Article Safety

Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Industry Accident Statistics 2023

- by
Tags: Featured

Marking the second year of gathering accident and incident data from across the geotechnical & geoenvironmental industry, there has been a 127% increase in organisations providing information to the AGS. This perhaps highlights the benefit which has been demonstrated through sharing accident and incident data, allowing industry performance to be communicated, and improvement targets, aims, and objectives set by contractors, as well as the industry body.

Moving forward I would like to think we, as an industry, can build on this improved engagement year on year, prompting more openness across the industry and collectively striving for continued improvement in health, safety and wellbeing. This improvement would form a reliable indicator of an industry with a maturing safety culture.

2023 Accident Incident Data

Applying Health and Safety Executive (HSE) frequency and incident rate formulae to allow benchmarking against the HSE Statistics, and maintaining industry uniformity from the data published last year, two accident incident rates have been used to calculate the 2023 data;

  1. Accident Incident Rate (AIR) – (number of RIDDOR reportable accidents / average workforce headcount) x 100,000.
  2. Accident Frequency Rate (AFR) – (total number of harm accidents / total number of hours worked) x 1,000,000.

The most obvious statistic in the data is a 169% increase in accidents per head count from the 2022 AIR and a 142% increase from the 2021 AIR. This is a significant shift, highlighting that if you worked within the geotechnical & geoenvironmental industry in 2023, you were 2.5 times more likely, than in either of the preceding years, to experience an injury that is reportable to the HSE. i.e. An injury that would result in you not being able to work for seven days, being hospitalised for twenty-four hours, involving a broken bone, loss of sight, etc.

Examining the 2023 AFR in comparison with the 2022 AFR, the rate has been reduced significantly, down 55%. In isolation this could be considered good news, however viewed together with the increase in the AIR, the message from the data is clear.

‘The industry had fewer accidents in 2023, however the number of persons who were seriously harmed increased significantly’.

Why is this? Considering the data holistically, there are several possibilities, although certainty can only be achieved through detailed investigation of information which extends past that information issued to the AGS.

Weakness in accident reporting culture – Where there is a poor accident and incident reporting culture, minor injuries, near misses and hazard reporting reduce, but more serious accidents, due to workers not being able to continue to work or require first aid, are reported. There are several reasons why this type of weak reporting culture can develop, including poor organisational safety culture, working within environments where accident and incidents are linked to blame, an incorrect assumption that accident incident reporting is a negative (not a learning / improvement opportunity), counterproductive zero accident targets, etc.

Risk reduction prioritisation – The significant hazards within the industry are well established, namely contact with underground and overhead utilities (contact with electricity accounted for 6% of all construction fatalities in 2023), plant people interface (struck by moving machinery & plant accounted  for 20% of construction related fatalities in 2023) and manual handling (musculoskeletal disorders make up 54% of all construction work ill health in the three years from 2021 to 2023).

The accident data shift could highlight that hazard identification and correction has focused on easy to target items, such as housekeeping, access and egress, welfare, etc. While this has driven down minor accidents it has allowed more significant hazards to go unchecked, resulting in significant harm.

Economic pressure – 2023 was a tough year for the UK economy, increasing the cost of living significantly. Businesses were impacted by higher energy costs, which also increased the cost of materials. At the same time the workforce, pushed for pay rises or more work to counteract the impact of the cost-of-living crisis.

With this economic strain, it is easy to imagine direct and indirect pressure placed on the workforce to be more efficient, find ways of doing things faster and cheaper, work longer hours increasing fatigue, machinery servicing or repairs being stretched or extended, etc. all which could contribute to an increase in accidents. Although not limited to significant accidents.

The Construction Industry

In comparison to the wider construction industry, non-fatal RIDDOR reportable injures did not increase from those figures prior to the coronavirus pandemic, the rate of self-reported non-fatal injury to workers showed a downward trend in this period. The rate for the latest period, which includes years affected by the coronavirus pandemic, was not statistically significantly different from the 2014/15-2016/17 period.

Accident Incident Data Breakdown

When the data is broken down into organisation size, it highlights that from the small (1 to 10 employees) to the very large (1000+ employees) organisations, the increased AIR is not universal, with the small, large (101 to 1000 employees), and very large organisations maintaining, even reducing their AIR through 2023.

However, medium size organisations (11 to 100 employees) have seen a significant increase from 2022 rates. This has been driven by a small number of organisations who have had disproportionate numbers of RIDDOR reportable accidents to their headcount.

Similarly, the trends highlighted in the 2022 AIR analysis, suggests that the organisations which are growing from owner operators or small practices into medium size organisations are more exposed to accidents, as their systems and processes are not as mature or are well established. In addition, the management and supervisory structure may not be as mature, and pressure could be placed on those within the organisations to get the job done.

As an industry development area, the availability of a stock geotechnical & geoenvironmental industry health and safety management system could aid in reducing risk within this area and support organisations through transition from small to a medium size business.

While AFRs do not indicate that medium size organisations have performed worse than in 2022, in fact a reduction in rates was recorded, they remain the group twice as likely to have accidents.

Both small and very large organisations have shown a significant reduction in accidents, and the most stable group size large, is showing a reduction from 2022, while maintaining consistency below industry average.

Industry Safety Culture

The ConocoPhilips Marine model has been used to measure culture, benchmarking the geotechnical & geoenvironmental industry accident incident data and ensuring uniformity with previous years accident incident statistics. This model placed the Safety Triangle within a modern occupational context and states that for every single fatality there are at least 30 lost workday cases, 300 minor injuries, 3,000 near misses (estimated), and 300,000 behaviours not consistent with proper safety procedures (estimated).

The industry culture looks weak around non-statutory reporting on comparison against this model, with Near Miss reporting 44% below model target. However, Hazard Spots at 74%, although under model target, represents a significant improvement on 2022 data. This can be a particularly hard area of improvement for organisations and an increase here does highlight cultural improvement.

Breaking down the data on Hazard Spots further, it’s clear that some organisations are performing better than others and are responsible for driving these rates up, however it’s a positive industry indicator within some less than positive industry accident statistics.

