Ohio DOT's Geotechnical Management System:Drilling Request to GIS<br />Columbus, Ohio<br />Thursday, August 5, 2010<br />S...
Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
Segue…Uses for DIGGS<br /><ul><li>Send data to others (lab, client, consultant, others)
Receive data from others
Internal for data flow (to different software programs, to different data bases)
A key component of a geotechnical management system</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br /><ul><li>User Needs Interviews by GeoDecisions
Centralized data repository
Internal/external secure access
Borehole logs
Laboratory test data
Technical application software
Search, input, and export data
GIS</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br /><ul><li>Document Management Assessment by tsaAdvet
Hundreds of 1000’s of maps, plans, as-builts, …
Hundreds of $M in value</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br /><ul><li>Detailed Assessment by EarthSoft…user survey
2/3 of data is collected on field sheet or notebook
96% of data shared by manual log sheets
Almost 2/3 of archived data stored in boxes or warehouse
Over 50% of respondents have lost valuable data
97%...important or absolutely necessary to share data
92% prepare, report, archive geotechnical data on paper
96% say it is important or absolutely necessary to store geotechnical data electronically
Most commonly used lab data: particle size, moisture content, Atterberg</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br /><ul><li>Detailed Assessment by EarthSoft…user survey
Results of survey allowed prioritization
Phased implementation</li></ul>Geotechnical Management System<br />Borehole<br />Logging<br />Instrumentation/<br />Monito...
Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br /><ul><li>Detailed Assessment…user survey
Phased implementation
Borehole data
Drilling data
Laboratory test data
Integration with Falcon
Integration with ESRI GIS
EarthSoft contracted to build GeoMS on top of EQuIS
A “design/build” approach was adopted, which has proven to be a good thing</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
GeoMS Overview<br />EQuIS<br />GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br /><ul><li>Drilling Request System (DRS)
Security: Centralized Authentication
Enhanced field data collection with EDGE</li></ul>Borehole<br />Logging<br />Instrumentation/<br />Monitoring<br />Geohaza...
GeoMS Overview<br />Field Data Collection<br />GeoMS<br />(EQuIS)<br />Monitoring/<br />Instrumentation<br />Laboratory Da...
GeoMS Overview<br /><ul><li>GeoMS Components
EQuIS Schema (Oracle Database)
EQuIS Professional
EQuIS Enterprise
EQuIS Data Processor (EDP)
EQuIS Data Gathering Engine (EDGE)
EQuIS Sample Planning Module (SPM)</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
GeoMS Overview<br />EQuIS ENTERPRISE<br />EQuIS PROFESSIONAL<br />GeoMS<br />Database<br /><ul><li>Manager, Auditor, Public
Web browser (no install req.)
Same database, same data
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Geohazards GeoMS

1,145 views
989 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,145
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
225
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The Ohio DOT Geotechnical Data Management System (GDMS) is a large-scale implementation providing an enterprise-level data management framework for state and regional engineers, consultants, academia, and even the public in and around Ohio. In addition to accommodating field and laboratory technical data, the GDMS allows documents like permits, plans, maps, logs, or images to be associated with locations and retrieved with an easy-to-use web interface. While the core system is based on EarthSoft’s EQuIS, other softwares perform integral functions including Falcon from tsaAdvet for document management and Bentley’s gINT for geotechnical logs and reports. The ODOT Geotechnical Lab LIMS will be integrated and, eventually, related applications such as geohazards, inventories, structures, pavements, and others may be accessible within the GDMS umbrella. The primary technical focus is:the validation, import, archiving, display, and reporting using the EQuIS Data Processor (EDP) and interfaces to Falcon document managementintegration with ESRI GISinterfaces to RockWorks and gINT for data loading and reporting, Enterprise Planning Module planning drilling requests and a tool to facilitating field data collection Ohio DOT is a founding member of the DIGGS consortium and GDMS will support the upcoming DIGGS format for exchange of geotechnical and geo-environmental data.
