a concept root contained in a model view
NOTE The utilization of material definitions for a paticular concept root representing a wall is an example of a concept.
concept template
the specification of a subset of the schema structure to enable a certain unit of functionality
NOTE The identification of the entities, attributes and constraints needed to express a material definition independently on how it is utilized
later in the context of a wall is an example of a concept template.
concept root
an entity of a schema used to assign concepts to describe the required functionality
NOTE A root concept often describes a model element, such as wall, air outlet, construction task, or similar, that is the root of a graph of
connected entities and attributes defining the specific information items required, such as geometry, material, breakdown structure, etc.
object
anything perceivable or conceivable that has a distinct existence, albeit not material
object occurrence
characteristics of an object as an individual
NOTE Similar to "object", "instance", "individual" in other publications.
object type
common characteristics shared by multiple object-occurrences
NOTE Similar to "class", "template", "type" in other publications.
process
object-occurrence located in time, indicating "when"
process map (Integrated Process for Delivering IFC Based Data Exchange, buildingSMART International, 2012)
A process map is a visual representation of the logical and sequential flow of activities and information
exchanges described in use cases.
The purpose of a process map is to gain an understanding of the configuration of activities that make it
work, the actors involved, the information required, consumed and produced. Business Process Model and
Notation (BPMN) diagramming of the process model (often used interchangeably with process map) is
typically used to represent the project workflow, including the stakeholders, actors, phases, and activities.
process model (adapted from process map definition)

A process model identifies the information flows between the different actors and tasks the actors carry out
during a project workflow. It is a more general name for a process map.
63
product
physical or conceptual object that occurs in space
NOTE It is specialization of the general term object.
profile
2D cross-section defined by a closed curve with segments consisting of lines, circular arcs, or B-Spline
curves, where such cross-section may be swept along a curve to define the geometry of a 3D solid object.
NOTE In some specifications, the term “profile” may also refer to a vertical alignment curve, and the term “cross-section” may be used to refer
to a profile as described within this documentation.
project
encapsulation of related information for a particular purpose providing context for information contained
within
NOTE Context information may include default measurement units or representation context and precision.
property
unit of information that is dynamically defined as a particular entity instance
NOTE Similar to "late-bound" or "run-time" in programming terminology.
property occurrence
unit of information providing a value for a property identified by name
property template
metadata for a property including name, description, and data type
NOTE Similar in concept to "extension property" in common programming languages.
property set occurrence

unit of information containing a set of property occurrences, each having a unique name within the property
set
property set template

set of property templates serving a common purpose and having applicability to objects of a particular
entity
NOTE Similar in concept to "extension class" in common programming languages.
proxy
object that does not hold a specific object type information
NOTE a specialization of object occurrence.
quantity
measurement of a scope-based metric, specifically length, area, volume, weight, count, or time
relationship
unit of information describing an interaction between items
representation
unit of information describing how an object is displayed, such as physical shape or topology
resource
entity with limited availability such as materials, labor, or equipment
NOTE a specialization of the general term object.
NOTE the "resource definition data schemas" section is unrelated to this concept.
64
schema
the definition of the structure to organize data for storage, exchange and sharing, using a formal language
NOTE The formal languages EXPRESS [ISO 10303-11] and XML Schema [W3C Recommendation] are currently used to define the schemata
of this standard
SDK
Software Development Kit refers to a collection of software modules or definitions used to call such
software modules from a programming language.
space
area or volume bounded actually or theoretically
NOTE a specialization of the general term product.
tessellation
representation of 3D geometry according to primitives such as triangles that may be directly used by a
graphics processing unit (GPU)
NOTE all forms of geometry may be converted to tessellation and is done so for 3D visualization on any device.
type
basic information construct derived from a primitive, an enumeration, or a select of entities
NOTE Similar to the "Type" construct as defined in [ISO 10303-11].
NOTE Similar in concept to "typedef" or "value type" in common programming languages.
select
construct that allows an attribute value to be one of multiple types or entities
NOTE Similar to the "Select" construct as defined in [ISO 10303-11].
NOTE Similar to a "marker interface" in common programming languages.
enumeration
construct that allows an attribute value to be one of multiple predefined values identified by name
NOTE Similar to the "Enumeration" construct as defined in [ISO 10303-11].
NOTE Similar in concept to "enum" in common programming languages.
XSD
XML Schema Definition refers to a file format that describes the structure of data to be included in an
XML file.
65
Bibliography
AISC. (2011). BIMsteel initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.aisc.org/bimsteel
Bentley. (2012). Intergrated Structural Modeling. Retrieved from
https://www.bentley.com/en/products/product-line/structural-analysis-software/ism
buildingSmart International. (2012). An Integrated Process for Delivering IFC Based Data
Exchange. Retrieved from http://iug.buildingsmart.org/idms/methods-and-
guides/Integrated_IDM-MVD_ProcessFormats_14.pdf/view
buildingSmart International. (2015). Industry Foundation Classes Version 4 - Addendum 1.
Retrieved from http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/ifc/IFC4/Add1/html/index.htm
Chen, S. S. (2013). Implementation Roadmap for Bridge Information Modeling (BrIM) Data
Exchange Protocols. FHWA Cooperative Agreement DTFH61-11-H-0027.
Chen, S. S. (2013). Information Delivery Manual Elements for Highway Bridge Interoperable
Data Protocols. FHWA Cooperative Agreement DTFH61-11-H-0027.
Crowley, A. &. (2000). CIMsteel Integration Standards Release Two, Volume 1 Overview.
Birkshire: Steel Construction Institute and Leeds University.
Eastman, C. (2012). Cast-in-Place National BIM Standard. Retrieved from
http://dcom.arch.gatech.edu/aci
Eastman, C. (2012). Precast BIM Standard Project. Retrieved from
http://dcom.arch.gatech.edu/pcibim/
Engineering Division - Office of Structures. (2015). Preliminary Cost Estimating Worksheet for
New and Replacement Bridges. (New York State Department of Transportation)
Retrieved from
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/structures/manuals/preliminary-cost
ISO TC184/SC4. (1991). ISO 10303 Part 11 EXPRESS Language Reference Manual.
ISO TC184/SC4. (1992). ISO 10303 Part 1 Overview and Fundamental Principles.
ISO TC59/SC13. (2010). ISO 29481-1: Building information modelling - Information delivery
manual - Part 1: Methodology and format.
National Institute of Building Sciences. (2015). National BIM Standard-United States.
NYSDOT. (2012). New York State Project Development Manual.
NYSDOT. (2015). Initial Project Proposal / Final Design Report (IPP/FDR). Retrieved from
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/pdm/shells
NYSDOT. (2015). Project Scoping Report / Final Design Report (PSR/FDR). Retrieved from
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/pdm/shells
66
Object Management Group (OMG). (2013). Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN)
Version 2.0.2.
Object Management Group (OMG). (n.d.). Object Management Group Business Process Model
and Notation. Retrieved from http://www.bpmn.org
OCCS Development Committee. (2006). OmniClass Construction Classification System.
OCCS Development Committee. (2012). OmniClass: Disciplines - Table 33, Pre Consensus
Approved Draft.
OCCS Development Committee. (2012a). OmniClass: Phases - Table 31, Pre Consensus
Approved Draft.
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2009). National Bridge
Inspections Standards National Bridge Inspections Standards Regulation (NBIS).
67