Summing Up

Although not submitted within our member accident data returns, I am aware of two fatalities reported within our industry in 2023. An owner operator lost their life while undertaking directional drilling, and a young engineer lost his life when they were struck by mobile plant. Both, considering the information which has been publicly released, were avoidable accidents which have resulted in family members not returning home at the end of the day.

Combined with the snapshot from the 42 AGS member organisations who shared their accident and incident data, 2023 is a year not to forget, rather it’s a year to remember and act upon.

This upward trend in significant accidents cannot go unchecked. Everyone working within the industry needs to review what they are doing, look what’s happening on the ground, what is being said in planning and client meetings and challenge unsafe conditions, unsafe planning, and unsafe behaviours. If an unsafe situation develops, we need to empower our people to challenge it.

As an industry we cannot keep sending our colleagues, friends, and family to work in situations where the risk of significant injury continues to increase. As an industry we must do better.

Article provided by Jon Rayner, AECOM SH&E Director

 

Article

Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) Spring Conference 2024 ‘Champion Excellence’

- by
Tags: Featured

Far Left to far right: GBA President: Guy Marcozzi, AGS Chair: Vivien Dent, GBA treasurer and future GBA President: Teresa Peterson, AGS Geotechnical working group leader: Alex Dent

Last year you may recall that the GBA presented at our annual conference. This year, the AGS Chair, Vivien Dent, and AGS Geotechnical Working Group Chair, Alex Dent, were invited by the GBA to attend their spring conference ‘Champion Excellence’ in Anaheim, USA.

Before the conference started, the GBA held two days of board and committee meetings. Vivien presented an overview of the AGS to the GBA board of Directors meeting to establish potential collaboration between the two trade associations. We have much in common such as a skills shortage, making our industry more inclusive, opportunities presented by climate change and the risks and benefits of cloud based storage and sharing of geotechnical data.

The GBA works similarly to the AGS with voluntary members working in a series of Committees:

  1. Business Practice,
  2. Business Technology
  3. CoMET Business
  4. Inclusion advancement committee
  5. Emerging issues and trends
  6. Environmental business
  7. Geotechnical Business
  8. Multimedia delivery

We were invited to attend committee meetings with Alex attending the Geotechnical Business Committee and Vivien attending the inclusion advancement committee. The AGS Geotechnical Working Group have been liaising with the GBA Geotechnical Business Committee over the last year and it was good for Alex to meet people in person rather than remotely. It was useful to discover that many of the main concerns they have reflect our own and explore opportunities for collaboration between the two groups.

A session on ‘Committee Chronicles: Tales of Excellence’, provided us with an overview of the work done in these committees over the last year. We were impressed by the dedication of the people in these committees and the work undertaken covered some matters which we can consider for the AGS.

Something which really impressed us was the GBA’s emerging leaders class and their career continuum project which they have set up to tackle the decline of graduates joining the profession. The career continuum project is considered so important, that this is led by one of the GBA Directors, Carrie Foulk, and a copy of the scheme was shared. It would be useful for the AGS to review and consider something similar. Carrie went on to provide an impassioned presentation on this topic at the main conference.

The graduating emerging leaders presented ‘Tiger Cage’ (our equivalent of Dragons Den), where they pitched their idea for ‘Geokits’, resources which had been developed to introduce geotechnical engineering to children.  A copy of the instructions was obtained and can be shared: ideal for school and sixth form STEM visits.

The conference itself started with innovation consultant Diana Kander presenting: Why Curiosity is the ultimate competitive advantage. Vivien found this the most inspirational talk and  came away with 3 rules to implement:

Rule 1 – Don’t ask yes or no. Ask how does this rank on a scale of 1 to 10;

Rule 2 – Kill the Zombies. Ask – what should we stop. Do this once a year; and

Rule 3 – Reimagine what’s possible. Start with a blank sheet of paper. Don’t ask ‘how can I’? ask ‘who can’?

In the afternoon, a series of round table discussions were held. Vivien joined the discussion on ‘opportunities for the geotechnical sector presented by climate change’. Delegates in the discussion group included geotechnical engineers from New Orleans and Alaska and the discussion introduced challenges associated with issues we don’t have in the UK – such as melting permafrost.

The ‘how to network effectively’ round table discussion was also interesting and a list of ways to help introverts network was produced.

Alex joined the ‘can remote sensing deal with the skills shortage’ discussion. It was clear from the discussion that the UK is leaps and bounds ahead of North America on the use of, LiDAR, InSAR, wireless telemetery for monitoring installation and qualitative density measurements during compaction.  Alex then joined the discussion on ‘What advice would you give the 25year old you’ – which resulted in a lively and humorous debate.

There were plenty of opportunities for networking at the conference with networking breakfasts, lunches and evening events. It was clear from these discussions that GBA members are concerned with the retirement of ‘gINT’ and what may replace it, with anxieties over using Openground and the cloud based sharing of geotechnical data. It was evident that the AGS data format is held in high regard. Another strong area of potential collaboration.

The GBA Awards Recognition Banquet celebrated outstanding contributions to the committees and was a great way to acknowledge some of the achievements of GBA members over the past year.

On the last day of the conference, we were treated to an inspiring talk from Jim Abbott, a former league baseball pitcher who overcame a birth defect to become a pro pitcher and ball player, talking about making the most of what you have been given and to believe in who you are and what you can do.

Talks were also given on becoming a champion for our profession for future geoprofessionals and a presentation ‘Into the Unknown: How leadership, ingenuity and perseverance put a rover on Mars’, delivered by Adam Steltzer, leader and chief engineer NASA Mars 202 Mission. Our take home from that was to separate the ideas from the people to avoid unconscious bias.

We have come away from the GBA conference enthused and we are looking forward to our future collaboration with the GBA.

Our trip wasn’t all work and no play. The conference venue was next to Disneyland California! On a free day we got to fly the Millennium Falcon and meet R2D2 before being captured by the ‘First Order’ – thankfully managing to escape the clutches of the Evil Sith Lord ‘Kylo Ren’ and his stormtroopers.

