Proceedings of the Design Modelling Symposium Berlin 2009 University of the Arts Berlin

Dipl.-Ing. Andreas KLUIBENSCHEDL, Civil Engineer Civil engineer with 17 years of professional experience specialized in structural engineering design, preparation of tender documents, implementation and consulting. Responsible, as head of the Structural Engineering and Construction Division, for all aspects of consulting and design as well as structural analysis (FEM), coordination of cooperation between owners and other design firms. Head of Department for Research and Development in the areas of numeric simulations, dynamics and structural measurement, especially the development of structural health systems for structural elements. Bernard Ingenieure, Hall office@bernard-ing.com Dipl.-Ing. Marek MAJCHER, Civil Engineer Civil engineer with 25 years professional experience in civil engineering and bridge construction as well as steel and reinforced concrete construction. Responsible for the Catia application in the design of Civil Engineer structures by Bernard. Coordination of all technical Catia questions in the company.

DESIGN MODELLING SYMPOSIUM Universitt der Knste Berlin 2009

Using CATIA V5 in Civil Engineering Design

Andreas Kluibenschedl, Marek Majcher

Introduction For several years now, the Bernard Group has been using CATIA V5 for 3D design in the area of reinforced plastics, as well as in civil engineering. Specifically, this area comprises the construction of structures such as bridges, power stations and industrial facilities as well as architecture. The Bernard Group consists of 10 companies with over 400 employees who are active in the manufacturing, energy, traffic system and infrastructure sectors. Differences between 2D and 3D planning It is extremely interesting to observe the development processes in planning in the civil engineering sector and compare these with those in other industries (such as mechanical engineering, automobile industry, aircraft construction, shipbuilding, etc.). The industries that developed rapidly (aircraft construction) began employing 3D planning in the 1960s and 1970s. Only initial signs of use can be observed in the construction industry, while 3D planning is already firmly established in architecture. In the 1980s, the first 2D programs for use in civil engineering appeared. But this was not a 2D revolution. The nature of the planning remained the same. The drawing board was replaced by the computer, monitor and input devices. The planning processes were accelerated and improved. The plans were often much more legible and cleaner. But the form of the plans corresponded to those produced with ink on the drawing board. The ease with which so many millions learned to use these tools was one of the main factors that drove this development so rapidly. What we often forget today is that over the past 25 years these programs developed together with the planners. There was never any pronounced development leap. In this period, 3D applications were maturing in other industries. Today, it would never even occur to anyone to plan an aircraft or a car in 2D. The time is now ripe in the construction industry for completing a transition to complete 3D planning. The greatest advantages of 3D planning for the construction industry are the same as in other sectors. A virtual model of the structure is created that can be used with great success from its inception through its entire technical period of use. Once defined, a model supports even those parties who must be considered laypersons (on the municipal level, public project presentations, industries not directly associated, etc.). In our opinion, the advantage for civil engineering is even greater than in other industries, because the lifespan of the structures is much longer than that of a car or plane. Consequently, maintenance, renovation, conversion and urban development would be greatly facilitated through the availability of virtual models which databases could access in the course of structural preservation.
CASE STUDIES 227

