Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1281

New ASCE Utility Design and Construction Standards

James H. Anspach, P.G.1

ABSTRACT

Utility data are used by many stakeholders for many purposes. Utility data
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 04/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

now reside in a variety of repositories, in a variety of formats, and with highly

variable reliability. As a result, there are many different data standards now in
use. They serve specific needs of the user groups. Yet even with all these
user standards, more are necessary. So far the civil engineering community’s
needs pertaining to location standards for our existing underground utility
network are rarely met for planning, design, and construction.

The American Society of Civil Engineer’s (ASCE) Construction Institute has

become the home for a basket of revised, new, and proposed standards to
assist all stakeholders in utility location, conflict analysis, and safety issues.
Its latest standard now under development is for the “as-builting” of utilities.
This addresses how exposed or newly constructed utilities should be
surveyed and documented for future users of the data. ASCE 38, Standard
Guideline for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data,
was recently updated to reflect a decade of successful use and increasing
specification by project owners and regulatory agencies. Finally, a standard
on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) emplacement and data is
underway, due in no small part to a successful implementation program by
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).

ASCE standards, developed under a strict ANSI consensus process, play an

important part in the engineers’ and constructors’ practices. These standards
supply technical information from a broad consensus group of experts, and
are frequently used by courts to assist in determining the standard of care.
This paper outlines the scope of each of these standards and how, when
bundled together, they can assist engineers and constructors in managing
their risks during pipeline projects.

Introduction

With an estimated 35 million miles of underground utilities in the United

States, and more going in every day, virtually every horizontal civil project
encounters existing underground utilities (Sterling, 2009). Reliable records on
the existence and locations of these utilities are difficult to obtain, if they exist
at all. Traditional documentation practices followed no standard practices and
were mostly left up to the discretion of individual utility owners. Some owners

1
James H. Anspach, P.G. M.ASCE. Cardno, Senior Fellow | Director of Utility Market and
Practice Development. Chair, ASCE-CI Utility Committee. P.O. Box 5994, Bend, OR 97707.
541-678-2151 James.Anspach@Cardno.com

Pipelines 2013
 Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1282

did a great job; some did not produce or keep records at all. There is a wide
variety of practices between these two extremes.

Engineers rely upon a combination of actions in order to depict utilities on

their planning, design, and construction documents. These actions are
usually left up to the discretion of the individual engineers, although some
Architectural/Engineering (A/E) firms may have more prescriptive policies in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 04/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

place, and rarely, a project owner may prescribe certain actions. A majority of
engineers perform some level of records research to identify and depict
utilities. This is sometimes through a direct request to the owners via email,
or through access to a jurisdictional Geographic Information System (GIS), or
through a One-Call design or survey ticket. The quality and
comprehensiveness of the data received from the utility owners is rarely
known. Another common action is to attempt to get the utility owners to mark
their facilities on the ground surface, and then follow up with a survey of those
marks. Some states encourage this, some states do not allow it, and in every
case, there is no guarantee that the utility owners will respond in a manner
that is timely, correct, or comprehensive. Invariably, the engineers attempts
to protect themselves from liability for missing or incorrect utility data by
placing disclaimers on plan documents.

ASCE 38

Beginning in the early 1980s, engineers also began to obtain utility

information during design by a combination of records, visual feature survey,
geophysics, and exposure in a systematic manner. This grew into the branch
of civil engineering practice called subsurface utility engineering (SUE). After
two decades of successful use and refining of some key principles, ASCE 38
was published as the engineering standard for the collection and depiction of
existing subsurface utility data. Value studies on its use in highway and water
projects consistently show a significant return on investment. It is
increasingly a major factor in arbitration, mediation, and court cases where
existing utilities caused enough issues that claims were filed.

The scope of ASCE 38 is a consensus standard for defining the practice of

obtaining utility location and characterization data, and the quality of that
utility location and characterization data placed on plans or referenced in
other documents. The standard guideline addresses (a) what technologies
are available to obtain that information, (b) how that information can be
conveyed to the information users, (c) the respective roles of the engineers
and project owners in obtaining and effectively using the data, and (d) the
costs and benefits of collecting data in accordance with this standard.

This standard, as a reference or as part of a specification or scope of work,

assists engineers, project and utility owners, and constructors in

Pipelines 2013
 Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1283

understanding the classification of the quality of utility data and to make better
risk management decisions based upon that quality (ASCE 38-02).

There are four Utility Quality Levels (QL) and most plans will end up with
some mixture of them, dependent upon scope and success of the application
of that scope. QLs are defined as follows:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 04/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Utility quality level A (QLA): Information obtained by the actual exposure (or
verification of previously exposed and surveyed utilities) and subsequent
measurement of subsurface utilities, usually at a specific point. Minimally
intrusive excavation equipment is typically used to minimize the potential for
utility damage. Accurate horizontal and vertical locations, as well as other
utility attributes, are shown on plan documents. Accuracy is typically set to
15-mm vertical and to the horizontal positional accuracy requirements of the
project, or any required statute.