  • The Ohio DOT Geotechnical Data Management System (GDMS) is a large-scale implementation providing an enterprise-level data management framework for state and regional engineers, consultants, academia, and even the public in and around Ohio. In addition to accommodating field and laboratory technical data, the GDMS allows documents like permits, plans, maps, logs, or images to be associated with locations and retrieved with an easy-to-use web interface. While the core system is based on EarthSoft’s EQuIS, other softwares perform integral functions including Falcon from tsaAdvet for document management and Bentley’s gINT for geotechnical logs and reports. The ODOT Geotechnical Lab LIMS will be integrated and, eventually, related applications such as geohazards, inventories, structures, pavements, and others may be accessible within the GDMS umbrella. The primary technical focus is:the validation, import, archiving, display, and reporting using the EQuIS Data Processor (EDP) and interfaces to Falcon document managementintegration with ESRI GISinterfaces to RockWorks and gINT for data loading and reporting, Enterprise Planning Module planning drilling requests and a tool to facilitating field data collection Ohio DOT is a founding member of the DIGGS consortium and GDMS will support the upcoming DIGGS format for exchange of geotechnical and geo-environmental data.
  • Conclusions from Survey Data Generation Geotechnical borehole data, laboratory test data, and in-situ engineering test data are produced by nearly three times more respondents than hydrogeologic or geophysical test data. (2.2.1)More data generators deal with rock data (80%) than water data (67%). (2.2.2, 2.2.3)83% believe that in the future, it will be important to generate data in an electronic format. (2.5)Data are transmitted by hardcopy log sheets 96% of the time. (2.7.1)On average, more than 60% archive data in boxes or a warehouse. (2.8, 3.6)More than half have lost valuable data. (2.9)Problems, difficulties, or bottlenecks in data generation activities include: (2.10)Data not archived into a database that is easily accessible. Standardization of electronic format needed for consistency among consultants and ODOT.If field data was easily accessible electronically, productivity could be improved.It takes excessive time and effort to retrieve files from the warehouse.Varied and incompatible file formats make use and analysis difficultData formats are rarely compatible between different software packages Receiving and Sharing Data Almost all respondents receive geotechnical borehole data and laboratory test data. Approximately 75% receive in-situ engineering test data and geological borehole data. Less than half receive in-situ hydrogeologic test data or geophysical data. (3.2.1)Nearly all respondents (97%) believe it is important to share data and more than 30% think that data are sometimes lost or corrupted during transition. (3.7, 3.8)Two out of three (67%) find it at least sometimes difficult to share data. (3.9)Problems, difficulties, or bottlenecks in data receiving activities include: (3.10)Lack of standardized electronic formatGetting the data into a format that can be easily used in spreadsheets, computer programs, etc.Inconsistent data formatsIf the data were available via the web , it could be accessed immediately without having to make contact with others and wait for them to make copies and send the copies via mail.Different groups using different software packages and not being able to translate from one to the other. Data Use and Analysis All respondents use geotechnical borehole data (100%); most use lab test data (90%) and in-situ engineering test data (84%). Geologic borehole data is used by 61%, and in-situ hydrogeologic test data and geophysical data by 35%. (4.2.1)More respondents use rock data (83%) than water data (67%). (4.2.2, 4.2.3)There is no clear consensus on soil classification, with most using AASHTO or modified AASHTO. (4.3)Most respondents use maps or map-related data, and more use CAD (86%) than GIS (73%). More than half (55%) hand draft maps. (4.4.1)Microstation is the most commonly used CAD system (59%), followed by AutoCAD (32%). ESRI’s