Been watching it happen locally. Curb and gutter controlled by a robot, no stakes. Entire subdivisions built using machine control. One of the best things ever. Construction surveying will soon be a thing of the past.
You're not far from it. Some things will stick around. I used to set up floor control in buildings so M.E.P.F's and carpenters could lay out their stuff. Now we set up control so we can let Dusty the Robot lay out everything. The sub's now send us their points and Dusty does it all at the same time. The future development plans for this dude are pretty wild!
Construction surveying will soon be a thing of the past.
Construction surveying as we have known it will soon be a thing of the past. Nowadays they need modellers and controllers. Hub pounders, not so much.
The logical choice for who provides the model is the firm that designed the project. No need to reinvent the wheel. Only QC and tweak it. On large public work projects most contractors employ people capable of doing the modeling.
Only QC and tweak it
The QC is absolutely vital.
We have all seen bad engineer's plans - yes?
Well that BIM datafile is just the same
Only worse
!
Providing that QC "yes it can be built" at an early stage adds value - and contractors will pay $$$ - there's a job there for surveyors.
Tweaking it adds much liability. But there is a often a need to take the engineer's design and make it 3d and well modelled. Very good $$$ in that income stream too.
Then it gets set out - more surveyor $$$
And someone does AsBuilt and recording - probably a surveyor
And all of that is based around that one model and data source
That data has to be 'right'
And it often isnt
And it often changes during the actual construction
If you are going to jump into that stream how do you properly QC a model at least as far as to your own satisfaction?
And what about to the satisfaction of your insurance company.
Got a good audit trail? and can you prove it when the proverbial hits the fan?
'Cos it will...
@norman-oklahoma Common practice down here, especially getting toward finished grade. Makes sense to me, it is more precise. Sometimes you see both in use on the same site.
@norman-oklahoma - thanks for posting this and which constellations you were tracking - really interesting to see this data. I've been wondering how tight the vertical might be lately via a base/rover rtk setup
The logical choice for who provides the model is the firm that designed the project. No need to reinvent the wheel. Only QC and tweak it. On large public work projects most contractors employ people capable of doing the modeling.
Trust me I'd love to agree with you here, but most civil engineers & their CAD designers these days don't have a clue about how to grade a project. The majority of them are only concerned with getting plans permitted and moving on to the next project - which I can understand is important but the quality of the designs or the ability to actually construct what they show leaves a lot to be desired. Some will send you a half way useable CAD file for GNSS models for construction and you can just check it before creating something from it. Others will either refuse to share a file, or they might send you a surface that has serious issues once you start evaluating the TIN. -OR- they send you something as laughable as "proposed contours" that are splines for sites that are dead flat (talking 0.5% or sometimes flatter around here) so you're asking yourself "the plans don't show any spot elevations nor slopes stated so what are we really doing from this contour to the next?" Assumption is dead flat but I've seen a lot of times where the engineers claim they wanted the parking lot inverted to convey the water thru the aisle to the inlet, yet the contour may not have depicted that due to the lack of elevation change? It's maddening!
From what I've found too, most GNSS machine control systems require that particular brand's proprietary file format and software to create the GNSS machine control files for the system. But those brand of machine control often can't just import the engineer's CAD file data directly from Autodesk C3D/LandDesktop, Carlson, Microstation or TBC - contrary to popular belief. You typically have to either have purchased the hardware from that brand for their software or add-in file conversion (via a serial number) or you can purchase the software they sell. Topcon/Sokkia & Trimble both seem to do this from what I can tell so I try to stick to building only Topcon machine control models via Civil 3D. I'll start with a surface created in C3D, extract what I need out of it, export those items individually to the Topcon file types necessary (sometimes TIN is separate from linework if the contractor is running old stuff). Help the contractor with the control file & localization as that's what Topcon's procedures require, and then we'll usually check the model to make sure the proposed grading makes sense with the cut & fills as well as where it's saying to do so. How they mount the base is critical too - some will do some jank stuff with a wooden 8' long 2x4 with a metal bracket & 5/8-11 stud welded to it and say "oh it's fine - it didn't move" LOL
I’m not suggesting that is what should be loaded into the machine. Only that the designer should provide their surface file. I don’t know any surveyor who is in the habit of obtaining information from others without checking, verifying and in this case modifying it for it’s intended use. There are places on almost every site that the operator needs to turn it off and freehand it. Landscape mounds with tight radius’s are an example of one. I haven’t seen many skidsteers or mini excavators with machine control.
I've seen far too many electronic files that were an absolute trainwreck, but somehow the paper output was acceptable and buildable.
If you can't build it from a set of decent plans, who's fault is that?
Tools, technology, and toys are great, and yes, the future is looming.
At what point did 3rd party folks become "entitled" to a model, tin, linework, etc?
The "staking role" was just transferred from one group of people to another.
And the initial folks were probably best situated to handle it anyway, and best capable of mitigating the risk/liability.
I don't think too many give $0.02 of worry about how hard the model prep people have it.
At what point did 3rd party folks become "entitled" to a model, tin, linework, etc?
Never. But the owner/developer is entitled to the most efficient processes that lead to the completion of the desired development. When the engineer knows that a useable terrain model is a desired (ie/required to meet client expectations) deliverable, a useable terrain model will be delivered, or the engineering firm gets no more assignments.
It's not just the staking and the earthworks. Look into the acronym "BIM". There are loads of opportunities in the construction business for surveyors, but the role is changing.
Look into the acronym "BIM".
BIM was those trainwrecks I was talking about earlier, which was at my last corporate job.
Automation and electronic deliverables is a wonderful thing, and we live in a wonderful time.
My experience has been that most places just don't take the time to set everything up correctly, and don't get people the appropriate training.
You'd think with the $100's of thousands spent on Autodesk licensing, the achitects, engineers, and surveyors in a modern shop would integrate their packages so the workflow was how Autodesk intended.
Nope. Cut off their nose to spite their face.
Kinda odd how the last people in line (architects) are dictating how things start (surveying) and how the middle (engineering) must be changed to refelect "their vision".
If anybody thought engineers were wishy-washy, you're probably not going to like architects and BIM.
Besides, the carpenters layout most of the building stuff anyway. At least around here.
@norman-oklahoma hey did I miss this - where exactly in the road were the nails set? Over in that median or off on the shoulder closest to the tree canopy?
Engineers that don't share their CAD files in 2023 are not providing a quality service. I've been working with engineers longer than is healthy for a PLS and the good PEs have nothing to hide and do everything to make sure their design is built well. In my area, engineering colleges could do more to teach CAD, as many PEs are boarding on negligence in their thorough ignorance of modern drafting and the resulting deliverables.
I agree that hard copy plans should stand on their own merit, but a client shouldn't have to request that PE qualifications include workable CAD drawings. I'll also add that engineers get a big enough slice of the pie that they can just go ahead and list all quantities associated with the project. Maybe it's a NC thing, but too many firms don't provide CAD dwgs or quantities and I'm tired of spending time on Bluebeam tracing LOD and curb.
where exactly in the road were the nails set?
In the east side curb (the right-hand side in the photo).
BIM was those trainwrecks I was talking about earlier
You don't expect revolutionary change to happen without some pain, do you?
