Semantic 3D Modelling for Infrastructure Asset Management
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Semantic 3D Modelling for Infrastructure Asset Management Master’s Thesis Department of Built Environment School of Engineering Aalto University Espoo, 1st of November 2016 M.Sc Sanna Makkonen Supervisor: Prof. Kirsi Virrantaus Advisor: M.Sc (Tech) Sonja Vilpas Aalto University, P.O. BOX 11000, 00076 AALTO www.aalto.fi Abstract of master's thesis Author Sanna Makkonen Title of thesis Semantic 3D Modelling for Infrastructure Asset Management Degree programme Degree Programme in Geomatics Major Geoinformation Technology Code IA3002 Thesis supervisor Professor Kirsi Virrantaus Thesis advisor(s) Sonja Vilpas Date 03.11.2016 Number of pages 73 Language English Abstract Infrastructure asset management has long been based on 2D based geographical information sys- tems. However, 3D based solutions have been taking over the market and, for example, other infra- structure management phases, planning and constructions have started taking advantage of these 3D based solutions. Many studies have shown that 3D facilitates the understanding of the models which improves communication and leads to more efficient working methods. This thesis aims to outline the rationale, current practices and benefits of semantic 3D modelling in infrastructure asset management. In other words, the thesis suggests what the rationale for intro- ducing semantic 3D modelling into infrastructure asset management is, what kind of technical so- lutions or practices have been provided and what are the benefits of introducing semantic 3D mod- elling into asset management. In the end, change factors were outlined to illuminate what should be done to enable semantic 3D based infrastructure asset management. Methods used in this thesis consists of literature, software review and expert interviews. Literature was used mainly to show the rationale for the semantic 3D modelling in infrastructure asset man- agement. Software review outlined the situation of current existing practices and expert interviews enlightened the benefits and change factors to carry out the implementation in practice. The results show a clear need for 3D based infrastructure asset management. However, the software still needs to be improved and processes clarified to make semantic 3D modelling in infrastructure asset management reality. Keywords GIS, semantic 3D modelling, BIM, infrastructure asset management Aalto University, P.O. BOX 11000, 00076 AALTO www.aalto.fi Abstract of master's thesis Tekijä Sanna Makkonen Työn nimi Semantic 3D modelling for infrastructure asset management Koulutusohjelma Geomatiikka Pääaine Geoinformatiikka Koodi IA3002 Työn valvoja Professori Kirsi Virrantaus Työn ohjaaja(t) Sonja Vilpas Päivämäärä 01.11.2016 Sivumäärä 73 Kieli englanti Tiivistelmä Infraomaisuuden hallinta on pitkään perustunut 2D paikkatietojärjestelmiin. 3D pohjaiset järjestelmät ovat kuitenkin kasvattaneet suosiotaan ja esimerksiksi infraomaisuuden hallinnan muut vaiheet, suunnittelu ja rakentaminen, ovat jo alkaneet siirtyä 3D pohjaisiin järjestelmiin. Useat tutkimukset ovat osoittaneet, että 3D helpottaa mallien ymmärtämistä ja näin parantaa eri osapuolten välistä kommunikaatiota tehden samalla työprosessista tehokkaampaa. Tämän työn tarkoituksena on osoittaa perusteet, nykyiset 3D pohjaiset infra-alan ohjelmistot ja hyödyt 3D pohjaiselle omaisuudenhallinnalle. Toisin sanoen työssä selvitetään miksi 3D pohjaiset järjestelmät pitäisi ottaa käyttöön infraomaisudeen hallinnassa, millaisia teknisiä työkaluja tätä varten on jo olemassa ja mitä hyötyä 3D:n käyttöönotosta olisi infraomaisuuden hallinnalle. Loppujen lopuksi työssä määritetään niin kutsutut muutostoimet, jotka määrittävät mitä käytännön toimia tulisi tehdä, jotta 3D pohjaisesta infraomaisuudenhallinnasta voisi tulla nykypäivää. Työssä käytetyt menetelmät koostuvat kirjallisuuskatsauksesta, ohjelmistoarvioinnista ja asiantuntijahaastatteluista. Kirjallisuutta hyödynnettiin semanttisen 3D mallinnuksen perusteiden määrittelyssä. Ohjelmistoarviointia käytettiin käymään läpi nykyisten 3D pohjaisten infra-alajärjestelmien tilaa ja kelpoisuutta 3D pohjaiseen infraomaisuuden hallintaan. Asiantuntijahaastatteluiden avulla määriteltiin semanttisen 3D infraomaisuudenhallinnan hyötynäkökulma sekä tarvittavat muutostoimet tavoitteeseen pääsemiseksi. Tulokset osoittavat selvän tarpeen 3D pohjaiselle infraomaisuuden hallinnalle. Tarpeesta huolimatta olemassa olevat ohjelmistot eivät kuitenkaan vielä tarjoa riittäviä työkaluija tarkoitusta varten. Myös työskentelyprosessit ja tietomallit kaipaavat kehitystä yltääkseen 3D pohjaisen infraomaisuuden