ArcGIS family of products and Intergraph’s GeoMedia are both used by 32% of respondents. (4.4.1.1)73% consider it important to have locations expressed in either geodetic (lat/long) or coordinate (i.e. state plane) systems while only 50% consider it important to have locations expressed as street addresses. Nearly 1/3 (32%) consider it absolutely necessary to have locations expressed as a street address. (4.4.4, 4.4.5)Two-thirds (66%) use pocket penetrometer for field strength index data. (4.5)52% experience difficulties in receiving accurate or timely data from a laboratory sometimes or frequently. (4.6.2, 4.6.3)Two-thirds (67%) responded that data analysis/use has been sometimes complicated by receiving data in different formats. (4.6.4)Two-thirds (66%) indicate it would be helpful if an EDD standard were adopted and consistently used. (4.6.5)More than 75% say it is important to have laboratory primary data and interpreted data while less than half say it is important to have raw data readily available. (4.6.6, 4.6.7, 4.6.8)Standard Penetration Tests were by far the most frequently used in-situ tests (92%) followed by Cone Penetrometer Tests (64%). All other in-situ tests were used by less than 50% of respondents. (4.7)More than 75% say it is important to have in-situ primary data and interpreted data while just over half (57%) say it is important to have in-situ raw data readily available (4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4)While less than 1/3 use or generate geophysical data, of those who do, electrical resistivity is used most frequently (78%) followed by seismic reflection and radar. (4.8, 4.8.1)92% currently prepare, report, and/or archive data in paper format. (4.10)The most commonly used electronic format for archiving data is spreadsheet (74%) followed by image (63%) and rich text format (52%). Database was selected by only 41%. (4.11)While 1/3 state that it is absolutely necessary in their current work to have geotechnical data stored in electronic format, more than half say that it will be in their future work. (4.11.1, 4.11.2)Problems, difficulties, or bottlenecks in using geotechnical data include: (4.14)Data are not easily accessible electronicallyMost items are paper copies and need to be entered into a spreadsheet or other programVaried and incompatible file formats make use and analysis difficultData formats are rarely compatible between different software packagesOther types of data that should be considered in the context of a GDMS include: (4.15)Photographs and imagesGeohazard AssetsFalling Weight Deflectometer DataProfilometer DataOther Geophysical Data Hardware and Software Usage Only 33% use a laptop or tablet PC remotely. (5.2)Nearly half use GPS units in the field. (5.3, 5.3.1)In addition to email, web, and general office software, 72% use engineering design and/or analysis software, and 41% use GIS software. (6.1)97% use Internet Explorer. (6.2)The most frequently used email client is Lotus Notes (69%) followed by Microsoft Outlook (38%).Microsoft products (Excel, PowerPoint, Word) are most frequently used for writing documents, letters, memos, and reports. WordPerfect is used by at least 38%. (6.4)For calculation and statistics, Microsoft Excel is used by 96%; Quattro Pro is also frequently used. (6.5)The most commonly-used database software is Microsoft Access (Personal) 91%, followed by SQL Server (Enterprise) 27%. (6.7)The majority of GIS users use ESRI products (88%); GeoMedia is also regularly used (29%). (6.8.1)The most commonly-used CAD system is Microstation (88%) followed by AutoCAD (32%). (6.9)82% of respondents use the slope stability software STABL followed by SLOPE/W at 23%. (6.12.1)Of groundwater modeling software, Visual Modflow is used by 56% of respondents; MODFLOW is used by 44%. (6.13.1)More than 1 in 5 has software that is not used because it is too difficult to get data in or out. Examples include FoSSA, CRSP, MSEW, and GeoMedia. (6.14)The GDMS modules considered most important are, in order or priority, Technical Data Management, Document Management, Geohazards, Geologic Site Management, Instrumentation &amp; Monitoring, Construction Support, and Highway Maintenance.