Article provided by Vivien and Alex Dent (AGS Chair and Chair Geotechnical Working Group)

Article

Thoughts from the regulatory front line

- by
Tags: Featured

This is the first part of a two part series developed by the SiLC Professional & Technical Panel (PTP) regarding the standard of land contamination reports submitted through the planning system. Here David Carr, who represents CIEH on the PTP, presents a local authority environmental health officer (EHO) perspective, with a follow-up article to be provided by SiLCs on the PTP representing the consultancy sector.

Article contributed by: David Carr, Lead Scientific Officer, Environmental and Community Protection, Dacorum Borough Council

This article is based on the author’s experiences and discussions with colleagues in other local authorities.

Local authority Environmental Health Departments in England are consulted on dozens of planning applications a month, which need to be screened to determine whether land contamination conditions will be warranted if permission is granted. Some, but unfortunately not many, of these applications will be accompanied by a Stage 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA), where land contamination is suspected, or the proposed end use would be vulnerable to the presence of land contamination.  In addition to those planning applications asking for permission to be granted, other consultations are received for the discharge of land contamination conditions that were placed on conditional permitted developments.

A local authority Environmental Health Practitioner or Environmental Protection Officer, in any month, will be reviewing numerous land contamination reports ranging from  PRAs, through site investigations and quantitative risk assessments (generic or detailed), to options appraisals, remediation strategies/verification plans and remediation verification reports, as required by LCRM.

In the course of this work, there are common quality issues encountered with each of those types of report that mean it is not possible to discharge land contamination planning conditions at the first attempt. This can lead to costly and frustrating delays for the developer and the need for on-going liaison and discussion between the planning authority as advised by environmental health and the developer and their environmental consultant.

The following are some of the most common issues found at each stage of reporting that, if they could be overcome, would result in a much smoother progression through the planning process. It is important to recognise that regulation of sites affected by land contamination where controlled waters are a receptor of concern will be led by the Environment Agency, so the commonly observed issues in this article reflect the human health focus of local authority environmental health/ protection officers.

LCRM Stage 1 Preliminary Risk Assessments:

  • Failure to take account of information on recent or historical land uses at a site available within the documentation submitted by the developer in support of their application that is not discernible from historical maps and aerial photographs.
  • Failure to gain access to the buildings on the site and no acknowledgement of such as an area of uncertainty and no commitment to remedy the situation or update the report subsequently.
  • Other considerations often overlooked are drainage features and associated infrastructure, such as interceptors and soakaways.

Intrusive Site Investigations and LCRM Stages 2 and 3 Risk Assessments:

  • Failure to appropriately explain and justify the site investigation in terms of its scope and rationale, most usually but not exclusively, in relation to the locations of the chosen sampling points. For example, it is not unusual for features identified within the PRA report and uncertainties within the conceptual site model (CSM) not to be targeted by the subsequent site investigation.

 

Other issues often encountered with the site investigations are:

  • significant areas of a site not being investigated, usually because of constraints such as buildings still being present, with no acknowledgement that this represents considerable uncertainty and with no commitment to undertake a supplementary investigation at a later date.
  • a potential ground gas risk being identified at PRA which is not pursued during the site investigation, without any justification, or only investigated in a cursory manner by one or two gas monitoring boreholes with response zones chosen in a seemingly arbitrary manner.
  • in cases where ground gas risk represented a potential risk and sufficient ground gas monitoring has been undertaken in line with expected good practice, it is rare to find an illustrative/ cross-section representation of the updated CSM reflecting the monitoring findings
  • sampling locations not being overlain on historical or present site plans, or on proposed layout plans.
  • failure to consider larger sites as different zones, depending on conditions encountered, different land use histories and, in some circumstances, end uses proposed.
  • Risk assessments rarely progress past the Stage 2 generic quantitative risk assessment. On sites where the GQRA finds low risk this will typically result in the report being deemed sufficient but can result in unnecessary remediation work being recommended.
  • LCRM Stage 3 detailed quantitative risk assessments are encountered infrequently but where they are, issues encountered tend to provide insufficient information about the nature of the soils, wrongly apply statistical assessments or do not sufficiently measure or assess the risk of vapour for particular contaminants.

 

Options Appraisals and Remediation Strategies, including verification plans:

  • Options appraisals on more complicated sites tend to include minimal details and assessment of the pros and cons for the options not chosen, compared to those that are chosen.

 

  • Issues commonly encountered with remediation strategies:
    • Incomplete strategies/ design reports for gas protection measures because gas membrane and foundation specifications have yet to be finalised at the time of the submission of the strategy.
    • Incomplete strategies because the approach to materials management, including pollution prevention practices during earthworks are being left for the yet-to-be-appointed ground works contractor to decide.
    • No discussion about the decommissioning of monitoring wells, which can represent an important pathway for gas migration from depth.

 

  • Verification Plans and Verification reports are generally without problem provided sufficient testing and record keeping is agreed and that the work is carried out by an environmental consultant rather than the developer or their groundwork contractor. On a positive note a significant improvement had been noticed over the past few years in understanding the need to have ground gas protection measures installed and verified by independent and suitably qualified contractors.

Summary

Overall, following the guidance in LCRM and specifically the reporting suggestions would result in a quicker process through the planning system and be more likely to result in first-time discharge of conditions.

Article

Opinion: Should we be concerned that the term “geoengineering” is now being used to refer to climate engineering rather than ground engineering?

- by
Tags: Featured

Reading articles published in the media and in academic studies, the term “geoengineering” (or geo-engineering) now most commonly refers to the subject of climate engineering, including technologies that could manipulate the environment and offset the impacts of climate change. Notably solar engineering and carbon dioxide removal. Alongside the word “geoscience”, which is generally accepted as the scientific study of Earth, these “GEO” words have been universally adopted by the climate change community and are now more frequently recognised in this field than in our own engineering and geological disciplines. The term ‘geo’ is derived from the Greek for ‘Earth’, and is not limited to soil or rock materials, so it follows that as climate change affects everything on Planet Earth, not just the ground beneath its surface, it is an appropriate term to use for this purpose.