A further advantage is that the construction industry seldom has the opportunity to build a prototype to verify the static and functional fitness of the model. 3D models represent an affordable alternative to prototyping, in which all spatial conditions and conflicts can be represented and studied. Differences between 2D and 3D planning Generally speaking, 2D and 3D planning represent quite different processes, both from a structural and a technical perspective. 2D planners are forced to imagine a structure and then create the necessary sections and views on the basis of these imaginary images. These also represent the end results. The virtual structure remains an imaginary product, dependant on the powers of imagination of each individual who works with 2D plans. A 3D planner constructs a model down to the last detail The sections and views are, in a sense, a byproduct. These are usually generated fully automatically. Changes are always performed on the model and not on the sections. Recommended approach in 3D planning In our experience to date, the following approach has been arrived at for structures, depending on the planning phase (concept proposal, preliminary project with variants, tender project, execution project). Import of terrain data: A model of the terrain must exist as the basis for all planning phases; this is produced using survey data, satellite images, DGM model data, etc. The 3D terrain data, generally a point cloud, is converted into a surface or space model of the terrain using a software program. There are not yet any programs for this purpose designed specifically for civil engineering, so that software must be used that is actually intended for converting data from prototype and tool measurements into 3D models to enable comparison with the design model. One difficulty here is using global coordinates and basing the terrain model on them. In the concept proposal and preliminary project phases, all relevant parameters of an structure can be tried out on a 3D model and their effect on the functionality, the structures compatibility with the environment, etc. can be verified.In these phases, the cost estimates of the diverse variants are an extremely important aspect. These estimates are easier to generate in 3D planning, as the quantities (volume, weight and other values) are either available directly or easy to derive. Tender project: In this phase, it is necessary to define detailed lists of parameters, which are compiled for a selected variant. It is possible to decide whether and how many of these parameters have a generative character. In other words, the decision as to the further usability of the objects, or their uniqueness, is made here. The choice of parameters is very important for efficient detail planning, because they open up the possibility of making changes in a selected variant at a later date. The capabilities of parametric design represent an important optimization aid here.

DESIGN MODELLING SYMPOSIUM Universitt der Knste Berlin 2009

Kluibenschedl, Majcher: Using CATIA V5 in Civil Engineering Design Decisions regarding distribution to the elements: Modules, dependencies, technological construction processes (construction phases) extremely time-consuming and complex phase that also has major consequences for the construction of the structure. Any subsequent changes must be realized with a great deal of replanning effort. Definition of control sets: in general, these are parts that contain the most basic geometric elements (points, lines, planes) and defined axes (traffic planning data), connections to adjacent structures (surveyors data) or other accepted design parameters (in consultation with architects and specialist planners). In the case of large structures planned by an interdisciplinary team, it is necessary to publish these geometric elements, which will serve as interfaces for the cooperating groups (decisive for problem-free, successful cooperation). Design of individual elements, grouping in elementary modules and super-modules. Completion of model. Verification checks (conflicts, fulfillment of assumed and defined criteria, etc.). 2D work component, derivation of 2D plans. This part of the work is extremely complex and time-consuming (particularly for long structures with complex geometry). Presentation of various structures modeled using CATIA Generative model for road and railroad bridges In the course of the modernization and new planning of a 650 km rail line in Algeria, it became necessary to plan approx. 250 bridges of a single type. There were two main types: a road bridge over a multi-track rail line (varying numbers of tracks) and a rail bridge over the roads (also different types of roads: rural roads, national roads, highways). It appeared impossible to complete this task in the allotted time using 2D planning. Consequently, the general management decided to plan these bridges in 3D with the aid of a generative model. After a brief preparation phase, we found that we could only successfully plan such a model if the transportation planners first defined the parameters of the largest part of each bridge and submitted these to the CATIA designers in the form of Excel spreadsheets (which proved to be a great challenge for the colleagues in this department). Subsequently, we agreed that they would successively provide us with the data for the sections of the line. In the further course of the planning, this decision metamorphosed, and they continually defined the transportation parameters so that the capabilities of the model were fully utilized but never exceeded (e.g. intersection angle of the railroad bridge and the road was never set smaller than approx. 60 degrees).

CASE STUDIES

229

DESIGN MODELLING SYMPOSIUM Universitt der Knste Berlin 2009

Kluibenschedl, Majcher: Using CATIA V5 in Civil Engineering Design Each model was controlled by four Excel sheets, one each for: The track axis The road axis The transverse gradient of the road The topography of the terrain

These spreadsheets were assigned a specific format that was matched to the format of the Excel sheets in the traffic system section. The task was enormous. Over 1000 Excel spreadsheets were generated for each bridge, some of which contained up to 600,000 rows. In the further course of the project, the controlling of this parameter generation reached a state that was hardly imaginable. Particularly the verification of this data before reading it into CATIA demanded great stamina from the examiner. The models themselves were defined so that the changes could be controlled via these spreadsheets. Thus, a new bridge had a new road axis, track axis, transverse road gradient and terrain form. The structural line changed to match the new road angle, the bridge height and the side lengths to the new terrain form. And it worked. Unfortunately, not without problems. It became apparent that it was not possible to generate the models in the global coordinate system, so all spreadsheets additionally had to be transformed to a local coordinate system. Also, the 2D derivation proved to be extremely time-consuming, and instead of the calculated four hours per bridge this cost us eight to 12 hours (for the total time for generating and outputting the 2D plans).

