10th Asian Regional Conference of IAEG (2015)

Management of Geological Survey Results in the CIM: Study on the Applicability ofThree-Dimensional Geologic Modeling
Rie KUDOH(1), Hiroshi HARA(1) and The Committee on Three-dimensional GeotechnicalModeling for CIM (2)(1) OYO Corporation, Japan
E-mail:kudou-rie@oyonet.oyo.co.jp(2) Japan Geotechnical Consultants Association, Japan
Abstract
In the trial run of the CIM (Construction Information Modeling/Management) in Japan, thetarget has been limited to structures and topographic features in any field and thethree-dimensional structures of underground geology remain untouched because they are
too difficult to handle. In this paper, we have discussed the application of the CIM togeological survey results with the seismic resistance assessment of river embankments as an
examination object. Survey data acquisition of about 500m interval in a longitudinal
direction, several meters interval in the transverse direction, and 1m interval in a depth
direction are necessary for creation of the analytical model for verification of river levee
based on the current guidelines. Considering the precision, accuracy, and distribution
density of data, we have concluded that it is not appropriate to provide the geologicalsurvey result to a subsequent stage as a form of three-dimensional model, and also we haveproposed that it is suitable and feasible for the CIM to manage the geological survey result
as a dataset consisted of points, lines, and two-dimensional cross-section data linked byelectric delivery data of soil tests, borehole logs and geophysical explorations, represented
in a three-dimensional space.
Keywords: CIM, three-dimensional geologic model, geological survey result
1.

Introduction

information have not been enabled yet through all theprocesses from planning of a public project tosurvey/designing, construction, and maintenance.
Under such circumstances, the trial run of the
CIM(Construction
Information
Modeling/
Management) started in FY2012 for several kinds ofpublic businesses as the river, tunnel, bridge, and damworks. The CIM is an effort of transforming theindividual electronic information created by the
CALS/EC into a three-dimensional model andcollectively managing it as public project informationconsistent throughout the entire life cycle for sharing
and
use
among
relevant
parties.
The
three-dimensional model managed by the CIM will
be updated with the progress of the processes ofpublic works with information added and corrected.
The national government aims at full-fledged
introducing in FY 2016 after the present trial phase.
This report discusses the applicability of the CIM
to geological survey results taking up the river works,
in which the CIM is on a trial run.

The geological survey results in public works ofJapan have been delivered as electronic data in theformat defined by the Electronic Delivery Guidelines
since the enforcement of the CALS/EC system in
FY2001. And today, a part of the electronicallydelivered survey results are disclosed as open data toenable them to be used (for example, on the Internet
Web Service Delivering Borehole Data, “KuniJiban"
by Public Works Research Institute). The CALS/EC
is an abbreviation of the “Continuous Acquisition andLife-cycle Support / Electronic Commerce” and is aneffort to enable productivity enhancement, cost
reduction, etc. by computerizing the information
conventionally exchanged on the paper basis and byencouraging the sharing and effective use of
information across business processes through the useof information network. As a result of the CALS/EC,
computerization of the individual processes
comprising the business such as electronic bidding,electronic delivery, and computer aided construction
advanced. However, the sharing and use of electronic1

10th Asian Regional Conference of IAEG (2015)

2.

Issues in the CIM inferred
three-dimensional geologic modelingfromresulting from the use of the three-dimensional modelfor the wrong application in the downstream
operations and overestimation of the accuracy.

In the CIM, a three-dimensional model issupposed to be delivered in compliance with theconventional electronic delivery as supplementary
data (Fig..1). However, it should be noted that thegeological model is an inference model and that the
precision and accuracy of the model are significantly
dependent on the survey purpose, the target structure,
the interpretation of a geological structure by anengineer, unlike a product model of construction
structure that expresses a visible object based on adesign drawing in the BIM (Building Information
Modeling).
In the three-dimensional geological modeling, themodeling area, the model types, and the suitable scaleof expressing geological structures are generally
determined according to the purpose and the usage ofthe model. Important points for efficiently
constructing a highly accurate three-dimensional
geological model are to secure the accuracy of theenough amounts of source data and establish
consistency among data and to apply an optimum
interpolation processing method following the
purpose of modeling, application, and data
distribution (Kudo et al. 2008).
In the CIM, on the other hand, an enough amountof data for modeling may not be secured dependingon the project scope and nature because a model willbe created for each project and also the timing of use
and the application in the downstream operations may
be uncertain at the point in time of model creation. In
other words, it is necessary to consider in the initialstage of CIM whether a three-dimensional geologic
model that satisfies the required accuracy can becreated from the perspective of the precision of theinvestigation and the amount of data. If a geologic
model is constructed in the CIM, it is important tomaintain the records of the basis for the createdmodel and conditions of use: used data andprocessing, the interpolation range, grid size, and theapplied algorithms along with the model data in orderto reduce such risks as a mistake in designing
Three-dimensional geologic
model

