DATA & DIGITAL | TECHNICAL


For this report, by Working Group 22 (Information


Modelling in Tunnelling) of the International Tunnelling and Underground Space Association (ITA), the stated aim is “to support the adoption of BIM and digital information management processes within the tunnelling and underground construction industry.” More formally, it is ITA report No28 –


‘Recommendations for the Application of ISO 19650 Series during the Delivery of underground Projects and Assets: Information Management Process and Responsibility Matrix – Vol 1.’ With all the mention of BIM, it should be noted that


it is a sister publication, and has a different focus, to ITA Report 27 which has a more specific focus – ‘BIM in Tunnelling: Guideline for Bored Tunnels, Vol 1. While also from the same Working Group and published shortly before, the following report looks more widely across the web of managing information compared to the (mostly) bored tunnel focus of the sister report, which T&T looked at previously (T&T Oct 2022).


CONTENTS ITA Report 28 – taking a wide look at managing the matrix of information in tunnel projects – begins by setting out terms and definitions of how BIM fits in the ISO 19650 Series standard – which it says is to be used unless national BIM frameworks are in play. What is the ISO 19650 Series? It cover service life planning for building and civil


engineering assets. It does so in two standards – Part 1: Concepts and Principles; and, Part 2: Delivery Phase of Assets. Usefully, ITA Report 28 spells these out plus lists and


succinctly details a few other relevant standards, such as for project, quality and risk management, respectively. In further setting the scene, the report also provides


a common language for its discourse and presents the terms in three tables. They include such terms as Actor, Appointed Party, Life Cycle, Trigger Event, Asset Information requirements (AIR), Project Information Model (PIM), capability, and so much more. Then comes the chapters with the graphics, which


clearly show much inter-relationships with flow arrows, node trees and circles and boxes. They are


well constructed and clear. And most useful, for when the terms involved are discussed they are many, with multiple titles, in columns of text. Even when briefly given they give quite a sense of there being a lot. Hence, the utility and value of the graphics which serve the report well. One paragraph, though, perhaps needs emphasised


more, for it is so fundamental to BIM. It states that: “The Owner or Employer is the only party which is present at all the asset life stages,” and therefore the report recommends that the entity should lead the charge on everything for information management. It can be, though, in practice, that not all Owners/


Employers are equally or sufficiently knowledgeable, or engaged, or have scale and resource even if recognition and desire exists. At times, this only adds to the puzzle of seeking clarity on what is BIM or DT, and who is in charge – and why so many parties view it all differently. In Chapter 6, WG22 puts its recommendations for


applying the ISO 19650 Series under four headings: typical underground asset life cycle; involved parties; process (answering what, why, who, when, how basics); and, where responsibilities fall (in a matrix). Working out responsibilities is always so much of a


challenge in most endeavours and it is no different here, and so Chapter 6 points to a whole Appendix (No3) to study the aspects of the Responsibility Matrix that is advisedly to be used in working out the cogs and key holders in information management of BIM. Usefully, too, the appendices also compare and


contrast – again in a helpful matrix - how different countries (ITA member nations) approach the stages of information management of BIM, from concept to build in the short-term to handover asap to then operate & maintain for the long-run. In Appendix 3, diagrams abound, in a visual


progression of the stages. They’re good. The two reports on BIM from ITA’s WG22 should go


some way to coalesce points of understanding and allow more industry discussion, and debate on ways forward, to use the powerful new – and accelerating – data and digital technologies more effectively to help develop and run increasing numbers of tunnel projects and underground assets.


December 2023 | 39


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53