GPS Excavation Monitoring Solution

Design Session

Overview

• Problem Statement

• Performance Requirements

• Workflow

• Excavation Monitoring Hardware

• Software Platform

• Analytics

• Notification and Viewing

Problem Statement

• What are we trying to prevent?

• Let’s look at CGA’s DIRT report and PHMSA data . . .

Root Cause of Damages for NG Distribution

Professional excavators should be the target user

Backhoe/trenchers should be the target equipment

Work associated with sewer, roadwork, and telcom should be targeted

Monitoring should focus on excavation in city streets

PHMSA NG Transmission Incidents

• Contractors with no one-call ticket were the majority

• Vertical drilling (augers, piles, post hole) was common

• Performing work for telcom, water, and highway was common

• Several farm/agriculture related incidents

• Minimal homeowner related incidents

• Some ancillary equipment hits

Performance Requirements

• Focus on professional excavators using backhoes/trenchers performing work associated with public improvement projects in city streets

• Include monitoring vertical drilling/boring

• Address “no notification made” encroachments

Performance Requirements

• Provide real-time warning of potential encroachment – Utility operator

– Equipment operator

• Monitor ancillary equipment

• Minimize false alarms – GPS accuracy

– Determine when digging is actually occurring

• Minimize burden, both cost and complexity, for excavators

Focus

• Transmission pipe

• Distribution pipe in non-congested areas

• As higher accuracy GPS decreases in cost the technology can be adopted in more urban areas

Workflow

Cloud-hosted web service built on ESRI’s ArcServer that collects GPS and sensor data from excavators using GeoEvent Processor

and pipe location data from operator’s GIS.

Analytics that use movement and sensor data to predict digging and compare excavator location to pipeline locations.

Website to provide (potential) excavation activity and

encroachment viewing.

GPS and sensor data from excavator

Encroachment warnings sent via text or smartphone viewing

GIS data from

operator

Excavator location data

and encroachment

warnings viewable in

GIS

Operator’s GIS

Open Discussion

• Do you have any thoughts on the proposed workflow?

Excavation Monitoring Hardware

• GPS

– Location

• Sensors

– Digging indicator

Excavation Monitoring Hardware - GPS

• Smart Phones

Advantages Disadvantages

Very Low Cost ($100 - $500) 3 Meter Accuracy

Prolific, Easy to Acquire Unusable in Areas Without Cellular

Built-in Sensors Battery Life

Cellular, BT, and WF Communication

Mapping Interface

Sophisticated Messaging

Excavation Monitoring Hardware - GPS

• Construction Fleet Management Devices

Advantages Disadvantages

Two-way Messaging 3 Meter Accuracy

Built-in Sensor Ports Text or Flashing Light Messaging

Built-in Cellular Communication No Integrated Sensors

Hardened, Designed for Construction Unusable in Areas Without Cellular

Web-based Viewing Tied to Specific Vendors

Equipment Diagnostic Monitoring Higher Cost ($700 - $1200)

No Battery

Excavation Monitoring Hardware - GPS

• Asset and Personnel Tracking Devices

Advantages Disadvantages

Low Cost ($150) 5 Meter Accuracy

Ability to Pair with a Smartphone No Messaging

No Integrated Sensors

Tied to Specific Vendors

Battery Life

Unusable in Areas Without Cellular

Excavation Monitoring Hardware - GPS

• Satellite Asset and Personnel Tracking Devices

Advantages Disadvantages

Low Cost ($250) 5 Meter Accuracy

Complete Coverage via Satellite Limited Messaging

Ability to Pair with a Smartphone No Ability to Integrate External Sensors

Tied to Specific Vendors

Battery Life

Considerations

• Smartphone – Lowest cost, easiest to implement

– Excavators will be encouraged or required to download a smartphone application that must be turned on when they are operating a piece of excavation equipment

– Smartphone application will automatically send location and sensor data to web service

– Warning notifications can be sent directly to the device

– Can be utilized with vertical drilling and agricultural activities

– Practical considerations • Say, 70% of excavator personnel already have a smart phone, but these may be personal devices

not issued by the employer

• Alternative would be a company device that is mounted in the excavation equipment, but . . . – Theft (could be in a locked case)

– Battery life (could be wired into excavation equipment)

– Safety, worker distraction

• Requires the user to actively do something everyday, easy to forget or ignore

• Enforcement is difficult, how can we ensure that the app is turned on every day, every time?