3.

As mentioned above, while the trial run of the
CIM has started in the several fields of public works,
the target is limited to structures and topographic
features in any field and the three-dimensional
structures of underground geology remain untouchedbecause they are too difficult to handle. In the field ofriver management, given the suffering of 2115 riverdikes and their related structures in the Tohoku andKanto regions that resulted in deformations andfailures due to the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of
Tohoku Earthquake (Oka et al. 2012), the seismic
performance evaluation and countermeasures forlikely upcoming great earthquakes are urgently
needed. In addition, many river structures developed
during the high economic growth period havedeteriorated and the integrated management and theuse of information such as drawings of river facilities
are required to realize systematic maintenance forservice life extension of those structures. In light of
the above, we consider the application of the CIM togeological survey results for three-dimensional
integrated management of data is meaningful andshould be realized immediately. In this chapter, we
discuss the applicability of the CIM with the seismic
resistance assessment of river embankments as an
examination object.
3.1 Present state of the CIM trial run
Machida et al. (2013) cited the three-dimensional
visualization facilitating and speeding up theidentification of invisible parts of river levees, andalso cited the superimposed image with GIS data,such as topographic maps and aerial photographs,
enabling the analysis of geographical features asadvantages, in light of the efforts on thethree-dimensional imaging and database compilationof river structure data. On the other hand, Tamura etal. (2014) mentioned the need of narrowing down theapplication range of the CIM in consideration of thecost-effectiveness given that the type of geographicaldata and the design accuracy of structures to use are
not always the same between in the preliminary
design phase and in the detailed design phase, in lightof the results of the CIM trail run in the detailed
design of a embanking project, and that considerable
work load is required as compared with theconventional two-dimensional designing in somecases. In addition, Kubo and Yabuki (2014) made anattempt to define the optimum accuracy of athree-dimensional model of river facilities with

Electronic delivery
supposed in the CIM

Three-dimensional modelingThree-dimensional datavisualization
Coordinate system setting
Geological Survey results
Drilling survey
Sounding test
Soil sampling・・Study on the applicability of the CIM forseismic resistance assessment of riverembankments

Electronic delivery
in the CALS/EC

Fig. 1 Electronic delivery of geological survey
results supposed in the CIM

2

10th Asian Regional Conference of IAEG (2015)reference to the ‘LOD (Level of Development)’
defined by the American Institute of Architects fromthe perspective of cost effectiveness with an eye on
introducing the CIM into the maintenance of riverfacilities.
Those previous studies suggest that theconsideration of cost effectiveness and the securingof model accuracy commensurate with the phase anda target of a project are issues of the CIM.