  • Changes in scope
  • Conclusions from Survey Data Generation Geotechnical borehole data, laboratory test data, and in-situ engineering test data are produced by nearly three times more respondents than hydrogeologic or geophysical test data. (2.2.1)More data generators deal with rock data (80%) than water data (67%). (2.2.2, 2.2.3)83% believe that in the future, it will be important to generate data in an electronic format. (2.5)Data are transmitted by hardcopy log sheets 96% of the time. (2.7.1)On average, more than 60% archive data in boxes or a warehouse. (2.8, 3.6)More than half have lost valuable data. (2.9)Problems, difficulties, or bottlenecks in data generation activities include: (2.10)Data not archived into a database that is easily accessible. Standardization of electronic format needed for consistency among consultants and ODOT.If field data was easily accessible electronically, productivity could be improved.It takes excessive time and effort to retrieve files from the warehouse.Varied and incompatible file formats make use and analysis difficultData formats are rarely compatible between different software packages Receiving and Sharing Data Almost all respondents receive geotechnical borehole data and laboratory test data. Approximately 75% receive in-situ engineering test data and geological borehole data. Less than half receive in-situ hydrogeologic test data or geophysical data. (3.2.1)Nearly all respondents (97%) believe it is important to share data and more than 30% think that data are sometimes lost or corrupted during transition. (3.7, 3.8)Two out of three (67%) find it at least sometimes difficult to share data. (3.9)Problems, difficulties, or bottlenecks in data receiving activities include: (3.10)Lack of standardized electronic formatGetting the data into a format that can be easily used in spreadsheets, computer programs, etc.Inconsistent data formatsIf the data were available via the web , it could be accessed immediately without having to make contact with others and wait for them to make copies and send the copies via mail.Different groups using different software packages and not being able to translate from one to the other. Data Use and Analysis All respondents use geotechnical borehole data (100%); most use lab test data (90%) and in-situ engineering test data (84%). Geologic borehole data is used by 61%, and in-situ hydrogeologic test data and geophysical data by 35%. (4.2.1)More respondents use rock data (83%) than water data (67%). (4.2.2, 4.2.3)There is no clear consensus on soil classification, with most using AASHTO or modified AASHTO. (4.3)Most respondents use maps or map-related data, and more use CAD (86%) than GIS (73%). More than half (55%) hand draft maps. (4.4.1)Microstation is the most commonly used CAD system (59%), followed by AutoCAD (32%). ESRI’s ArcGIS family of products and Intergraph’s GeoMedia are both used by 32% of respondents. (4.4.1.1)73% consider it important to have locations expressed in either geodetic (lat/long) or coordinate (i.e. state plane) systems while only 50% consider it important to have locations expressed as street addresses. Nearly 1/3 (32%) consider it absolutely necessary to have locations expressed as a street address. (4.4.4, 4.4.5)Two-thirds (66%) use pocket penetrometer for field strength index data. (4.5)52% experience difficulties in receiving accurate or timely data from a laboratory sometimes or frequently. (4.6.2, 4.6.3)Two-thirds (67%) responded that data analysis/use has been sometimes complicated by receiving data in different formats. (4.6.4)Two-thirds (66%) indicate it would be helpful if an EDD standard were adopted and consistently used. (4.6.5)More than 75% say it is important to have laboratory primary data and interpreted data while less than half say it is important to have raw data readily available. (4.6.6, 4.6.7, 4.6.8)Standard Penetration Tests were by far the most frequently used in-situ tests (92%) followed by Cone Penetrometer Tests (64%). All other in-situ tests were used by less than 50% of respondents. (4.7)More than 75% say it is important to have in-situ primary data and interpreted data while just over half (57%) say it is important to have in-situ raw data readily available (4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4)While less than 1/3 use or generate geophysical data, of those who do, electrical resistivity is used most frequently (78%) followed by seismic reflection and radar. (4.8, 4.8.1)92% currently prepare, report, and/or archive data in paper format. (4.10)The most commonly used electronic format for archiving data is spreadsheet (74%) followed by