Some reference sources acknowledge the other uses of the term, noting that geoengineering may also refer to geological engineering, engineering geology, geotechnical engineering and geophysical engineering. It is, however, widely acknowledged that geology and engineering are not the first disciplines most people think of when coming across the term.

A creditable argument is that the climate crisis is much more important than geological sciences. Despite the possibility that we are at the beginning of a new geological Anthropocene Epoch caused by human activity, it is acknowledged in most academic and engineering circles that our focus should be on minimising our effect on the global climate. Our role as geologists, engineers and geoenvironmentalists in supporting this objective is becoming clearer as our understanding of the situation grows. We should embrace our part in this, celebrating the use of geoengineering to provide a positive contribution. What we should learn from this is the importance of being careful when using such terms to describe our work, as the fundamentals of our role could be easily misunderstood.

Opinion piece by Neil Parry, Director, Geotechnical Engineering Limited

Article

AGS donates over £3,880 to Projects for Nature

- by
Tags: Featured

Following the AGS Annual Conference 2024 which took place on 25th April at One Great George Street in London, we’re pleased to announce that the event generated a profit of £3,881. After a discussion, the AGS Officers decided to donate the surplus in its entirety to Projects for Nature, an initiative which aims to restore nature recovery in the UK.

The AGS Sustainability Working Group were given the task to choose one of many projects to support, and after much deliberation, it was decided to donate the funds to the Midland WILD Revival fund, a project focusing on rewilding the River Blythe in Warwickshire.

This project will aim to restore the ecosystem and create climate resilience in the local area whilst also creating a haven for people to reconnect with the great outdoors in the heart of England.

“We’re incredibly proud to back this worthy cause and help support an environmental project which will not only benefit the eco system but also the 2 million residents living in the surrounding areas of the River Blythe,” says Vivien Dent, AGS Chair.

THE MIDLAND WILD REVIVAL STORY SO FAR…

Since 2021, meticulous planning has laid the groundwork for the rewilding of 750 acres of land, a bold venture aiming to redefine the very essence of Warwickshire’s landscape.  Projects for Nature have already made progress with 89 acres of wetland enhanced, 4.2 kilometres of hedges restored and 1.2 kilometres of river re-naturalised.

This project is considered a pioneering leap into rewilding history. This groundbreaking initiative incorporates natural flood management and showcases the power of nature-based solutions to the climate emergency.

The success of this project isn’t purely focused on rejuvenating land, this is also an inspiring movement which involves a whole host of different groups including universities, wildlife recording groups, local heroes, angling clubs, contractors, and spirited volunteers, all contributing to this restoration project for the community.

ABOUT PROJECTS FOR NATURE

Projects for Nature was formed by the Council for Sustainable Business, Accenture, Defra, Natural England, Environment Agency and Crowdfunder to help bridge the nature funding gap and accelerate urgently needed nature recovery in England. It was launched by the Secretary of State at COP28 and is a pioneering platform that connects corporate donors with nature recovery projects across England that have been initially funded by Government and screened by its agencies.

Projects for Nature believes that we need to turn a corner towards protecting and restoring nature by recognising its value and supporting its path to recovery.

For further information please visit www.projectsfornature.com or to learn more about the Midland WILD Revival fund click HERE.

 

Article

AGS Early Careers Webinar Series – Drilling Techniques and In Situ Testing Summary

- by
Tags: Featured

On Wednesday 5th June 2024, the AGS held an Early Careers webinar entitled Drilling Techniques and In Situ Testing.

The webinar was chaired by Harry McAllister (Senior Geotechnical Consultant, TRC Companies) and included presentations from Martyn Brocklesby (Director at Geotechnical Engineering and Director of the British Drilling Association), Harry McAllister (Senior Geotechnical Consultant at TRC Companies), Simon Harlow (Senior Consultant at Arcadis), Eleanor Cook (Senior Consultant at Arup) and Julian Puzyna (Director at Sackedgate).

Martyn Brocklesby began the webinar by looking at intrusive ground investigation techniques and their practical application. This was followed by a presentation from Harry McAllister who provided an overview of the consultant’s role in supervising intrusive ground investigations. Simon Harlow then introduced on site in situ geotechnical testing methods and Eleanor Cook gave a brief overview of geoenvironmental in situ rapid measurement techniques. The webinar finished with a video presentation from Julian Puzyna which introduced the use of a handheld XRF spectrometer for soil analysis and presented the basic principles (physics) of XRF testing.

If you missed the webinar, the recording is now live on the AGS website and is free for AGS members and £50 + VAT for non-members.

Article Event Business Practice Contaminated Land Data Management Executive Geotechnical Instrumentation & Monitoring Laboratories Loss Prevention Safety Sustainability

AGS Annual Conference 2025 – Sponsorship Opportunities

Tags: 2025 AGS Annual Conference Featured sponsorship
AGS Annual Conference 2025 – Sponsorship Opportunities
2025-05-0101st May 2025
One Great George Street, London
Add to Calendar

We’re pleased to announce that the AGS Annual Conference will return once again to One Great George Street in London’s Westminster on Thursday 1st May 2025.

The programme will include a full-day, CPD conference in the stunning Great Hall and soon to be refurbished Telford Theatre, followed by a Networking Drinks and Canapé Reception in the Smeaton Room.