Utility quality level B (QLB): Information obtained through the application of

appropriate surface geophysical methods to infer the existence and
approximate horizontal position of subsurface utilities. Quality level B data
should be reproducible by surface geophysics at any point of their depiction.
The horizontal locations are surveyed to the horizontal positional accuracy
requirements of the project, or any required statute, and reduced onto plan
documents.

Utility quality level C (QLC): Information obtained by surveying and plotting

visible utility features and by using professional judgment in correlating this
information to quality level D information.

Utility quality level D (QLD): Information derived from existing records or oral
recollections.

Pipelines 2013
 Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1284

Many engineering firms have the requisite abilities to acquire QLA, QLC, and
QLD information, but few have the equipment and training to obtain QLB (use
of surface geophysics). As such, if this QL is in scope, the utility mapping
effort is generally subcontracted to a specialty firm. Figure 1 illustrates the
reduction and sharing of risk as utility information becomes increasingly
reliable through obtaining higher Utility Quality Levels.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 04/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 1

In general the way ASCE 38 works is in this manner. Project owners and
engineers negotiate a utility mapping scope that describes project limits,
types of utilities to be depicted at a desired QL, timing of the data acquisition,
and acceptable actions for those utilities whose desired QL cannot be
achieved. The standard specifies what actions are necessary in order to
achieve a particular QL. The standard does not recommend a particular mix
of QLs as this is totally project specific. However, long time users of this
standard do have some guidance in this regard. One such guidance
document can be found within Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s
(PennDOT) Utility Manual, Chapter 8. The Construction Institute’s Utility
Committee is looking into providing additional guidance documents.

CSA S250-11

No utility mapping would be necessary if all existing utilities in the ground had
been accurately referenced to a permanent singular and recoverable survey
datum. Technology is finally available to do this through combinations of
global positioning system (GPS), light detection and ranging (LiDAR), photo-
referencing, and other geomatic techniques. Technologies are developing
and changing quickly, but are continuously heading towards documentation
and data retrieval of utility information in a cost effective and comprehensive
manner.

A balanced consensus group of utility owners, regulators, engineers,

contractors, and project owners published in 2011 a Canadian Standard CSA
S250-11. S250 references ASCE 38 as the mechanism to collect and depict
utility data on existing non-exposed utilities, and enhances this with new

Pipelines 2013
 Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1285

guidelines for the accuracies and referencing of newly installed and exposed
utilities, and guidance on depiction within GIS and other digital systems.

S250 is intended to apply primarily to the mapping of newly installed utility

infrastructure and to existing or legacy utility infrastructure when it is exposed
during the course of subsequent excavation, test holes, or ASCE 38 activities;
however, it is not intended that these requirements be applied retroactively to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 04/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

existing installations by requiring the owner to initiate independent locating

activities to update prior records (CSA S250, 2011).

S250 recognizes that the only reliable way to accurately identify and record
the location of underground utility infrastructure is to do so while the utility
infrastructure is exposed and available for direct inspection and
measurement. In situations where the utility infrastructure is hidden beneath
the surface and not exposed, although it might be possible to detect and
predict the position of the utility infrastructure, there will always be a degree of
uncertainty as to its identity and exact location.

There are two distinct opportunities addressed by S250 for providing reliable
and accurate information on utility infrastructure records. The first is at the
time of construction when the underground utility infrastructure is exposed
and visible during the installation process. The second is when the utility
infrastructure is exposed during the course of subsequent excavation for
maintenance or modification purposes, “daylighting”, or as part of a
subsurface utility infrastructure mapping investigation. In essence, S250 takes
ASCE 38 QLA and differentiates it based upon spatial accuracy and
reference by specifying (x,y,z) tolerance values (see Figure 2).

Accuracy Description Reference

level
1 Accurate to within ± 25 mm in the x, y, and z coordinates, and Absolute
referenced to an accepted geodetic datum with a 95% confidence
level.
2 Accurate to within ± 100 mm in the x, y, and z coordinates, and Absolute
referenced to an accepted geodetic datum with a 95% confidence
level.
3 Accurate to within ± 300 mm in the x, y, and z coordinates, and Absolute or
referenced to an acceptable geodetic datum or topographical and relative
cadastral features with a 95% confidence level.
4 Accurate to within ± 1000 mm in the x, y, and z coordinates, and Absolute or
referenced to an acceptable geodetic datum or topographical and relative
cadastral features with a 95% confidence level.
Figure 2. Positional accuracy of as-built records

ASCE is working with the CSA S250-11 committee and the Canadian
Standards Association to develop a similar standard for the United States.
The primary reason that ASCE is developing its own standard is for the
participation of US-based stakeholders. At this point in time, there are no
major changes expected for the creation of the new US standard.