image (63%) and rich text format (52%). Database was selected by only 41%. (4.11)While 1/3 state that it is absolutely necessary in their current work to have geotechnical data stored in electronic format, more than half say that it will be in their future work. (4.11.1, 4.11.2)Problems, difficulties, or bottlenecks in using geotechnical data include: (4.14)Data are not easily accessible electronicallyMost items are paper copies and need to be entered into a spreadsheet or other programVaried and incompatible file formats make use and analysis difficultData formats are rarely compatible between different software packagesOther types of data that should be considered in the context of a GDMS include: (4.15)Photographs and imagesGeohazard AssetsFalling Weight Deflectometer DataProfilometer DataOther Geophysical Data Hardware and Software Usage Only 33% use a laptop or tablet PC remotely. (5.2)Nearly half use GPS units in the field. (5.3, 5.3.1)In addition to email, web, and general office software, 72% use engineering design and/or analysis software, and 41% use GIS software. (6.1)97% use Internet Explorer. (6.2)The most frequently used email client is Lotus Notes (69%) followed by Microsoft Outlook (38%).Microsoft products (Excel, PowerPoint, Word) are most frequently used for writing documents, letters, memos, and reports. WordPerfect is used by at least 38%. (6.4)For calculation and statistics, Microsoft Excel is used by 96%; Quattro Pro is also frequently used. (6.5)The most commonly-used database software is Microsoft Access (Personal) 91%, followed by SQL Server (Enterprise) 27%. (6.7)The majority of GIS users use ESRI products (88%); GeoMedia is also regularly used (29%). (6.8.1)The most commonly-used CAD system is Microstation (88%) followed by AutoCAD (32%). (6.9)82% of respondents use the slope stability software STABL followed by SLOPE/W at 23%. (6.12.1)Of groundwater modeling software, Visual Modflow is used by 56% of respondents; MODFLOW is used by 44%. (6.13.1)More than 1 in 5 has software that is not used because it is too difficult to get data in or out. Examples include FoSSA, CRSP, MSEW, and GeoMedia. (6.14)The GDMS modules considered most important are, in order or priority, Technical Data Management, Document Management, Geohazards, Geologic Site Management, Instrumentation &amp; Monitoring, Construction Support, and Highway Maintenance.
  • Geohazards GeoMS

    1. 1. Ohio DOT's Geotechnical Management System:Drilling Request to GIS<br />Columbus, Ohio<br />Thursday, August 5, 2010<br />Scot D. Weaver, MSCE<br />Vice-President and Co-Founder<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    2. 2. Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    3. 3. Segue…Uses for DIGGS<br /><ul><li>Send data to others (lab, client, consultant, others)
    4. 4. Receive data from others
    5. 5. Internal for data flow (to different software programs, to different data bases)
    6. 6. A key component of a geotechnical management system</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    7. 7. Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br /><ul><li>User Needs Interviews by GeoDecisions
    8. 8. Centralized data repository
    9. 9. Internal/external secure access
    10. 10. Borehole logs
    11. 11. Laboratory test data
    12. 12. Technical application software
    13. 13. Search, input, and export data
    14. 14. GIS</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    15. 15. Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br /><ul><li>Document Management Assessment by tsaAdvet
    16. 16. Hundreds of 1000’s of maps, plans, as-builts, …
    17. 17. Hundreds of $M in value</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    18. 18. Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br /><ul><li>Detailed Assessment by EarthSoft…user survey
    19. 19. 2/3 of data is collected on field sheet or notebook
    20. 20. 96% of data shared by manual log sheets
    21. 21. Almost 2/3 of archived data stored in boxes or warehouse
    22. 22. Over 50% of respondents have lost valuable data
    23. 23. 97%...important or absolutely necessary to share data
    24. 24. 92% prepare, report, archive geotechnical data on paper
    25. 25. 96% say it is important or absolutely necessary to store geotechnical data electronically
    26. 26. Most commonly used lab data: particle size, moisture content, Atterberg</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    27. 27. Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br /><ul><li>Detailed Assessment by EarthSoft…user survey
    28. 28. Results of survey allowed prioritization