direction of a levee by the method shown in Fig. 2 toselect a representative cross section considered tohave little resistance to earthquake, namely a crosssection with a thick soil layer having a particle size
composition prone to liquefy, and with a small
resistance (SPT N value) to liquefaction. Then in thelateral direction, the detailed soil composition, thestrength property, and permeability will be
ascertained to create a model for verification.
In this regard, the levee damage has been
conventionally considered to be mainly caused byliquefaction of a foundation ground. In the 2011 off
the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake, however,many levees were damaged from liquefaction of thesoil in the embankments due to the water-saturated
region above the ground level (Oka et al. 2012).
Therefore, in the high liquefaction risk zone, it isnecessary to accurately ascertain the levee materials,
the soil property of the foundation ground, and thewater level inside the embankment for verification.
As for precision, Table 1 and Fig 3 show the
allocation density in surveys cited from the“Guidelines”. It is found from the table that a survey
and a test are required at a fine grid of 1 place/mparticularly in the depth direction.
On the other hand, in an engineering geologicalmap, geological boundaries and faults are classified
and drawn based on ‘Scientific Confidence’
and ’Locational Accuracy’ specified by JIS A 0206
standard, and for example, the level ‘Location
approximate’ reveals location accuracy less than one
meter in the case of a 1/100 scale map.
In consideration of those findings, it is concluded
that it is a prerequisite in the application of the CIM
to express three-dimensionally the distribution oflevee body materials and foundation ground prone toliquefy and their physical properties and permeability
at an accuracy of several meters in the horizontal
direction (transverse direction of the levee) and of 1min the depth direction.

3.2 Consideration of the applicability of the CIM
from the perspective of the geological survey
precision and accuracy
In this section, the geological features to be
expressed as a three-dimensional model and therequired accuracy and precision in the CIM arediscussed. The "precision" is defined as a deviationfrom an average and the "accuracy" is defined as adeviation from the true or absolute value, in
accordance with the definition in the field of
measurement technology.
(1) Geological features to be expressed and therequired accuracy in the CIM
Fig. 2 shows the structural study flow of seismic
resistance assessment of river embankments based on
the “Guidelines for River Embankments Assessmentof Competence (Revised Edition) (2012)”. Given thatthe embankments damage due to earthquake ismainly caused by liquefaction, the distribution ofground prone to liquefy and places, where earthquake
damage occurred in the past, will be researchedwidely by literature investigation firstly in a structural
study. Secondly, the distribution of soil layers prone
to liquefy will be recognized in the longitudinalStart(1) Basic survey

Survey method
 Literature investigation
 Field survey

Setting of areas likely subject to secondary
seismic disaster(2) geological survey in the longitudinal  Drilling survey
direction
 Sounding tests
Subdivision of a serial area and setting ofrepresentative cross section

 Soil tests
 Geophysical exploration[River side](3) geological survey in a representative  Drilling survey
cross section
 Sounding tests
Seismic resistance Assessment
No[landside] Soil tests
 Permeability test Geophysical exploration

Probability of
secondary disasterYessetting of area to be provided withseismic resistance

5m

5m

Designing/construction
Embankment

Maintenance/monitoring

Sandy
soil

Foundation
Cohesive ground
soil

Sandy
soil
Cohesive
soil● Standard penetration test
▽ In-situ permeability test
○ Soil test (disturbed soil samples)□ Soil test (undisturbed cohesive soil)□ Soil test (disturbed sandy soil, gravelly soil)

Fig. 3 Example of survey item allocation
planning in the transverse direction

Fig. 2 Procedure for seismic resistance assessment ofriver embankments

3

10th Asian Regional Conference of IAEG (2015)

Table 1 Allocation of geological surveys and contraction scale to express survey results in the seismic
resistance assessment of river embankments, after “Guidelines for River Embankments Assessment ofCompetence (Revised Edition)”
Drilling

Sounding

Longitudinal direction

Transverse

 Horizontal direction: Approximately one
position for 500 m in the longitudinal direction as ameasure. To be conducted near the center of thelevee crown.
 Depth direction: To be surveyed up to a depth
where the rock surface (engineering seismic
basement with an S-wave velocity of 300 m/s orhigher or a stratum with an N value of 50 or
higher) can be inspected in principle.
 For a thick soft soil layer, a depth ofapproximately 25 m, where the soil type can beassessed, shall be taken as a measure.
 Ascertain the groundwater level.
 Used to ascertain the boundary location of
upper and lower flow.
 On that occasion, near the back slope toe on
the vertical stream side of the drilling survey point.

 Needs to be performed for at least
approximately three points in the vicinity of thecenter of levee crown, in the vicinity of thecenter of the back face of the slope, and in thevicinity of the center of the front face of theslope.
 The depth shall be up to the depth of thebottom of the layer likely to liquefy during
earthquakes and up to approximately 25 m,
where the soil type can be assessed, if the layer
likely to liquefy is thick.