Pipelines 2013
 Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1286

It is expected that the new ASCE standard will be used as a specification by

project owners for their engineers/contractors to supply data on installed
utilities. It may also be used by utility owners for internal records purposes. It
may be used within GIS systems as an item of metadata or attributes for
utility depictions.

RFID
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 04/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

RFID markers are used to positively identify subsurface utilities. Contrary to

simple magnetic markers, RFID technology allows the storage of information
within the markers, enabling a future retrieval and reading of this information
through a dedicated locator. Information storable within the markers consists
of alphanumerical characters which may include utility data, type and
material, sizes, placement date and other useful data. Usually RFID markers
have a unique identification number allowing vast amounts of associated data
storage in a cloud or base data system.

RFID markers for utilities have been in existence for decades, but it is only
recently that their use has proliferated as a tool for damage prevention and
utility mapping. The positive identification of a particular utility system
coupled with an accurate x,y,z location is now relatively cost effective and
easy to obtain through GPS and wireless enabled readers and writers of data.

The installation of RFID devices on utility systems is a form of in-field as-

builting, and shows great promise for automated construction. The Virginia
Department of Transportation has developed experience with RFID on
projects in its heavily utility congested northern VA district (Anspach, 2011).

VDOT was experiencing problems during construction. In addition to the QLB

map being out-of-date, significant errors in One-Call markings were occurring
during project construction. This was causing delays and all the associated
other problems. The reasons for this are many. They include:
• One-Call responders typically consist of one person with no traffic
control measures other than safety vests, meaning transmitters can not
be placed in traffic where they may need to be, vaults cannot be
opened and utilities individually clamped and traced, and heavy traffic
and tired angry commuters tend to make One-Call responders
justifiably predisposed with their safety while working in the roadway,
• Utility owner records may not yet be updated and available to the One-
Call responders, meaning they may be working with not only no
records for the new facilities, but maybe even wrong ones,
• The 30 or so utility owners don’t all use the same One-Call responders,
allowing known mis-marks to go uncorrected,
• Some utilities just can’t be detected with standard pipe and cable
locating tools.

Pipelines 2013
 Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1287

For each relocated utility, VDOT installs a programmable 3M marker ball

every 25 feet on straight installations (for both metallic and non-metallic
utilities). They are also installing them at every “tee,” crossings of other
utilities, service connections, and horizontal and vertical changes of
significance. They also install them on any abandoned facilities when they
are encountered or uncovered in the field. This gives a fairly robust “point-to-
point” picture of the newly installed utility and allows a person in the field and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 04/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in the office through UtiliMapper software to “connect-the-dots” with an

accurate result.

The information is also stored on VDOT’s construction plans in a “pop-up” pdf

format. This “as-built” information is furnished to the utility owners on a
monthly basis so that they can update their records in a timely manner. At
this time, VDOT is retaining control of the marker ball installation and program
functions so that quality can be assured for their project risk management
purposes. This may change in the future as quality control and assurances
are developed to allow others (utility companies, contractors, etc) to do so.

There are now a significant number of project owners and installations around
the country using RFID utility technology, such as airports, military bases,
DOTs, and others. There is a sufficient need, case history, and value for
RFID to have installation and use guidelines. ASCE intends to either
incorporate the use of utility RFID into its as-builting standard or create a
complementary document of some kind.

CONCLUSION

Utility depictions on plans are dependent upon receiving and interpreting data
from a variety of sources. There is a significant amount of utility location data
capture happening through one-call tickets, engineering projects (SUE), and
utility installation documentation. This data capture and value of the data
captured will increase exponentially in the near future as manufacturers such
as Vivax, Trimble, Rigid, etc. incorporate “precise” GPS and wireless into their
instrumentation. RFID is growing in importance. The sum of this data is not
valuable if it cannot be used by the wide community of engineers and
constructors when and where they need it. This data is not valuable and is in
fact harmful if it is not correct and reliable. Accurate and reliable data is
highly useful when overlain with geospatial imagery and accurate coordinate
location for a multitude of construction purposes related to damage
prevention and project risk management. Reliability must be addressed
through a combination of knowing the data’s provenience, precision,
pedigree, and accuracy. ASCE 38 and CSA 250 provide such reliability.

The harmonization of existing standards and the creation of new ones

regarding utility records generation, utility mapping, and RFID emplacement is
underway.

Pipelines 2013
 Pipelines 2013 © ASCE 2013 1288

References

Anspach, James H. and McLaughlin, Matt. VDOT’s Successful RFID Experiment. Damage Prevention
Professional Magazine, Fall Issue 2011.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 04/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ASCE CI 38-02, Standard Guideline for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data.
ASCE, Reston, VA 2002.

CSA S250-11. Mapping of Underground Utility Infrastructure. Canadian Standards Association,

Mississauga, ON. 2011.

Sterling, Ray and Anspach, Allouche, et.al. Innovation in Locating and Characterizing Utilities. SHRPII
R-01, National Academies, Washington DC 2009.

Pipelines 2013