Case Studies
An introduction from Dr. Richard Blanchfield, (DPM/Head of Permitting & Agreements) North Connect KS
North Connect Interconnector Project
“When we initially approached ENVsupport it was with the intention of having a 3D Model of our proposed development created from which we could take screen captures to add to our Planning Application. However…….as is shown below, in the course of creating that model from our various design drawings AND with the consideration of mitigation for visual impact and noise assessment, it was discovered that for to produce a PRACTICAL, working design, we would have to substantially alter the chosen site position and platform levels.
As it developed, the 3D Model became a key reference point from which other design data could be quickly picked up and measured off for either quoting in the ES/EIA text or used in other design calculations (e.g. geotechnical, excavation costs etc.). The fact that we had multiple consultants from different disciplines who were all working on ‘their’ part of the project, with no way of comparing how it affected other consultants, was actually resolved by using the ENV 3D Model which gave a common platform where everything could be brought together to identify interface clashes, and then solve them. It became our “Interface Drawing”. Using ENVsupport’s affordable process of early verification, we ensured that all members of the multi-disciplinary project team were starting from the same baseline “verified” design, and tracking/reverifying against it as the work progressed.
It is quite possible that by submitting our initial 2D design we would still have gained Planning Consent for our development. However, with the anomalies that we now know were inherent in that early design, it is more than likely they would have resurfaced at a later date when design changes would be more costly and detrimental to project deadlines, not to mention the negative effect this could have had on the teams professional reputation.
I have no doubt that Env’s substantial experience in pre-consent design, where detailed information is sparse, but key decisions are still being made, was a major contribution in quickly identifying and highlighting potential issues (and solutions…..) to the project team, allowing us to make decisions based on substantiated data and providing us with clear, and easily understood, documentation that would justify those decisions.
The case study below exactly captures why ENVsupport’s 3D Modelling services can be so useful to Clients early on in the feasibility stages of the project.”
Dr. Richard Blanchfield
The Project
NorthConnect is a subsea HVDC power interconnector between Scotland and Norway.
The onshore works for the Scottish converter station in Aberdeenshire achieved Planning consent in August 2015
Scope of Work
In July 2014, ENVsupport was asked by Nordic interconnector developer client, NorthConnect KS to create a 3D Model of the 4fields site to show what the interconnector development would look like in the chosen Peterhead site (4-fields).
Existing constraints for this site location were….
- Screening for a local community (to the North East of site) and also for individual dwellings and tourist sites looking on to the 4-fields area.
- Unrestricted access to the existing public footpath network around the 4-fields site.
- A requirement that no on/off site transportation of platform/bunding materials was to take place.
- A minimum building height of 26m
Initial Client Assessment
Using the client’s, geo-referenced, “site location” drawings as a starting point ENV created a 3D terrain model of the 4-fields area and modelled an area for the necessary platform. The initial position was tight into the North-East corner and the platform level was to be the lowest point of the chosen 4-fields site (61m), the belief being that setting the platform at this lowest level would help with screening the development from the local community.
ENVsupport Platform Analysis
As part of ENVsupport’s 3D modelling process, a VOLUMETRIC ANALYSIS of the excavation was performed.
This first iteration of platform location threw up 3 potentially serious issues.
Firstly, the chosen lowest level meant that the whole platform was in CUT (shown in red) and as there was a substantial rock strata in the area this meant that excavation costs (in rock) would be around £10.7m and that even after substantial bunding the material left over would be 352,194 m3.… which equates to 70,000 vehicle trips to take the excess material off site
Secondly, the position of the platform left no room for a screening bund on the North East side of the development where a local community overlooks the site.
A simplified bunding and volume analysis showed that to create an adequate screening bund in this position would mean building over the existing public road, cutting of access to the public footpaths all around the 4-fields site
And Thirdly, although a rough SITE ACCESS point was known, up until this time, a PRACTICAL ACCESS had not been seriously considered.
The problem was that the main existing access road and the proposed platform were on 2 different levels but were also a short distance apart……This meant that it would be difficult to transition from the ‘higher’ existing road to the ‘lower’ proposed platform and maintain the required 1:10 minimum slope that the construction transport would need to deliver equipment to site.
To accommodate a more PRACTICAL site access road, ENV carried out a simple feasibility design and a PRACTICAL if not, final, access road layout was determined.
NOTE:
A very important consequence of this SIMPLE verification exercise was that to achieve a REALISTIC and PRACTICAL access into the site the whole site platform had to be moved over 50 metres, radically changing VOLUME and VISABILITY characteristics of the whole development. Had this initial UNVERIFIED site design been distributed to other sub consultants in the project then potentially most of the subsequent work done would be flawed leading to expensive and time consuming rework.
Determining Platform Level
It was clear that the platform position, platform level, access road, building height, excavation volume, bund volume, height and base footprint were all inextricably linked. A change to one or more of these conditions would mean that all other conditions would change, potentially invalidating the whole design. A decision was taken to determine an optimum platform position and level that would satisfy all the constraint conditions.
Over 40 designs of varying platform positions and levels were modelled by ENV and the excavation volume data for each platform position was recorded.
This was achieved by utilizing ENV’s customised and streamlined PLATFORM COMPARISON PROCESS which quickly and economically, automated much of the analysis to a few data entries.
The resultant comparison data was analysed by the project team where it was decided that the platform in position 03 at level 63.00m gave the optimum results to meet all the constraint conditions.
With this agreed and verified platform design, all consultants in the project team were now working from the same starting point providing a level of co-ordination and consistency to all future designs.
Landscaping & Bunding Design
Landscape Architects, knowing the volumes of excavated material were able to design a more practical and aesthetic bunding system which could be re-modelled into the original ENV 3D site model.
Modelled feedback allowed the Landscape Architects to comment and MARK-UP changes until a satisfactory landscape design was achieved.
Pre-Programmed Viewpoints
Using the 3D Model’s pre-programmed visual viewpoints, screening bund designs could be viewed as 3D visualisations from each view point and assessed for screening effectiveness.
Various options could be tried and compared to each other giving verification on what worked and what didn’t and the 3d graphics could be imported into planning proposal documents to give a better idea to stakeholders what the “screened” development would look like.
Other Data Outputs from 3D Model
Other data outputs were generated from the original 3D model that were useful to other consultants.
These included 3D CAD CONTOUR PLANS of the development and surrounding areas which were used by the NOISE ASSESSMENT consultant to determine noise pollution that determined that the landscape form and bunds become an integral asset as part of a noise mitigation tool in the design..
Once the design had been reviewed and approved then an ANIMATED FLYTHRU’ was created and shown as an INTERACTIVE presentation to stakeholders at public consultations.
This was useful to stakeholders to point out areas of interest or concern.
Learning Points
- 3D Modelling doesn’t have to be an expensive luxury used at the end of a project but could be an affordable necessity in ensuring feasibility and early derailing issues are identified and resolved as early as possible.
- Early verification saves time & effort being wasted on unfeasible designs.
- Verified designs ensure ALL consultants have the same starting point (Base Design) for taking designs forward.
- Changes and impacts to designs are easier to track and understand when compared to a base design.
- 3D graphical views can be more informative to non engineering stakeholders.
- Being able to show documentation justifying decisions and claims gives more weight to proposals and provides a more confident and authoritative planning application.