    29. 29. Phased implementation</li></ul>Geotechnical Management System<br />Borehole<br />Logging<br />Instrumentation/<br />Monitoring<br />Geohazards<br />Inventory<br />Remediation<br />Operations<br />Pavement<br />O&M<br />Planning/<br />Research<br />GeoLIMS<br />Structures<br />Future…………………<br />Geologic Site Mgmt<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    30. 30. Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br /><ul><li>Detailed Assessment…user survey
    31. 31. Phased implementation
    32. 32. Borehole data
    33. 33. Drilling data
    34. 34. Laboratory test data
    35. 35. Integration with Falcon
    36. 36. Integration with ESRI GIS
    37. 37. EarthSoft contracted to build GeoMS on top of EQuIS
    38. 38. A “design/build” approach was adopted, which has proven to be a good thing</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    39. 39. GeoMS Overview<br />EQuIS<br />GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    40. 40. Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    41. 41. Brief History of ODOT GeoMS<br /><ul><li>Drilling Request System (DRS)
    42. 42. Security: Centralized Authentication
    43. 43. Enhanced field data collection with EDGE</li></ul>Borehole<br />Logging<br />Instrumentation/<br />Monitoring<br />Geohazards<br />Inventory<br />Remediation<br />Operations<br />Pavement<br />O&M<br />Planning/<br />Research<br />GeoLIMS<br />Structures<br />Future…………………<br />Geologic Site Mgmt<br />Login only once to each module<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    44. 44. GeoMS Overview<br />Field Data Collection<br />GeoMS<br />(EQuIS)<br />Monitoring/<br />Instrumentation<br />Laboratory Data<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    45. 45. GeoMS Overview<br /><ul><li>GeoMS Components
    46. 46. EQuIS Schema (Oracle Database)
    47. 47. EQuIS Professional
    48. 48. EQuIS Enterprise
    49. 49. EQuIS Data Processor (EDP)
    50. 50. EQuIS Data Gathering Engine (EDGE)
    51. 51. EQuIS Sample Planning Module (SPM)</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    52. 52. GeoMS Overview<br />EQuIS ENTERPRISE<br />EQuIS PROFESSIONAL<br />GeoMS<br />Database<br /><ul><li>Manager, Auditor, Public
    53. 53. Web browser (no install req.)
    54. 54. Same database, same data
    55. 55. Simple, quick, easy to use
    56. 56. Automation
    57. 57. Data manager, Scientist
    58. 58. Windows app (installation)
    59. 59. Data importing, editing
    60. 60. Advanced analysis, modeling*
    61. 61. Ultimate flexibility</li></ul> * May require additional third-party software<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    62. 62. Field Workflow<br /><ul><li>Consultant or ODOT field crew</li></ul>EQuIS Data Gathering Engine (EDGE)<br /> GeoMS<br /> EDP<br />DIGGS EDD<br />Emailed<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    63. 63. EDGE: Field Data Collection<br /><ul><li>What is EDGE?</li></ul> A collection of field tools designed to assist field technicians collect accurate and complete field data using the latest mobile computing technologies.<br /><ul><li>Why use EDGE?</li></ul> Reduce data entry errors in the field and easily prepare data for submission to the GDMS.<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    64. 64. EDGE: Field Data Collection<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    65. 65. EDGE: Field Data Collection<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    66. 66. EDGE: Field Data Collection<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    67. 67. EDGE: Field Data Collection<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    68. 68. EDGE: Field Data Collection<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    69. 69. EDGE: Field Data Collection<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    70. 70. EDGE: Field Data Collection<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    71. 71. EDGE: Field Data Collection<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    72. 72. EDGE: Field Data Collection<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    73. 73. Document Submission Workflow<br />EDP<br />EQuIS Data Gathering Engine (EDGE)<br /> GeoMS<br /> EDP<br />DIGGS EDD<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    74. 74. 1. Data Packet Created<br />Data submitter selects<br />documents<br />Data submitter* starts EDP<br />*Data submitter may be consultant<br />or engineer, typically person or <br />company acquiring data<br />Documents may include:<br /><ul><li> Images
    75. 75. Maps
    76. 76. DGN folder structure
    77. 77. Documents
