Article

“Are traditional Cable Percussion techniques really that bad?”

- by
Tags: Featured

Since the introduction of Eurocodes and the classification of samples with respect to disturbance, there has been much debate in the investigation industry as to the use of our traditional cable percussion sampling and in-situ testing techniques.  Whilst we at Soil Consultants are full advocates of improvements and increased quality there is, to our mind, still a relatively big unknown with regards to the benefits of high end in-situ testing techniques and/or rotary coring over the use of traditional cable percussion drilling methods.  This brief article is designed to stir some thought amongst the industry in comparing the use of ‘traditional methods’ over the more ‘improved’ sampling and testing techniques called for in EC7 and not to undo the good work put into improving quality within the industry.

Over the last few years, and major infrastructure projects aside, it is still apparent that the majority of engineering practices who specify ground investigation have little knowledge of Eurocode in relation to ground investigation, in what they are specifying, the methods available to achieve the geotechnical objectives and the scale of costs involved.  Thus, ground investigation is still all too commonly awarded on a combination of lowest cost and ignorance, which the specifiers [and by default the client] are willing to accept as ‘value for money’.  The Eurocodes are attempting to bridge this divide, but is the complexity and lack of understanding of these documents still preventing the advancement of quality and achievement of value?  From feedback in the industry [largely structural engineering practices], there appears to still be much work to do with regards to quality of investigation, quality of service and the value of ground investigation which only we as an industry can control and one which is constantly debated!

Since the publication of EC7 and its requirement for valid laboratory strength and deformation testing to only be performed on ‘Class 1’ samples, the use of the traditional U100 has been somewhat dismissed by the codes and consequently a stronger reliance has been put on SPT testing as a compliant technique along with ‘our knowledge of the geological formations’.  The use of the SPT has most likely been driven by our industry seeing this as a far less expensive alternative to rotary coring and a more practical method for congested and restricted access sites.  Indeed, this would be true as, in our experience, rotary coring averages about 200% more expensive than cable percussion drilling and few inner city sites offer the necessary access and working areas.  Pressuremeter testing also comes with a hefty price tag with an individual test averaging about £2,500 on a typical project.  The question which arises from this is: ‘Does the quality of sampling and specialist in‑situ testing provide the accuracy and reliability to justify their use and the expense?’.  The reality of this expenditure needs to be fully justified to provide confidence to the client and the design team that the results are more accurate and representative thus providing more valued engineering.  The counter argument to this being, ‘Is it better to obtain a greater data set, from say cable percussion techniques, to provide a more reliable average, which could be achieved through a higher number of boreholes and tests at significantly less expense?’

With traditional techniques, the introduction of the UT100 [thin walled sampler] has bridged the gap somewhat in the sample disturbance argument and has been rudimentarily accepted.  However, this sampling technique still does not fully comply with the requirements of EC7 due to the percussive driving of the sampling tube and it has important limitations in its practical use.  Energy efficiency measurements for SPT hammers has also been made part of the Eurocode requirement, but this still comes with problems as there is a demonstrable divide in consistency of the testing techniques and the measured energy efficiency, as the table below shows.  Arguably, and hopefully reassuringly, the majority of hammers seem to improve with age which could indicate that operators are looking after and properly maintaining their equipment.  However, erratic results are not defined by the Codes and this raises the question as to whether or not there should be some benchmarking to condemn poor performing equipment.

Table 1:  Different cable percussion hammer ratio records since 2012; colour coding represents the calibration test house.

In order to put the questions above into context, Soil Consultants have put together a data set of testing of the London Clay from our projects undertaken within central London using various sampling and testing techniques.  The data represent the ‘more traditional’ techniques adopted through cable percussion drilling as well as rotary coring and Pressuremeter testing.  In-situ CPT has not been included as we do not have access to a relevant data set at this time.  It is recognised that there are limited data available for pressuremeter testing and some of these data have been obtained from public open sources, but still relevant to the geology and geographical location.