Sampling,
Soil test

 For each depth, where the soil propertychanges.
 Every 1 m for a levee body and by every 2 to 3
m for a foundation ground.

Geophysicalexploration

 Data acquisition at an interval of 2 m to 5 m.
 Several traverse lines on the levee crown,berm, foot of slope, etc.
 Soil Profile: 1:100 or 200
S-wave velocity cross section
Specific resistance cross section

Surveyresult If the soil constitution of a levee body orfoundation ground is complicated, allocate thesurveys as if interpolating between drilling
survey points.
 The depth shall be up to the depth of thebottom of the layer likely to liquefy, or up to alayer where the soil type can be assessed.
 Transverse direction: One point in thevicinity of the front slope toe, one point at thelevee crown, and one point in the vicinity ofthe back slope toe.
 One pcs or more/2 m in the depth
direction, one pc / soil layer if the soil layer
significantly varies, one pc or more / m in alayer likely to liquefy.
 At an interval of 1 to 2 m.


Soil Profile: 1:100 or 1:200
Soil property diagram
Elastic wave velocity cross section
Specific resistance cross section

Table 2 Influence factors on the precision and the accuracy of the survey results in river embankments
assessment
Survey method
Drilling survey
Sounding test
Sampling,
Soil test
Permeability test
Geophysicalexploration
Cross section
3D modelRaw Interpretation Dimension
Precisiondata
result Location information acquisition
1
○

○

1

○

0
○

0

○

2
○

○

○
○

2
3

Accuracy Complexity of themethodgeological structure Drilling method
 Engineer’s skill
 Location information acquisition Same as above
method Test method
 Location information acquisition Same as above
method Sampling method
 Specimen manufacturing method
 Test method
 Location information acquisition Same as above
method Test method
 Location information acquisition  Complexity of the physicalmethodproperty distribution and Traverse line interval
geological structure Exploration method
 Engineer’s skill
 In addition to above, the density of Same as abovedata In addition to above, modelingSame as above
method, grid size, andinterpolation method

410th Asian Regional Conference of IAEG (2015)

Table 3 An idea of CIM in geological survey results in river embankments assessment
Survey results
Drilling survey,
Sounding
Sampling,
Soil property test,
Permeability test

Geophysical exploration
Lateral profile
Longitudinal profile

Expression in CIM

Property retention method

One-dimensional line data

Link borehole log data or sounding test data (XMLformat regulated by the electronic delivery
guideline) to the line data
Point data on one-dimensional line data of a drilling Link sampling data, soil test data, permeability
survey for a survey associated with the drilling test data (XML format) to point data
survey.
Not expressed for on-site surveys.
Two-dimensional panel (image for geophysical Link geophysical exploration data to the panel
exploration and CAD data for lateral/longitudinal
profile)(2) Precision and accuracy in geological survey
Next, we examine whether the three-dimensional
geologic model that satisfy the precision mentioned
above would be available or not from survey results.
In a drilling survey, for example, a core of
approximately φ 6 cm represents a levee bodymaterials and foundation geology in the horizontal
direction with an expanse on the order of several
meters. The positional precision is generally
estimated to be 1m if the position coordinate isacquired from the positional relation with the rivermile post using a measuring rope. The positional
precision in measuring with a GPS/GNNS is about
5m. Such factors as an error in reading the soil
constitution by an engineer observing the core need tobe taken into consideration. Then in making
two-dimensional geological profiles based on such
drill survey results, the estimation accuracy ofgeological boundaries depends on the data density,
the complexity of geological structure, engineer’s
skill in addition to the above factors. Finally, inmaking a three-dimensional geological model, theestimation accuracy depends on modeling methods,
interpolation algorithms in addition to them. As thedimension of the survey data is upgrading, influence
factor would be increased, resulting in the uncertainty
in the model output as shown in Table 2.
Consequently, a three-dimensional geologic model
created based on borehole data with an interval of
500m in the longitudinal direction and a several
meters in the transverse direction thought not tosatisfy the accuracy mentioned above.
4.