We have a range of sponsorship opportunities available for both Members and non-Members of the Association who wish to have a presence during the event. Please see our available packages below:

 

NETWORKING DRINKS RECEPTION SPONSOR* (AGS Member Rate: £1875 / Non-Member Rate: £2530)

  • Company logo on the drinks and canape menu
  • Company logo on selected drinks
  • 2x pull-up banners in the Smeaton Room
  • Two/three page company/individual Q&A in AGS magazine (over 7450 subscribers)**
  • Full page advert in AGS Magazine (worth £400)**
  • Entry for four delegates into the Annual Conference
  • A designated area to exhibit company initiatives, research and software during the conference. This exhibition space can also be used to showcase marketing materials, company literature and banners
  • Company logo on the conference lectern
  • Company logo on the event presentation holding slide
  • Company logo, overview and URL on the event programme
  • Company overview and URL on the AGS website
  • Company logo featured in promotional emails
  • Three company posts on the AGS’ X page (over 3700 followers)
  • Three company posts on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (over 8,600 followers)

Company inclusion in pre and post-event articles in AGS Magazine (over 7450 subscribers)
*one package available
**terms and conditions apply

 

CANAPE SPONSOR* (AGS Member Rate: £1750 / Non-Member Rate: £2360)

  • Company logo on the drinks and canape menu
  • Company logo on the canape flags
  • Two/three page company/individual Q&A in AGS magazine (over 7450 subscribers)**
  • Full page advert in AGS Magazine (worth £400)**
  • Entry for three delegates into the Annual Conference
  • A designated area to exhibit company initiatives, research and software during the conference. This exhibition space can also be used to showcase marketing materials, company literature and banners
  • Company logo on the conference lectern
  • Company logo on the event presentation holding slide
  • Company logo, overview and URL on the event programme
  • Company overview and URL on the AGS website
  • Company logo featured in promotional emails
  • Three company posts on the AGS’ X page (over 3700 followers)
  • Three company posts on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (over 8,600 followers)

Company inclusion in pre and post-event articles in AGS Magazine (over 7450 subscribers)
*one package available
**terms and conditions apply

 

EMERALD SPONSOR (AGS Member Rate: £1525/ Non-Member Rate: £2090)

  • A designated area to exhibit company initiatives, research and software during the conference. This exhibition space can also be used to showcase marketing materials, company literature and banners
  • Entry for three delegates into the Annual Conference
  • Full page advert in AGS Magazine (worth £400, over 7450 subscribers)**
  • Company logo on the conference lectern
  • Company logo on the event presentation holding slide
  • Company logo, overview and URL on the event programme
  • Company overview and URL on the AGS website
  • Company logo featured in promotional emails
  • Two company posts on the AGS’ X page (over 3700 followers)
  • Two company posts on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (over 8,600 followers)
  • Company inclusion in pre and post-event articles in AGS Magazine (over 7450 subscribers)

GOLD SPONSOR – (AGS Member Rate: £1400 / Non-Member Rate: £1920)

  • A designated area to exhibit company initiatives, research and software during the conference. This exhibition space can also be used to showcase marketing materials, company literature and banners
  • Entry for two delegates into the Annual Conference
  • 1/4 page advert in AGS magazine (worth £160, over 7450 subscribers)
  • Company logo on the conference lectern
  • Company logo on the event presentation holding slide
  • Company logo, overview and URL on the event programme
  • Company overview and URL on the AGS website
  • Company logo featured in promotional emails
  • Two company posts on the AGS’ X page (over 3700 followers)
  • Two company posts on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (over 8,600 followers)
  • Company inclusion in pre and post-event articles in AGS Magazine (over 7450 subscribers)

ASSOCIATE SPONSOR (AGS Member Rate: £700 Non-Member Rate: £945)

  • Entry for one delegate into the Annual Conference
  • Company directory in AGS magazine (worth £50, over 7450 subscribers)
  • Company logo on the conference lectern
  • Company logo on the event presentation holding slide
  • Company logo, overview and URL on the event programme
  • Company overview and URL on the AGS website
  • Company logo featured in promotional emails
  • One company post on the AGS’ X page (over 3700 followers)
  • One company post on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (over 8,600 followers)
  • Company inclusion in pre and post-event articles in AGS Magazine (over 7450 subscribers)

All rates exclude VAT. If you’d like to confirm your support, please contact Caroline Kratz or Holly Blake on ags@ags.org.uk before Friday 28th March. Please note that packages are limited and are offered on a first come, first served basis.

Article Event Business Practice Contaminated Land Data Management Executive Geotechnical Instrumentation & Monitoring Laboratories Loss Prevention Safety Sustainability

[SAVE THE DATE]: AGS Annual Conference 2025

Tags: AGS Annual Conference 2025 Featured One Great George Street
[SAVE THE DATE]: AGS Annual Conference 2025
2025-05-0101st May 2025
One Great George Street, London
Add to Calendar

We’re pleased to announce that the AGS Annual Conference will return once again to One Great George Street in London’s Westminster in spring 2025.

Taking place on Thursday 1st May in the stunning Great Hall and soon to be refurbished Telford Theatre, the event will once again include a Networking Drinks and Canapé Reception after the conference has taken place, this time in the Smeaton Room.

Further information on the event will be announced in due course but if you have any questions or would like to register your interest email Caroline Kratz on ags@ags.org.uk

 

SPONSORSHIP

We have a range of sponsorship opportunities available for both Members and non-Members of the Association who wish to have a presence during the event. For full details of our available sponsorship packages please click HERE.

 

 

Article News Business Practice Contaminated Land Data Management Executive Geotechnical Instrumentation & Monitoring Laboratories Loss Prevention Safety Sustainability

Early Careers Video: Discover a Rewarding Career in the Geo-Industry

- by
Tags: careers Early Careers Featured geo-industry geo-science graduate video

 

Our new early careers video discusses the many different career paths which are open to graduates entering the geo-industry.

If you’re a graduate and have studied geology, geography, environmental science, civil engineering or have a passion for the environment, then a career in the geo-sciences could be for you.

There are many different avenues within our sector to explore; from working on small pre-construction building projects, to large earthworks movements, to detailed laboratory analysis. You can be part of a team developing solutions for construction, engineering and renewable energy, or be focused on cleaning up the environment and keeping the public safe from harmful materials in the ground. Whatever pathway you choose, you’ll be helping to shape the industry for future generations.

Take a look at the video for full details.

 

Please note that industry representatives are welcome to use this video when promoting the geo-industry within schools. For further information email ags@ags.org.uk.