Hif 16011 B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hif 16011 B

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hif 16011 B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridge Information Model Standardization

Joseph L. Hartmann, PhD, P.E.

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa

Figure 1. General steps for defining data exchange in IFC ............................................................ 1

Table 1. Directory of State Departments of Transportation ......................................................... 36

Figure 1. General steps for defining data exchange in IFC

A complete BrIM standardization effort is a large multi-year, national and potentially

Figure 2. Bridge Lifecycle Management Process Map

2.1 The FHWA Bridge Process Map (2013)

Figure 3. General Phases of Project Development and Asset Management

2.1.3 Process Map

Figure 7. Exchanges Between two Actors; Planner and Estimator

2. [EM.S/SE-E] Bridge Engineering Concept Model

3. [EM.PD/TE-SE] Preliminary Roadway Geometry Model

4. [EM.PD/PAL-SE] Preliminary Aesthetic Design Model

5. [EM.PD/SE-E-PAL] Initial Structural Model

6. [EM.FD/TE-SE] Final Roadway Geometry Model

7. [EM.FD/PAL-SE] Final Aesthetic Design Model

9. [EM.FD/D-E-LR] Final Structural Model

10. [EM.BL/SE-D-E-CM-CE] Contract Model

11. [EM.CD/D-SE] Advance Detailing Model

12. [EM.CD/CE-F-CM] Erection Analysis Model

13. [EM.F/D-F] Final Detailing Model

15. [EM.IE/I-SE] Prior Inspection Model

16. [EM.IE/I-LR-SE] Structural Deterioration Model

17. [EM.MM/SE-MM] Retrofit Model

18. [EM.MM/SE-RP] GIS Model

2.1.6 Review of the exchanges

Bridge Concept Model

Bridge Engineering Concept Model

Prior Inspection Model and Structural Deterioration Model

2.2 Industry Exchanges

2.2.1 Exchanges in the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) MVD

PC1. Building Concept (BC)

PC2. Precast Concept (PC)

PC3. Precast Contract Development (PCD)

PC4. Engineering Design Development (EDD)

PC6. Engineering Contract (EC)

PC7. Precast Detailed Coordination (PDC)

PC8. Structural Review & Coordination (SRC)

PC9. Engineering Analysis Results (EAR)

PC10. Final Precast Detailing & Coordination (FPCD)

PC11A. Production and Erection Data (PED)

PC11B. Architectural Review and Coordination (ARC)

2.2.2 Exchanges in the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) MVD

EM1: Concept Model

EM2: Initial Structural Model

EM3: Initial Steel Structural Model

EM4: Architectural Design Model

EM6: Architectural Contract Model

EM7: Structural Contract Model

EM8: Mill Order Model

EM9: Final Structural Analysis Model