Conclusions

In this case study of river embankments, we haveshown that it is not appropriate to provide geologicalsurvey results to a subsequent stage as a form of
three-dimensional model, considering their accuracy,
precision, and distribution densities. On the other
hand, it is obvious that the information obtained fromgeological surveys is extremely important to be usedwidely and appropriately in the life cycle of aconstruction project ranging from survey tomaintenance. Consequently, it is suitable and realistic
for the CIM to manage the geological survey result asa dataset consisted of points, lines, andtwo-dimensional cross-section data linked by electricdelivery data of soil tests, borehole logs andgeophysicalexplorations,visualizedinathree-dimensional space as summarized in Table 3.
Because a river levee is a long linear structure, it isdesirable to manage it with GIS based on thefundamental geospatial data maintained by the
Geospatial Information Authority of Japan. It is
desirable to make levee topographic maps, aerial
photographs, and any other data displayable in an
appropriate plan view according to the contraction
scale on a system capable of mashup, and also tomake the longitudinal section and the cross section
displayable three-dimensionally at a larger scale than
1/5000 to 1/2500 that are a contraction scale forsummarizing the survey results in river embankments
assessment as shown in Fig. 4 schematically. It would
like to be emphasized that it is important to maintainthe records of the basis for the interpretation data as

Levee topographic map

Cross section

Borehole log

Fig. 4 An image of three-dimensional
visualization of data (revised Machida et al. andthe inspection reports by NILM)

5

10th Asian Regional Conference of IAEG (2015)

shown in Table 2.
In the CIM, a three-dimensional model issupposed to be constructed using the geologicalsurvey results of electrically delivered format and to
be provided in compliance with the electronicdelivery. However, the use in the CIM has not beentaken into consideration and several items necessary
for modeling are not covered by the current electronicdelivery guidelines. In the river works, for example,
the positional information is used to be given in theriver mile post coordinate system, while the existing
electronic delivery guidelines manage the positional
information of survey results by latitude andlongitude and the distance mark data is allowed to be
described but the description is not essential. The
coordinates of sounding test sites, soil sampling sites,and soil testing sites can be approximated with thelatitude and longitude at a representative position.
Furthermore, with no regulation given on thegeophysical exploration allowed to use forinterpolation of soil constitution between survey
points, an interpretation figure without positional
information is usually supposed to be submitted in thecurrent electronic delivery. The above indicates thatthe revising of the electronic delivery guidelines is anurgent issue in introducing the CIM in a full-fledgedmanner in future.

Machida, Y., Sakai, T., Mihira, Y. and Sato, H.
(2013): Three-dimensional imaging of river
structures and Construction of a database (inJapanese), Proceedings of 2013 river information
symposium, Foundation of River & Basin Integrated
Communications, Japan, pp.6-1-6-6.
Oka, F., Tsai, P., Kimoto, S. and Kato, R. (2012):
Damage patterns of river embankments due to the2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake
and a numerical modeling of the deformation ofriver embankments with a clayey subsoil layer,
Soils and Foundations, 52, pp.890-909.
Tamura, T., Yoshida, T. and Kawakami, K. (2014):
Consideration on the use of CIM in River Project
Designing,
http://www.hrr.mlit.go.jp/library/happyoukai/h26/a/
07.pdf, (accessed 2015.3.30).

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Prof. Masumoto of
Osaka City University for the provision of the latest
article about 3D geologic modeling. Discussion with
Satoshi Okada of OYO Corporation is highly
acknowledged. This research was supported in partby a grant from the Japan Construction Information
Center.
References
Guidelines for River Embankments Assessment ofCompetence (Revised Edition) (2012): Japan
Institute of Construction Engineering, 192p.
JIS A 0206(2013): Geological map-Symbols, colors,
patterns, terms, geological units, and codes forengineering geological maps (in Japanese), 42p.
Kubo, T. and Yabuki, N. (2014): Levels ofdevelopment for three dimensional models of
existing river facilities (in Japanese), Journal of
JSCE, Division F3, 70(2), pp. I_87 - I_94.
Kudo, R., Nishiyama, S., Wada, H. and Mizuno, T.
(2008): Example of Integrated Geotechnical
Database System Use: 3-dimensional modeling of
subsurface geological structure (in Japanese),
Geoinformatics, vol.19, no2, pp.98-99.

6