    78. 78. Reports
    79. 79. Spreadsheets
    80. 80. Borehole logs
    81. 81. etc.</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    82. 82. 2. Submitter Checks EDDs<br />Will EDDs<br /> be included in<br />this packet?<br />‘Sign and Submit’ creates Packet* and submits to GeoMS EDP<br />NO<br />EDDs<br />Checked in EDP<br />(Standalone)<br />EDDs Correct?<br />*Data and/or Documents<br />YES<br />YES<br />EDDs are checked in the privacy of submitter’s office using Standalone EDP before creating packet for submission to the GeoMS<br />NO<br />Data may include:<br /><ul><li> Spreadsheets, text files
    83. 83. Access databases
    84. 84. DIGGS EDDs (XML)</li></ul>Correct, Recheck<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    85. 85. 3. Packet Submitted<br />Email<br />GeoMS<br />(Enterprise)<br />EDP<br />EDP submits Packet<br />via web service<br />(Preferred Method)<br />All Files <br />Posted to<br />Falcon<br />Data<br />Packet<br />EDDs continue on to be checked by GeoMS EDP<br />Web Upload<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    86. 86. 4. GeoMS Checks/Loads EDDs<br />GeoMS<br />Enterprise EDP<br />EDDs Correct?<br />GeoMS<br />EQuIS<br />YES;<br />EDDs Accepted<br />DIGGS EDDs<br />NO;<br />EDDs Rejected<br />Automatic email notifications<br />sent to users by GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    87. 87. ODOT Workflow<br />Borehole<br />Logs<br />Enterprise Drilling<br />Request System<br />EQuIS Data Gathering Engine (EDGE)<br />Reports and<br />Documents<br /> GeoMS<br /> EDP<br />Visualization<br />DIGGS EDD<br />GIS<br />.mdb<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    88. 88. EDP: Checking Data<br />Visual classification does not match laboratory classification.<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    89. 89. EDP: Checking Data<br />MISSING DATA!<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    90. 90. EDP: Checking Data<br />Visual moisture does not match laboratory moisture.<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    91. 91. EDP: Checking Data<br />Plastic limit (PL) should not be greater than 50.<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    92. 92. EDP: Checking Data<br />Liquid limit (LL) should not be less than the plastic limit (PL).<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    93. 93. EDP: Checking Data<br />Liquid limit (LL) should not be greater than 60.<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    94. 94. EDP: Checking Data<br />Plasticity index (PI) should not be greater than 50.<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    95. 95. ODOT Workflow<br />Borehole<br />Logs<br />Enterprise Drilling<br />Request System<br />EQuIS Data Gathering Engine (EDGE)<br />Reports and<br />Documents<br /> GeoMS<br /> EDP<br />Visualization<br />DIGGS EDD<br />GIS<br />.mdb<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    96. 96. GeoMS Output<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    97. 97. GeoMS Output<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    98. 98. GeoMS Output<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    99. 99. GeoMS Output<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    100. 100. Web GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    101. 101. Web GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    102. 102. Web GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    103. 103. Web GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    104. 104. Web GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    105. 105. Web GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    106. 106. Web GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    107. 107. Web GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    108. 108. Web GeoMS<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    109. 109. In Conclusion…<br />Ohio DOT wants to develop a comprehensive geotechnical management system for the state, but does not want to “reinvent the wheel”<br /><ul><li>Ambitious undertaking
    110. 110. Needs change, technology changes
    111. 111. First phase nearing completion
    112. 112. Still a lot of work to be done
    113. 113. GeoMS “is envisioned and designed not only to meet the geotechnical needs of all units within ODOT, but to be used by all of the geotechnical community throughout Ohio and the surrounding areas”…becoming a reality.</li></ul>Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />
    114. 114. Thank you!<br />Questions?<br />www.earthsoft.com<br />info@earthsoft.com<br />Copyright © EarthSoft, Inc 2010<br />

    ×