 

 

 

 

 

Article

Q&A with Molly Kirven

- by
Tags: Featured

Name: Molly Kirven

Job title: Carbon Engineer

Company: Balfour Beatty

Can you provide an overview on your background, current role, and responsibilities?
My background studies lie in BSc (Hons) Geology and MSc Applied Petroleum Geoscience, whereby my thesis focused on renewable energy potential using carbon capture and storage and geothermal energy. From university, I transitioned straight into the construction industry at Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering. I began as a Contracts Engineer and transitioned to a Design Engineer, of which both roles predominantly focused on precast driven piling. Recently, I moved to Balfour Beatty Major Projects as a Carbon Engineer, whereby I work on carbon estimating for tenders, and give project delivery teams support with reporting carbon actual data.

What attracted you into the industry?
I am fascinated with the different tools and mechanisms we can use to work with the ground and construct infrastructural creations with rapid impact. Construction yields tangible results quickly, allowing you to see your work take shape right before your eyes. The construction and engineering industry provides great opportunities to be involved in various projects of different scales. Whether it’s creating sustainable buildings, enhancing communities, or improving infrastructure, all of these play a role in shaping our society and environment.

Can you talk us through your poster design and why you decided to focus on carbon and piling?
Piling has been a large focus in my career journey, and a discipline where I have been able to proactively support sustainability trials and changes, showcased on the poster. These include aiding in creating the sustainability action plan for Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering, analysing pile wastage on precast driven piling projects, and comparing timber vs plastic packing choices. Carbon can act as a measurable tool to visualise the emissions we produce through a whole project lifecycle. It can demonstrate the impact we have and is a key metric for how sustainability can be measured.

Why are you passionate about sustainability?
In my perspective, sustainability embodies positive change for our communities and environment. I am passionate about sustainability as it provides an opportunity to enhance our past and current practices to alternatives which could have a better global impact for future generations.

What would you like to see being done to improve sustainability in the sector?
It would be great to see the industry striving for accurate carbon reporting through a whole project life cycle to understand how we can choose the best options on a per project basis. Through understanding carbon hotspots, and evaluating the best options per project, the most optimum safety, design, engineering, cost, and carbon choices can be made.

How did you find the AGS Annual Conference?
The conference was amazing! It was great to see the theme of sustainability interwoven throughout the day event. I particularly enjoyed the presentations discussing:

    • Carbon calculators and a case study for piling
    • Sustainable finance and pensions
    • Sustainable earthworks practice on major civil engineering projects

All presentations provided ways in which we are and can embody sustainability into the work we do.

What advice would you give to other Early careers professionals?
Where you can be proactive, go for it! There are so many opportunities out there that aid in your growth as an early careers professional, and simultaneously expands your network with individuals you may not usually meet in your day to day role.

Article Sustainability

Do geotechnical engineers truly understand sustainability?

- by
Tags: Featured

Photograph taken during restoration of the Walthamstow Wetlands (Ramboll, 2016)

As an industry, we need to widen our sustainability focus away from carbon management and further afield to include biodiversity, nature-based solutions and climate adaptation. Our six practical steps that you can follow as geotechnical engineers to implement the wider aspects of sustainability effectively are as follows:

  • Improve your working practices by upskilling yourself and your colleagues in the broader principles of sustainability.
  • Engage your workforce and equip them with the skills they need to design sustainable and climate adaptable solutions.
  • Be open to non-traditional approaches and innovative ideas and encourage research in industry applicable solutions on your projects focusing on biodiversity and nature-based solutions.
  • Consult ecologists at preliminary stages in your projects.
  • Engage with researchers into the use of new materials for construction or the adaptation of existing processes utilising constituents that enable biodiversity net gain.
  • Most importantly, don’t wait for someone else to ask you to consider the many aspects of sustainability, take the initiative yourself, and educate your Clients in the process.

We hope that you come away from this article inspired to think more broadly about sustainability.

The scope of sustainability within the ground engineering sector in the UK is developing as Clients, Contractors and Consultants start to take more responsibility to reduce the negative environmental and societal impact that the construction industry creates. The focus within sustainability for the last decade has been on calculating and reducing carbon on projects from materials, transport, and operations. Despite the progress geotechnical engineers have made in this area, we seem to have forgotten that the term ‘sustainability’ encompasses so much more than carbon management and it is pivotal that these other aspects of sustainability, including biodiversity and climate resilience, are considered.

As geotechnical engineers, we have influence on a wide variety of multi-disciplinary construction projects and engage in all stages from outline planning to construction. Therefore, we are in an advantageous position to promote and incorporate the wider themes of sustainability into our designs. It is important that we don’t rest on the sustainability actions of other disciplines but make our own impact as a profession and contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals across a range of projects.

There is minimal research or discussion on how ground engineering can beneficially impact biodiversity and embed climate resilience into our designs and in this article we aim to encourage these lines of conversation and pose questions to the ground engineering sector to deliver a more holistic approach to the delivery of sustainable design solutions.

Biodiversity, short for “biological diversity”, is a term used to describe the variability of life on Earth. In recent times, the importance of biodiversity net gain (BNG) has been stressed in the civil engineering sector, with at least 10% BNG becoming a legal requirement for any projects requiring planning permission as of January 2024. This means that these developments must increase the biodiversity value of their sites by 10% on project completion.

In our line of work we have the potential to cause biodiversity loss when developing sites. When constructing linear infrastructure, if not enough care is taken to preserve biodiversity we could cut through habitats displacing species; or we could create barriers to groundwater using embedded walls impacting nearby habitats due to reduced groundwater flow. If we don’t change the way we work, we will continue to contribute to the biodiversity crisis, which is closely linked to the climate crisis. As an industry, we need to adapt our typical working practices to embed biodiversity net gain through the whole life of the project alongside effective carbon management.

At Ramboll, we are focused on considering the potential for biodiversity net gain in our projects. One exemplar project was the Walthamstow Wetlands in London, which won the GE Sustainability Award in 2018. The wider project had impressive biodiversity accomplishments, restoring valuable wetland area in an urban environment. However, the geotechnical design itself also contributed to improving the biodiversity of the site: an earth retention scheme was designed using timber kingposts and geotextiles as opposed to sheet piles or gabions. Due to the flexibility of the geotextiles, the material could easily imitate natural flowing lines. The geotextiles were also porous, allowing water to flow through the structure, preventing the water from stagnating. The short construction programme required to install this geotechnical scheme also meant that the bird-nesting season was not impacted. As well as offering a low carbon solution, this project also considered the wider aspects of environmental sustainability.

