New Technology for Construction is Critical Step to Implementation

By Johanna Knapschaefer

As head of Boston-based Suffolk Construction's 18-month-old national R&D group, Jason Seaburg leads a team searching for new technologies that may become standard tools on company jobsites. His excitement is infectious, says Corren Collura, chief information officer. "Colleagues really buy into it and want to partner with him," she says.

Recent explorations include drones, thermal imaging cameras, Google Glass, and still and video cameras on extenders to examine hard-to-reach locations.

The 12-member R&D group investigates and recommends the most promising proposals for testing during biweekly conference calls. It works to keep costs within an R&D budget set at the start of the fiscal year. Suffolk declines to divulge the amount, but Seaburg and Collura review and sign off on purchases.

When a technology is selected, "the pilot lead is responsible for managing cost, with oversight from me," Collura says. Oversight is essential, adds Seaburg. "There needs to be someone who will answer to the [R&D] group and report results so we can tell if the investment is worth it."

Having clear expectations and a timeline also is important, adds Seaburg. "You don't want to implement 50 drones without a set of sound processes. You can leverage a couple [of drones] initially so people can get comfortable."

The group records work using the online tool Evernote to store text, photos and graphs, says team member Jonathan Linehan, a preconstruction manager and R&D group captain for the Northeast. He says the site keeps a running list, vetted weekly, of all suggestions throughout the company. "Each beta test has its own file indicating the project team and a beta-test description," he says.

And when a technology doesn't pan out, the team knows when to pull the plug, adds Seaburg. "We beta-tested Google Glass but couldn't find a practical use." Testing it in South Boston, a safety manager wanted to document conditions the team could review live and discuss, but the technology was "very buggy," says Seaburg. The manager had trouble initiating video calls since, without a strong connection and only 30 minutes of battery life, the glasses would shut down. "You can't really browse the web and can only access things via Google Drive," he says.

Recent experimentation has taken place during construction of a $280- million, 620,000-sq-ft research and clinical building at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital. "[Seaburg] has been able to leverage technology to create efficiencies that save time and money and really make an impression on the client," says Collura.

Trials included use of $1,300 drones to view welds on bracing that is deep in an excavation for a slurry wall. "It worked well, but we're just getting a sense of how to fly the drones. They crashed inside a deep [excavation] hole a couple of times," says Seaburg, adding that the operators need to be mindful of risk, especially flying near a hospital. "Timing, communication and permission is important," he says.

Seaburg adds that Suffolk is not overly concerned about the Federal Aviation Administration's yet-to-be- adopted rules for commercial drone operations. He believes the FAA is focused on larger, military-grade drones. "The construction industry is operating in the gray area," he says.

But if drone use is still experimental, the R&D team found at least one quick payback by using GoPro cameras on extenders to inspect steel connections in hard-to-access areas.

"They had a little damage to one of the steel beams and wanted to be sure the original weld hadn't cracked from damage to adjacent pieces," says Mike Williams, field inspector for Briggs Engineering and Testing, Rockland, Mass.

"Structural members were already decked over and 60 feet above the ground," explains Suffolk Assistant Superintendent Rob Morsi. The usual inspection method would have required hoisting a lift into the excavation beneath the steel members and connections, then raising an inspector to the welds. But that option was shelved due to interference of temporary braces.

Using the camera, "we were able to cut holes in the decking, insert the GoPro extender and snap some shots of the connections," Morsi says. The high-quality photos let the inspector sign off on the connections he was not able to access safely. "We were able to turn what seemed like something costly and time-consuming into a simple, quick and inexpensive solution," Morsi says.

"Without the GoPro camera, we would have had to cut out the upper deck to place an angel wing [construction platform], but I am not sure I could have gotten my face close enough to the weld to scrutinize it effectively," Williams adds.

Last fall, the team also reviewed MEP coordination on the hospital using CAVE virtual-reality technology, leased from Mechdyne Corp. While examining a 3D model of a penthouse, one of the hospital's operating engineers "wanted to know how to get up to a valve in a certain spot," Seaburg recalls. "There was nothing in the drawings to access the valve, so we realized he needed a catwalk." Adding a catwalk in design cost $30,000; it would have cost $100,000 if the omission had to be corrected after the MEP was in place, Seaburg says. To avoid having to set up a big immersion environment, the team also tested an Oculus Rift wearable immersion headset for similar use. "What you see is almost identical," says Seaburg.