hallinnan vaatimalle tasolle. Avainsanat GIS, BIM, infraomaisuuden hallinta, semanttiset 3D mallit Acknowledgement This thesis has been made as part of my studies for Master of Science (Tech) in Aalto University. The idea for the thesis was based on the discussions with my col- leagues, especially with Tarmo Savolainen, Sonja Vilpas and Heikki Halttula, at Vi- asys VDC. First, I want to thank my supervising professor Kirsi Virrantaus (Aalto University) for giving me good advice and new viewpoints to the subject. Second, I want to thank my thesis advisor Sonja Vilpas (Viasys VDC Oy) for discussions on the topic. Naturally, I also want to thank Tarmo and Heikki for inspiring me to choose this topic for my thesis. Additionally, I want to thank everyone who participated in the interviews conducted in this thesis. Each discussion was enlightening and gave me new aspects for the topic. The interviews enabled me to introduce very practical viewpoint to complete the research which was otherwise based on literature and software review. Therefore, all interviewees were very important part of this thesis. Finally, I want to show my gratitude to anyone, who has had to deal with me during this thesis writing time, or who has been there to listen to my problems. You’re the real MVP. Otaniemi, Espoo November 1, 2016 Sanna Makkonen Table of Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................. vii Concepts ................................................................................................................... viii Käsitteet ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................. x List of Tables ............................................................................................................. xi 1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Previous Research ........................................................................................ 4 1.2 Objective of the Thesis................................................................................. 5 2 Background .................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Asset Management ....................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Infrastructure Asset Management Process .............................................. 7 2.1.2 Asset Management Standards ............................................................... 10 2.1.3 IT Frameworks for Infrastructure Asset Management ....................... 11 2.2 Semantic 3D Models .................................................................................. 12 2.2.1 Building Information Modelling ........................................................ 13 2.2.2 3D City Models .................................................................................. 15 2.2.2.1 CityGML .............................................................................................................................................. 17 3 Methods ......................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Analytical Framework ................................................................................ 19 3.2 Research methods ....................................................................................... 20 4 Rationale for Semantic 3D Modelling ........................................................ 23 4.1 Why 3D-based modelling? ......................................................................... 23 4.2 Reasons for Semantic 3D-based Infrastructure Asset Management .......... 25 4.3 Examples of Semantic 3D Models in Asset Management ......................... 27 4.3.1 Sydney Opera House .......................................................................... 28 4.3.2 Crossrail: Route across London ......................................................... 29 4.3.3 BIM-based School Maintenance in Taiwan ....................................... 30 4.3.4 Vilnius Municipal Centre ................................................................... 32 5 Practices for 3D Asset Management System ............................................. 33 5.1 Criteria for Reviewed Practices .................................................................. 33 5.2 Commercial Software ......................................................................... 33 5.3 Open Source Software ........................................................................ 36 5.2 Best Practices for Asset Management ........................................................ 39 6 Towards Semantic 3D-based Infrastructure Asset Management ........... 41 6.1 Benefits ......................................................................................................