Considerations

• Construction Fleet Management Devices – Most expensive, requires installation

– Not feasible for some digging equipment (jack hammer, vertical boring)

– Warning to excavator is limited to a flashing light on a black box

– Every vendor product must be individually integrated

– No battery needed, wired to power from equipment

– Wired to equipment diagnostics, provides indicator of digging

– Does not require the user to do anything

– Minimizes the burden of enforcement, the device is automatically turned on when the equipment is turned on

– Provides other benefits to excavators

– Law could require every piece of excavation equipment to have a registered device that sends periodic GPS positions to a monitoring service provider

Excavation Monitoring Hardware - Sensors

• Sensors to determine when digging is occurring – Vibration

– Inclination

– Accelerometer

– Proximity

• Some sensors are inside smartphones

• Some sensors are external and connected via BT or port

• GTI will perform testing to evaluate the need for and value of external sensors

Open Discussion

• Which GPS hardware option do you think will be most successful?

Software Platform

• ESRI’s ArcServer

• ESRI’s GeoEvent Processor

– Connects sensors to GIS in real-time

– Allows filters and analytics

– Sends automated alerts based on pre-defined criteria

Analytics

• Algorithm to use inputs (movement patterns, vibration, sound, inclination) to predict when digging is occurring

• Sensitivity to critical assets and map accuracy

• Output is a determination that digging is occurring in close proximity to an asset and a warning should be issued

Notification and Viewing

• Utility and/or Equipment Operator

• Viewing options

– Website via smartphone

– Website via desktop

– GIS

• Notification options

– Text, phone, email

– Flashing lights (operator directed on machine)

Open Discussion

• Any concerns with the proposed approach for software, analytics, and notifications?

Commercialization Options

• Delivery of Digging Activity Data – Service company will collect and filter GPS and sensor data

from excavators – Service company will send digging locations to utility

operators – Utility operators will import digging location data into GIS

and make decisions

• Advantages – Does not require utility operators to share data with a

service provider

• Disadvantages – Requires utility operators to perform their own monitoring

Commercialization Options

• Delivery of Encroachment Warnings – Services company will collect GIS data from utility

operators – Service company will collect and filter GPS and sensor data

from excavators – Service company will predict encroachment and send

warning to equipment and utility operators

• Advantages – Does not requires utility operators to perform their own

monitoring

• Disadvantages – Requires utility operators to share data with a service

provider

Open Discussion

• Which commercialization option do you think will be most successful?

Other thoughts?

Performance Requirements

• Address professional excavators using backhoes/trenchers performing work associated with public improvement projects in city streets

• Address vertical drilling and agriculture

• Address no one-call ticket situations

• Provide real-time warning

• Monitor ancillary equipment

• Minimize false alarms

Does our solution address the targets and meet the performance requirements?

• Professional excavators – yes

• Backhoe/trenchers – yes

• Public improvement projects – yes

• City streets – sometimes

• Vertical drilling – sometimes

• Agriculture – sometimes

• Real-time warning – yes

• Ancillary equipment – yes

• Minimal false alarms – hopefully!

Does our solution address root causes?

• Excavation practices insufficient (41%)

– Clearances not maintained – yes

– No hand digging – no

• Notifications not made (29%)

– Occupant/farmer – maybe

– Professional excavators - yes

• Locating practices insufficient (20%)

– Poor maps - no

– Poor locating practices - yes