As part of the foundation design of offshore wind turbines, at Ramboll we are currently researching into offshore habitat creation, which will aim to improve the biodiversity of the oceans by supporting UNSDG 14 – Life Below Water. Offshore wind farms can become havens for marine life as the foundations below sea level can become artificial reefs and offer new marine habitats. Scour protection measures can be used to improve biodiversity, by using precast concrete units with cavities for life to inhabit and materials that mimic natural chemical substrates. These measures encourage marine growth around foundations, with the possibility for mussels and anemones to colonise the foundations over time.

Marine habitat after the installation of OWTs; Illustration by Hendrik Gheerardyn from S. Degraer, D. A. Carey, J. W.P. Coolen, Z. L. Hutchison, F. Kerckhof, B. Rumes and J. Vanaverbeke, “Offshore wind farm artificial reefs affect ecosystem structure and functions,” Oceanography, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 48-57, 2020.

However, it is important to consider the negative impacts that are inherent in the foundation design and mitigate these where possible. Marine ecosystems can be disturbed by the noise and vibration produced when piles are driven into the seabed. There are several methods that can be used to mitigate the noise generated, including physical barriers, bubble curtains and viscous dampers (cushions). A combination of these techniques can be applied in addition to vibro-hammer systems for pile driving which are significantly quieter. These techniques all aim to minimise the impact of construction to local wildlife.

Whilst some modern civil engineering projects have goals for biodiversity net gain, the input that we have contributed as geotechnical engineers to date has typically remained a traditional approach. We as an industry need to push ourselves to contribute to biodiversity net gain as part of sub-structure, earthworks, and foundation design, rather than waiting for other disciplines to achieve net gain on our behalf. So, in addition to the above examples, what can we do as geotechnical designers? Our advice to you is as follows:

  • Minimise your project footprint area. This can be done by increasing embankment slopes and utilising sheet pile walls instead of solutions that require more space. This will minimise the impact on the biodiversity of the site; however, you should also be aware to consider the carbon footprints of the scheme options.
  • Avoid regrading areas unless necessary; otherwise, design earthworks suitable for plant growth and habitat development through consideration of slope angles, provision of suitable drainage/irrigation and effective replanting through engagement with ecologists on appropriate native planting mixes.
  • Engage early with ecologists prior to finalising the design for the project. Ecologists are much more likely to be able to provide cost-effective and valuable solutions for biodiversity at earlier stages of the project.
  • Consider your impact on biodiversity when planning ground investigations and site walkovers, regardless of the scale of the project.
  • Source responsible materials. Consider the embodied ecological impact of materials caused by the extraction and manufacturing process (https://ukgbc.org/our-work/topics/embodied-ecological-impacts/) in addition to the embodied carbon of those materials. We should be reviewing the supply chain of the materials we are specifying and ensuring that materials are recycled/re-used wherever possible.
  • Consider the materials you are placing in the ground and the impact they may have. For example, consider the material’s chemical composition and its likelihood for releasing microplastics, and whether a retaining wall which could create a groundwater barrier is required or if it could be permeable. Use natural materials instead of impermeable concrete, for example, use permeable stone columns instead of piles; or design rafts instead of piles to prevent interference with aquifers.

More sustainable geotechnical solutions can not only be lower in embodied carbon, but can also be nature-based, improving the biodiversity outcomes of our projects. Nature-based geotechnical solutions can be defined as primarily geotechnical designs that additionally protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural ecosystems. A practical example that is within our reach is designing slopes for embankments with planting and vegetation and incorporating the benefits of mechanical reinforcement from roots and increase in suction from evapotranspiration. This not only reduces the overdesign of slopes but also, if landscaped correctly and using native plants, can generate a biodiverse geotechnical solution based on nature. To achieve an immediate benefit of this solution it may require the plants to be imported as shrubs rather than seeds so that the vegetation is established more quickly. Similarly to this, planting of trees in specific locations can be a sustainable and nature-based solution to landslide prevention.

An emerging field within ground engineering, outside of carbon management, is the use of bio-inspiration to address geotechnical stability issues. However, these solutions are not common and require assessment of the relative spatial and temporal scales between biological systems and engineering. Biological processes typically occur on a much smaller scale and at shallower depths, hence, the magnitude of pressures is different, as are the strength and stiffness properties. These factors make it challenging to apply biological processes to geotechnical solutions. However, a good example of this is the use of bio-cementation for soil stabilisation or ground improvement. Bio-cementation uses microbially induced carbonate precipitation (MICP) to produce calcium carbonate (CaCO3) to increase the strength and rigidity of granular soils, improving the strength properties by improving shear strength and compressibility (Safdar et al, 2021). Ramboll are facilitating a Network Rail project with Southbank University where bio-cementation is being trialled on 30m of new embankment over a horizon of soft peat. If this process becomes more widely researched, it could become an innovative way of stabilising weak soils without the use of imported fill or carbon intensive binders.

The biocementation process. Diagram by ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 6, 5183–5190, Publication Date: May 16, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b00521.Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society

When considering geotechnical problems, in addition to reducing embodied carbon and improving the biodiversity of our projects, we must design for the future climate. Adaptation of our geotechnical designs to climate change is becoming more critical as we experience ever more frequent extreme weather events and rising global temperatures. Climate resilient designs can be environmentally and economically more valuable, increasing design life, reducing the need for demolition and replacement of assets and, decreasing the risk of engineering failure if a one-off weather event occurs.

Implementation of climate models in geotechnical design could include fluctuating or higher groundwater levels caused by sea level rise and flooding or conversely, lower groundwater levels caused by droughts and the over-extraction of groundwater. Additionally, we may need increased corrosion protection for steel marine structures caused by acidification of the oceans.