Clearly, there are numerous arguments for and against the various techniques with regards to disturbance and testing orientation but it is acknowledged that there are flaws with all methods and the data have been presented on face value from ‘real’ projects.  In this data set, we have considered:

  • Cu derived from ‘metal’ UT100 and steel U100 sampling tubes – we are unable to segregate between thin wall and thick wall tubes although the majority of samples shallower than 15m have been obtained using UT100s
  • Cu derived from plastic U100 tubes
  • Cu derived from rotary core samples
  • SPTs, both uncorrected and corrected for N60 [Cu plotted as 5*N] and
  • Pressuremeter testing

Graph 1 shows the culmination of nearly 1,200 data points and whilst the number of points make the graph difficult to read, Graph 2 presents the envelopes of each of the data sets [lower and upper bound limits representing approximately 90% -95% of the data points ignoring anomalous low and high values].  On these graphs is also plotted ‘an average line’ which has been derived through simple visual assessment of the data set [based on the lines produced by four engineers assessing the data independently].  Whilst this is not technically a scientific average, we believe this is representative of ‘the designer’s’ approach.

Graph 1: All data points

Graph 2: Envelopes to individuals data sets

Graph 3 further simplifies the data by plotting the middle average of the envelopes and also includes the ‘average’ line from all data as a visual benchmark which, is continued through all graphs.  Graph 4 compares these data sets with the shear strength profiles for London Clay presented by Patel [1992] on 100mm diameter specimens.

Graph 3: Average profiles

Graph 4: Average profile and Patel’s envelope

Although this is not an exhaustive analysis, on face value, the following points are noted:

  • The Pressuremeter testing and Cu derived from rotary core show the widest scatter of data. Cu measured from samples obtained in metal sampler tubes also exhibits a wide scatter
  • Uncorrected SPT-derived Cu shows the narrowest envelope of all the data sets. Correcting the N value for energy efficiency, serves to further narrow this envelope
  • Whilst samples derived in plastic U100 sampler tubes gave a similar scatter in results to other ‘undisturbed’ measurement techniques, the overall strengths measured were greater, giving a higher average

 

Graph 3 plots the average of the envelopes which surprisingly produces a relatively tight group of lines, slightly divergent at shallow depth, tightening together at about 15m before diverging with depth.  Patel’s 1992 paper produced a set of data for the London Clay and shear strength measured from U100 samples [type of sampling tubes are not reported].  A refinement of Patel’s data has been undertaken with only the more central London sites being considered to provide a comparable data.  The average and lower bound envelope of this refined data set are shown on Graph 4.  The majority of the average data is seen to lie close to the lower bound line of Patel’s data, with only the measurements from plastic U100’s bucking the trend, with the results lying above the average line.  By comparison, Cu depth profiles published by Patel;1992, Skempton;1951 [U38 values corrected for 77% strength CW publication 1991] and Marsland;1974 are plotted on Graph 5.  Whilst there is a reasonable consistency with the gradients of the strength profiles, there is a significant divergence in measured Cu.

Graph 5: Cu profiles by various authors

So, what does this mean?  At this stage, it is arguable that the traditional U100 and SPT techniques are valid and show a no worse scatter than more ‘refined’ techniques.  That is not to say that any of the techniques do not have a place because this is very much ‘horses for courses’ and the overall geotechnical requirements of a particular project will dictate technique in certain circumstances.  For more routine investigations, the use of the more traditional U100 and SPT techniques, providing a greater data set could, in our view, give better value for money and a justifiable confidence in obtaining characteristic design values.  In saying this, quality of ‘workmanship’ is a considerable factor and investigation companies should ensure drilling operatives are suitably experienced and supervised along with ensuring equipment is well maintained and sampling tubes are clean.

The divergence of measured Cu profiles is proof that differences do exist in the London Clay and indeed, in our experience, the strength profiles around London do vary considerably, with some areas showing significantly weaker profiles than others; this should be accepted by the industry who should not be so quick to criticise the investigation contractor.  Design engineers, in our experience, continue to try and oversimplify this formation but, the London Clay is a variable deposit and the ground is not ‘Just London Clay’ as we hear on so many occasions.  Thus, investigation designers should be advocating a sensible level of investigation to provide a reliable and representative data set.

Whilst there is a wealth of information in the literature on the London Clay, on reflection, do we as an industry still need to put further research into sampling and testing techniques to provide the necessary confidence that routine ground investigation can provide reliable design parameters in light of the Eurocodes?

Article provided by Soil Consultants

Disclaimer: The contents of this article and the views represented within it are not necessarily reflective of the AGS as an organisation, or its Working Groups.

The AGS Geotechnical Working Group will be publishing a response to this article in a future issue of the AGS Magazine.

