(01-16-2023, 02:06 PM)msnowdowne Wrote: Hello,

I came across a situation that required me to look into multiple scenarios for approaching the structure excavation.
This was a traditional lump sum bid-build I submitted a bid for early in 2022.
The short story is that no excavation shoring system was shown on the drawings but there was a small clause that included a performance requirement that was tucked away in the excavation shoring technical specification

"the shoring shall be constructed as substantially watertight such that dewatering inside the shoring system 
does not substantially lower the groundwater table on the outside of the shoring system since lowering of the 
water table on the outside of the shoring system may lead to unacceptable settlements of existing structures and utilities."

The structures comprise 2-27m diameter biosolids storage tanks with a 10m excavation.
The soil conditions would require a massive dewatering system to keep the excavation dry if a traditional open cut excavation is used. Concerns of damaging existing infrastucture + nearby neighbors on wells. Despise the performance clause there was questions as to whether an open cut excavation would be allowed versus a watertight shoring system.

So I created one scenario in Kubla, then duplicated it, renamed, and modified the scenario. The problem is, there are several duplicate phases between the two files. If i had to update one - then i'd have to go update the other. I don't like managing two files so I thought adding another level to the phase tabs on the bottom of the screen would be a solution.


An interesting note, this job had a budget of $20 million.
There was a competitive open bidding process that had a great spread but still way over budget. 
This used to be a one-off in my industry - but it's becoming a much more common!
Bid results for the Simcoe WWTP Upgrades (HST Extra)
1.      Maple $68,599,820.00
2.      NAC $70,709,025.00
3.      Graham $88,958,739.00

(01-17-2023, 01:19 PM)Rich Howes Wrote:

(01-16-2023, 02:06 PM)msnowdowne Wrote: Hello,

I came across a situation that required me to look into multiple scenarios for approaching the structure excavation.
This was a traditional lump sum bid-build I submitted a bid for early in 2022.
The short story is that no excavation shoring system was shown on the drawings but there was a small clause that included a performance requirement that was tucked away in the excavation shoring technical specification

"the shoring shall be constructed as substantially watertight such that dewatering inside the shoring system 
does not substantially lower the groundwater table on the outside of the shoring system since lowering of the 
water table on the outside of the shoring system may lead to unacceptable settlements of existing structures and utilities."

The structures comprise 2-27m diameter biosolids storage tanks with a 10m excavation.
The soil conditions would require a massive dewatering system to keep the excavation dry if a traditional open cut excavation is used. Concerns of damaging existing infrastucture + nearby neighbors on wells. Despise the performance clause there was questions as to whether an open cut excavation would be allowed versus a watertight shoring system.

So I created one scenario in Kubla, then duplicated it, renamed, and modified the scenario. The problem is, there are several duplicate phases between the two files. If i had to update one - then i'd have to go update the other. I don't like managing two files so I thought adding another level to the phase tabs on the bottom of the screen would be a solution.


An interesting note, this job had a budget of $20 million.
There was a competitive open bidding process that had a great spread but still way over budget. 
This used to be a one-off in my industry - but it's becoming a much more common!
Bid results for the Simcoe WWTP Upgrades (HST Extra)
1.      Maple $68,599,820.00
2.      NAC $70,709,025.00
3.      Graham $88,958,739.00

Hi Mark,

Thanks very much for your detailed account of a real-world problem. The concept of branching the phase timeline in the way you have described is interesting; we have added it to our feedback documents.

In the meantime, you may be interested to know that in Cubed 2023, you will be able to do alternate scenarios, of a kind, using the new ‘Disable function’. This function will stop elements affecting the calculations while still remaining in your project.

In the example* below, we have two sets of elements. The first set is disabled, cannot be edited and is invisible in the model and to the calculation engine.


* The example image is shown for illustrative purposes only. Cubed 2023 may change in behaviour and appearance before final release.

Setting whether an element is disabled, is achieved by selecting the element/(s) and then using the new Disable button (right of add and delete).

Kind regards,
Rich