In the UK, shrink-swell of over consolidated clays is already an issue for structures, and this will only increase with climate change increasing rainfall and temperatures. Research into the use of natural material barriers (up to 1000mm thick) to reduce the increasing magnitude of movements of shrink-swell clays is being conducted by Climate Adaptation Control Technologies for Urban Spaces (CACTUS) not only as a way of adapting to climate change but also creating a nature-based geotechnical solution. Additionally, changes in the climate can affect the freeze-thaw cycle, impacting roads, pavements and railways requiring changes to sub-base design.

Another way of looking at climate adaptation could be the use of modular design. Marine walls for sea defences can be built by modular design allowing the height of the wall to change. Could this be applied to retaining walls in ground engineering?

We should be encouraging Clients to consider the impacts of climate change on their assets by highlighting to them both the environmental and economic long-term benefits of choosing the sustainable option. Widening our sustainability focus away from carbon management and further afield to include biodiversity, nature-based solutions and climate adaptation will bring great benefits to us as an industry, and to the planet.

Article produced by Marla Gillow, Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Ramboll and Meggie Cassidy, Principal Geotechnical Engineer, Ramboll

Article

NHBC’s new Performance Standard for Building on Engineered Fill

- by
Tags: Featured

NHBC’s commitment to investing in high-quality research, products, and Standards has always been key to supporting the industry in maintaining and improving quality. With around 70,000 plots registered for Buildmark Cover annually on land previously considered Brownfield, NHBC’s commitment to ensuring safe and high-quality developments on these sites cannot be overstated.

In 1999, NHBC became the first UK warranty provider to offer extended warranty provisions for contaminated land. It introduced a new Chapter 4.1 named “Managing Ground Conditions,” which outlines the acceptance requirements for warranty and subsequently published Research & Development  Publication 66 to guide safe housing development affected by contamination.

Although a slow start for those unfamiliar with it, the house-building industry got on board, and with scientific advancements, improved government policy, supporting guidance, and help from specialists like AGS members, the understanding of Contaminated Land Assessment has greatly improved. As a result, contamination claims are now rare.

Recently, the quality and reduced input of geotechnical expertise within submissions has been a concerning trend noticed by the NHBC Land Quality Service team, especially for schemes involving earthworks to prepare sites for residential development. Although NHBC sees exceptional work, we are increasingly seeing evidence, reporting, or designs that are limited or show a lack of understanding of geotechnics.

It is unclear why this is happening; it could be due to an early emphasis on addressing environmental concerns. These are routinely and rigorously enforced through planning but, as a consequence, can often distract applicants or the necessary investment away from the geotechnical needs until the planning consents are secured and certainty of development investment can be realised.

Geotechnics within the house-building industry may be considered less innovative or exciting than other sectors, leading to fewer specialists working in this field. However, as the easier-to-win schemes become less common, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Building more homes on marginal or brownfield development is undeniably becoming more frequent. Indeed, NHBC regularly encounters submissions for warranty on challenging and complex sites. These vary from Greenfields that require flood alleviation measures and significant land raising to existing infilled ground such as former quarries or historic landfills, old collieries, and areas with past industrial land use.

Our registered builders and developers must comply with the technical requirements set out in the NHBC Standards. The NHBC Standards define the technical requirements and performance standards detail how these can be met for the design and construction of homes covered by Buildmark. NHBC regularly reviews and updates the Standards.​

NHBC introduced a new Standards Chapter, 4.6, this year to deal with the increasing number of sites using engineered fills for low-rise residential structures, external works, and infrastructure or below raft foundations on sites with shrinkable clays and trees instead of deep trench fill foundations.

Although Chapter 4.6 may not provide any new information for experienced geotechnical professionals, it does introduce a new performance standard for house building. It gives guidance essential for meeting the technical requirements to achieve NHBC acceptance. It also re-emphasises the significance of geotechnics and the importance of obtaining quality data to enable a suitable design for and to address foundation quality after earthworks.

From January 1st, 2024, any new earthworks tender required to support building foundations where an NHBC warranty will be requested must comply with the performance requirements of Chapter 4.6. From January 2025, all new foundations on engineered fill will be expected to comply fully with the requirements and guidance of the new chapter.

NHBC Standards 2024 became effective on January 1, 2024. Chapter 4.6 includes 13 main performance clauses and spans across 28 pages. At the beginning of the chapter, a flowchart is provided to help practitioners navigate the document.

The clauses cover various requirements relating to competence, geotechnical investigation, ground models, appropriate laboratory testing, compliance testing, earthworks specifications, verification, and reporting expectations. Moreover, this chapter also includes significant requirements and considerations regarding acceptable foundations and design. The main requirements are that:

  • Engineered fills do not settle excessively or have the potential to cause excessive differential settlement between properties founded upon the fill and external areas.
  • Engineered fill and the underlying ground supporting building foundations shall limit the total building settlements to less than 25mm and minimise angular distortion or tilt to 1:400.
  • The design and detailing of foundations, infrastructure, and external works suit the placed fill and underlying ground conditions, considering the overall ground model and any geohazards beneath or nearby.

The introduction of Table 8 is an exciting addition in the new chapter. It provides information on foundations that may be suitable based on three different scenarios with varying standards of fill.

 

But a word of caution: Practitioners should only use this table as guidance. They are reminded not to rely upon it to justify a less robust foundation solution if geotechnical risks remain outside the fill and to remember that all foundations must be designed on a site-by-site basis, considering all relevant geotechnical risks.

If buildings are on piled foundations, it is essential not to overlook considerations regarding any differential settlement between the houses and external areas in designing any services.

Practitioners must remember what is covered and what is not covered in Ch4.6. For instance, assessing historic fills is not included in Ch4.6 and would require additional guidance from other sources. Long-term monitoring or loading trials may sometimes be necessary to determine performance.

If you are unsure whether your site is suitable for residential development, NHBC provides a Land Quality Service. This service involves close collaboration with stakeholders, enabling early engagement and supporting those seeking approval of solutions. We ensure that the risks associated with land quality and foundation solutions are appropriate for the entire 60-year design life of the properties.

NHBC Standards 2024 can be easily accessed online for free.

Article provided by Karen Thornton – NHBC Land Quality Service Manager FGS, MCIWEM, MCABE