 

 

Article

Urgent PPE support for the NHS

- by
Tags: Featured

With the ongoing situation with COVID-19, the NHS urgently need the following equipment:

• FFP3 Respirator Masks
• Full Face Visors (disposable)
• Full Face Visors (reusable)
• Safety Goggles/Glasses
• Hand Sanitiser
• Full Body (Hazardous Material) Suits
• Logistics/Transport support

If your organisation is able to help, could you please contact ags@ags.org.uk to provide your details. The AGS are collating the responses of organisations who are able to help and will pass these on to a central contact.

Article

Q&A with Phil Crowcroft

- by
Tags: Featured

Full Name: Phil Crowcroft
Job Title: Technical Fellow
Company: ERM

Phil Crowcroft is a Technical Fellow in the Asset Management team of ERM based in the Edinburgh office.  He has over 40 years experience in dealing with land contamination, brownfield regeneration and natural resources, combining his training as a civil and geotechnical engineer with experience on the broader aspects of the environment such as chemistry and hydrogeology. Phil was SiLC Chair of the Board (2011-2019) and the PTP (2008-2017). He is moving into retirement in 2020, and joining his wife in running a vintage department store in Berwick upon Tweed.

 What inspired you to get into the brownfield regeneration field?

My fear of chemistry pushed me to take maths, physics and geography A levels, and I realised then that the ground and what lies below was really where my interest and enthusiasm lay. This led on to a Bachelors degree in civil engineering and a Masters in geotechnical engineering. After 2 years work in mainstream construction, I moved jobs in 1978 to join a site investigation contractor, and discovered the huge variety of work and challenges that the ground poses to every building and civil engineering project. I also realised that I couldn’t leave chemistry behind because of the range of brownfield sites which were coming to development. Undertaking investigations on gasworks and landfill sites in the 1980s also highlighted the the very rudimentary state of understanding the challenges posed by such sites present.

What does a typical working day entail?

There is and has never been a typical working day, which is part of the fun of being in this business. Looking back over the last 45 years, I have enjoyed the challenge of helping to develop the approach to dealing with brownfield sites, whether as a contractor, a consultant or a regulator. But I’ve also tried to balance work with home life, so you won’t catch me working late into the evenings, unless I’m away from home, which perhaps was far more often than I ever expected.

Are there any cases which you are particularly proud to have advised on?

From a continuity point of view, I am proud to have worked on the contaminated land aspects of the EIA for high speed rail, starting in 1990 on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link from Folkestone to London, then since 2012, from London to Birmingham and Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds. I’ve worked alongside some brilliant people on this major project, and I am a huge fan of the railways, having spent far too much of my life sitting in traffic jams on motorways.

I am also very pleased to have worked on national guidance since the 1990s, including Industry Profiles, NFHA guidance, Model Procedures and the WDA Manual. I am sad that government policy has swept away great centres of excellence such as the Environment Agency Contaminated Land and Groundwater Centre, and has abandoned the production of guidance.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?

I think that developing a capability in providing expert witness services has been the scariest thing I have done, but over time, it becomes less scary and more thought-provoking. I’m lucky to have developed an understanding of what we actually considered to be best practice at any moment of time since 1980, and I have most of the guidance since that time in my attic. I have a memo I wrote in 1985 telling fellow geotechnical engineers how to use ICRCL guidance. How sad is that? My career is finishing off with two cases in court, with the exciting prospect of being cross-examined by articulate barristers intent on your downfall. The battle commences….

What changes would you like to see implemented in the industry?

I would like to see the allocation of sensible government budgets to support development of relevant guidance covering the brownfield industry, and the support by public funding of research bodies such as CLAIRE, CIRIA and SiLC .

Why do you think SiLC is important to the brownfield regeneration field?

Lord Rogers and his Urban Task Force recognised in 1989 the need for competent people to work in a sector which embraces many different disciplines, and within 2 years, a working group comprising public and private sector bodies had developed the scheme and got it up and running. It continues to this day, and this is testimony to the need for and value delivered by such a scheme. My most recent litigation has centred on whether a consultant was negligent in dealing with a brownfield site, and much of the discussion has been around whether people were competent to carry out the roles they played. SiLC delivers confidence that an individual has core competence in their own subject area, whilst recognising and appreciating the parallel skills which are needed to deliver the reclamation and redevelopment of brownfield sites.

What has been one of the highlights of your career?

Over the last 40 years, I have been lucky to have worked with, and been responsible for, groups of talented people who deliver day in day out on brownfield projects. I don’t know how many job offers I have made, but I know many people who it has been my privilege to offer jobs to, who have then gone on to run their own teams, and lead the way in their own subject areas. I have managed, and then been managed by some, and they make me so proud to have helped them start their careers, and achieved success. Thank you to all of you.