CASE STUDIES

231

DESIGN MODELLING SYMPOSIUM Universitt der Knste Berlin 2009

Kluibenschedl, Majcher: Using CATIA V5 in Civil Engineering Design Renovation of a motorway bridge in Vienna construction phases Unlike the first example, this could also have been solved with the aid of 2D planning. However, the principal found out that traffic conditions would become so complicated during renovation that conventional planning would become extremely unclear. Also, the 500 meter long bridge spans numerous obstacles in a developed area: motorways, a railroad station, a stream, district warming pipes, etc. It would certainly have been difficult and troublesome to represent these conditions in 2D planning. On account of these considerations, we decided to plan the bridge in 3D. We underestimated the difficulty and complexity of this task. It ultimately proved necessary to design three bridge models: first the old bridge on the basis of existing data and in all construction phases (demolition work), then the bridge for the left roadway and finally the bridge for the right roadway. The terrain model is a story in itself, as for some parts we received multiple sets of surveyor data, often not harmonized. Arch bridge over the Rhine The Austrian Railways commissioned us to plan the new Rhine bridge on the St. Margrethen Lauterach line. The principal was determined to build an attractive arch bridge. For this reason, an architect was engaged from the very beginning whose task it was to find the optimum form for the supporting structure and the arches. We knew that we would receive multiple drafts from the architect, some with differing geometries, and that numerous changes were to be expected even after a variant had been chosen. To meet these demanding requirements, we decided to plan the bridge in 3D. The final form of the bridge emerged in the course of the planning process. It is 102 m long. The main load-bearing structure is a single-span, single-track railroad deck with a gravel bed over the whole length and consists of steel main girders and dead-end transverse girders with transverse in-situ concrete road surface. The roadbed is suspended from a concrete arch that arcs above the main span. The height is approx. 20 m.

CASE STUDIES

233

DESIGN MODELLING SYMPOSIUM Universitt der Knste Berlin 2009

Kluibenschedl, Majcher: Using CATIA V5 in Civil Engineering Design Bobsled course made of prefabricated elements In this research project, the Bernard Group research subsidiary RED Bernard developed a novel bobsled course made of prefabricated elements. The challenge in this project was the design of the clothoids and curve elements. As the line of travel of a bobsled, unlike conventional vehicles, is a curve in space, the challenge was to ensure that the track elements showed the minimum possible curve changes, both horizontally and vertically. Modeling of structures with regard to structural preservation and renovation One issue still not resolved is the supporting documentation for structures. There is a wide variety of approaches taken by those active in structural preservation to document the changes in a structure over its lifespan (e.g. bridge books). When structures are planned in 3D, these changes can be directly assignable to the components via databases, and thus represented in a much more consistent manner. In our work, the comprehensibility and legibility of the structures is paramount. From our experience to date, we have learned that it is much more difficult to live up to this standard in 3D planning. The tasks are simply much more complex than in 2D planning. The multiplicity makes these tasks much more difficult. The internal office guidelines must also be adapted for the various types of structures. Guidelines defined for a bridge, for example, are not suitable for a hydroelectric plant. R&D potential: 3D planning in the area of automation and industrialization The area of automation and industrialization in civil engineering entails great potential for R&D. The basis for this is end-to-end 3D planning. Consequently, the first step is to adapt the 3D programs to better suit the needs of civil engineering. As a vision for civil engineering, one can imagine formwork robots and reinforcementlaying robots assuming a large part of concrete work in the distant future. Such technology will not be used at the current construction site of Bernard Ingenieure in Riad, Saudi Arabia, with daytime temperatures of 50 C, which is currently just getting under way; but perhaps in 2020 for the foundations of the planned solar power station in the deserts of North Africa.

CASE STUDIES

235