Analytical Comparison of OpenRoads and Civil 3D Platforms for Highway Infrastructure Design

Transportation infrastructure projects have revolutionized their design processes with digital design platforms, which enable more accurate design, data-driven modeling, and more collaborative multidisciplinary efforts. Bentley's OpenRoads Designer and Autodesk Civil 3D are popular civil infrastructure modeling tools for highway design. Although they are widely used in professional practice, there are currently no systematic comparisons of these platforms for the design of highway infrastructure. The purpose of this study is to compare the two programs, OpenRoads Designer and Civil 3D, with respect to their use of modern roadway design applications. A second case study of an identical highway corridor was developed independently for the two software programs for comparison. The computational parameters, geometric design standards, and standardized input data were employed to remove the input bias and to ensure the consistency. The modeling efficiency, geometric design capability, propagation of design changes and updates, data administration and interoperability, and output with quantity estimation were the focus of the evaluation framework. The objective study was done based on quantitative criteria such as quantity consistency and design time, and qualitative criteria such as process complexity and usability. With the shorter learning curve and increased design flexibility when creating geometry, it would appear that Civil 3D can be used for both small to medium transport projects and CAD driven workflows. Reliable performance of stability and update propagation in the corridor was limited by a complex and iterative design process. Large-scale, BIM-oriented highway infrastructure projects, however, showed a different story when it comes to the accuracy of quantity estimates, automatic design updates and parametric corridor modeling with OpenRoads Designer. Open Roads' model-centric and rule-based approach decreased human involvement and improved design dependability. The results indicate that the software used to design transportation infrastructure should be selected according to the scale and complexity of projects, as well as organization processes, rather than familiarity with the software itself. This comprehensive comparative analysis of two leading roadway design software packages offers infrastructure practitioners and engineers valuable insights. Thus, it aids digital highway engineering decision-making.