Article Safety

Health and Safety – Lego Style

- by
Tags: Featured

The AGS Safety Working Group hosted the ‘Safety in Mind’ conference at the National Motorcycle Museum, Solihull, UK, on Thursday, 21 November 2019. At the conference, leading industry experts presented topics on health and safety in the geotechnical and geoenvironmental industry.

RSK’s Gerwyn Leigh and Roseanna Bloxham presented. Gerwyn spoke on ‘the truth about service avoidance’, and Roseanna held a Lego workshop entitled ‘health and safety awareness in the field’.

The workshop was a 30-minute crash course on how to manage a site investigation safety. As a starter activity, delegates were given Lego mock-ups of site situations to spot NMPI’s. They were all identified with only a few obscure ones missed. The photo exercise aimed to promote the importance of being aware of what’s happening on the site to ensure that everyone is working safely and the importance of intervention.

The delegates then got involved in the main part of the session. They had to decide where to place their borehole taking into account site constraints. They then had to plan the work using Lego, marking safe-working areas, ensuring that public access is restricted, managing traffic, and keeping the site open with as little disruption as possible. Lego barriers were used to demarcate safe-working areas, cars were used as test vehicles to see if access was possible, and ‘man at work’ signs were positioned in visible open areas to warn the public.

It was interesting to see that while the borehole position was similar for all groups, all their approaches to the site set up were slightly different. Some groups tried to reduce the working area to ensure public access, while others created larger-working areas for their staff. No answer is correct, the aim of the task was to raise awareness of what you need to consider when planning an investigation and give project managers an understanding of what challenges our engineers can face daily.

All 25 delegates were involved in the task and worked well in their teams. There were many discussions about what size working areas were required and what affect this would have on surrounding infrastructure. Many of the delegates were impressed with how useful Lego is as a tool for site planning and commented that they would like to use it in their companies as a tool to aid engineers.

Article provided by Roseanna Bloxham, Senior Geo-Environmental Engineer at RSK

 

 

Article Contaminated Land

On Stoney Ground Re-Visited

- by
Tags: Featured

The way a soil sample is prepared prior to analysis varies between laboratories. In the September 2011 issue of AGS News we presented an article entitled ‘On Stoney Ground’ in which we discussed the results of a sample preparation survey of the main commercial MCerts accredited laboratories.  The survey revealed significant differences in whether stones were removed or crushed prior to the analysis for metals, whether PAHs were tested on as received or air-dried samples, and in the solvents used for PAH and TPH extraction.  We have recently repeated our laboratory survey to see if the laboratories have become more ‘standardised’ over the last decade.

In 2015 the Standing Committee of Analysts (established by the Department of the Environment in 1972) published ‘The preparation and pre-treatment of potentially contaminated soils and associated materials’ (the “Blue Book” method) which provides authoritative guidance on recommended methods for sample preparation.  The Blue Book states that ‘it is crucial that the client/supplier of the samples is aware of the default laboratory method and specifies the requirements for each batch of samples submitted ‘.  However, our experience suggests that the majority of those scheduling chemical analyses are unaware of the potential differences between laboratory sample preparation methods.

Metals Analysis

The Blue Book acknowledges that contaminants are not distributed evenly between the fines and the larger particles within a soil and presents two “standardised” methods for preparing soil samples prior to chemical analysis.  In one method the whole sample is dried, ground and homogenised; this method is for general site assessment and waste classification.  In the other method only the <2mm fraction is analysed following sieving; this method is used for human health risk assessment.

In 2010 just under half of the laboratories surveyed dried and crushed the whole sample for the metals analysis, one third removed the stones greater than 10mm, two laboratories removed the stones greater than 2mm and a single laboratory removing all ‘inert’ stones. If we assume that laboratories are not receiving samples containing particles larger than one third of the tub diameter, two thirds of laboratories are now drying and crushing the whole sample, but only one laboratory is following the alternative <2mm sieve preparation method.  The remaining quarter of the laboratories are not following a Blue Book method and remove stones of between 4mm and 10mm.

But Does it Matter?

If a sample that contains a significant proportion of metal-rich clinker or slag was submitted to a range of MCerts accredited laboratories, two- thirds of the laboratories would report greater concentrations of the metallic contaminants than the remaining third.  This remaining third could be expected to produce a range of results for the same sample, dependent upon the particle size of the slag and clinker.  Only one of the fifteen MCerts accredited laboratories that responded to the survey would by default, produce a result that would be appropriate for the assessment of the likely potential human health exposure routes.  Furthermore, whilst most commercial laboratories can offer the analysis of the <2mm fraction, in accordance with the Blue Book method, they report that it is unusual for them to be requested to do so.  It would therefore appear that where a human health risk assessment is being carried out, the significance of the particle size being analysed is frequently not being considered by those scheduling the analyses.  Alternatively, analyses are being scheduled for multiple purposes (human health risk assessment, waste classification, pipe selection, groundwater risk etc.) and an overly conservative approach to human health risk assessment is being adopted.

PAH Analysis

A decade ago, just under half of the laboratories reported that they tested the as-received sample; this figure has now risen to two-thirds.  Those that dry and crush or sieve the sample do so at temperatures ranging from 20°C to 37°C.

Samples for PAH analysis are required to be stored in a glass container, under cold conditions, to minimise the potential losses by volatilisation.  Indeed, if they are not, they may be listed as being a ‘deviating’ sample under the MCerts scheme.  It is therefore surprising to see that these same samples can then be air dried at 37°C without such losses occurring.

It may be that, as PAHs in soil are typically present in a complex mixture bound with long chain hydrocarbons, that the volatility of naphthalene is reduced and that negligible losses actually occur at temperatures of up to 37°C.  It would be interesting to see if any research has been carried out to assess the potential for such losses in ‘real’ soils both during air drying in the laboratory and in the period between sampling and testing when stored in glass verses plastic containers.  However, to minimise uncertainty, it may be best to keep holding times to a minimum and to analyse the as-received sample as soon as possible.

Extraction Solvent

The solvent(s) used to extract hydrocarbons and PAHs varies between laboratories and as each solvent or mix of solvents will have a different extraction efficiency for different compounds, there is the potential for some variation in the TPH or PAH measurement of the same sample between the laboratories.  In 2010 three-quarters of laboratories were using dichloromethane (DCM) as the extraction solvent, with others using DCM/hexane, hexane/acetone or pentane.  The plots below indicate the solvents used today.

Whilst DCM still dominates, far more laboratories are using hexane/acetone than in 2010 and a greater range of other solvents are now used by different laboratories.  If data sets over an extended period are to be compared to study long-term trends, it would therefore be worth checking with the laboratory that the extraction solvent (and test method) has remained constant over the period of monitoring.

But Does it Matter?

To comply with MCerts accreditation, laboratories have to take part in an inter-lab proficiency scheme such as CONTEST.  Under such schemes each laboratory analyses the same sample and is able to compare their result to those achieved by the other laboratories.  The effect of the different solvent extraction efficiencies can therefore be investigated through a study of the proficiency scheme data (however, the effect of sample preparation cannot be investigated as the same spiked, homogenised reference material is supplied to each laboratory).

The solvent and analytical methods are detailed in the CONTEST data, and from Round CN118 it is apparent that there is no clear trend between the solvent used and the results for the three to five ring PAHs.  However, for naphthalene, although there is notable variation between laboratories, those using DCM have generally measured a greater concentration (averaging at 1.08mg/kg) when compared to those using hexane/acetone (averaging at 0.78mg/kg).

This suggests that for naphthalene at least, the solvent used by the laboratory does affect the concentration that is reported, with laboratories using hexane/acetone being likely to report a lower naphthalene concentration than those using DCM.  When combined with the uncertainty regarding the potential loss of naphthalene during drying, it is questioned whether the adoption of a very low threshold value for naphthalene is reasonable.

Conclusion

The potential effect of the variation in sample preparation methods between laboratories remains significant, and whilst no one method is ‘the correct method’, engineers and consultants who are scheduling analyses should be aware of how the laboratory will prepare the sample and what effect that could have upon the results and how they interpret them.

All too often, when a sample that is known to contain fragments of clinker, slag or part burnt coal is found to contain a metal or PAH concentration in excess of a human heath threshold value, the default position is to recommend removal or a capping scheme.  If, however, the results were considered with knowledge of the sample preparation method, a more appropriate analysis could be carried out on a sieved sample that may yield a result that could indicate that remedial measures were, in fact, not necessary.  Such sieved re-testing of samples is not significantly costly or time-consuming, and by gaining a greater understanding of the sample preparation method and the uncertainty associated with the analytical result, a far more sustainable remedial scheme can be considered.  Similarly, before applying low threshold values, the potential variability between laboratories and the magnitude of the uncertainty associated with the analytical method should be considered.

Article provided by Mike Plimmer, Technical Director at Geotechnical & Environmental Associates

 

Article Loss Prevention

AGS Commercial Risks and How to Manage Them Conference 2020 – Overview

- by
Tags: Featured

Following the success of the first AGS Commercial Risks and How to Manage Them Conference in July 2019, the conference was held on 22nd January 2020 at the Manchester Conference Centre. The conference was sponsored by Geotechnics, SOCOTEC UK, Geotechnical Engineering and Envirolab. The afternoon conference was attended by 60 delegates and following lunch and opportunity to network with the sponsors and attendees, Jo Strange (CGL), who was chairing the event gave the opening address.

Russell Jones (Golder Associates) started the afternoon speaking about ‘battle of the forms’, which arises when two businesses are negotiating the terms of a contract and one business provides an offer and then the other business provides a counteroffer. Russell concluded that the battle is usually ‘won’ by the party that fired the last shot!.

Hugh Mallett (BuroHappold Engineering and AGS Loss Prevention Working Group Leader) discussed the importance of defining scope and objectives in proposals and project reports by reference to real life case studies which led to dispute or claims and referred delegates to LPA 69 for further information.

Stephen Hargreaves (Griffiths & Armour) described several case studies based on insurance claims, showing that fundamental errors can equal high value disputes. Stephen advised on an “eyes wide open” policy to manage the risks around making assumptions.

Zita Mansi (Beale & Co) spoke about collateral warranties, emphasising that collateral warranties are new contracts with third parties. Zita informed the delegates the measures available to mitigate risk and the fundamental importance of limiting liability in such agreements.

After refreshments and further networking, Adam Gombocz (NHBC) discussed how NHBC adopt a proactive approach to managing risks on sites registered for Buildmark warranty. Through case studies, Adam explained what is to be avoided on residential developments.

Rachel Griffiths (Fugro) considered the important distinction between the ‘duty of care’ required in providing (a) services or (b) goods.  Goods fall under a ‘fit for purpose’ requirement of the Sale of Goods Act. Whereas provision of services falls under a requirement for ‘reasonable skill and care’ under the Supply of Goods and Services Act. These standards are fundamentally different and consultants giving advice or providing designs should make sure that their contract specifically refers to “reasonable skill and care” and not to “fit for purpose”.  To avoid any misunderstanding Rachel recommended that this clarity should be reiterated in AGS Member’s professional reports.

The final talk of the day was provided by Lee Beveridge (Environment Agency), who discussed the implications for Members of recent changes in Landfill Tax (see AGS Magazine March/ April 2019). Lee advised that the new rules were in effect now but could also date back to activities from 1st April 2018. Lee warned delegates that the HMRC were looking to enforce the new regime with considerable vigour.

The presentations from the conference (with approval from speakers) are now available on the AGS website together with numerous documents and up to date commercial guidance, freely available. The Legal Helpline also offers members 15 mins of free advice from Beale and Co.

Article Safety

“Emergency rescue from a trial pit – are you prepared?”

- by
Tags: Featured trial pit

This is the second of a series of articles related to safety and trial pitting, following the June 2019 AGS Magazine article “Is trial pitting fit for purpose?”.

Imagine the situation: you are in a meeting at your office and your phone buzzes – a number you don’t recognise; it buzzes again, and you mute it.  You carry on with your important meeting, when it buzzes with a text “URGENT – accident, call straightaway!”.  You excuse yourself and call the unknown number.  The voice says “I’m the JCB driver at … site; your Engineer has fallen into a trial pit; it’s quite deep and they’re hurt.  What do we do?”, and then says “I’ve called the Fire Brigade, but they’re not here, and the pit sides are looking likely to collapse.  There’s standing water and inflow at the base of the pit, and they might not be able to breathe soon!”

Perhaps reading this you are thinking to yourself that you wouldn’t get a call like that because you always have a 2 person team on site?  Well maybe it’s one of the two calling you and you’ve still got a very difficult problem to address.  Maybe you are thinking you won’t get that call because your company generic and site specific RAMS or Construction Phase Plan includes a detailed Emergency Rescue Plan for such a situation, and your staff have been trained on it, and the field team have been briefed on it, and there is equipment available.  That would be good.  Because you do have generic and site-specific rescue plans don’t you?

The AGS Safety guidance note “Work at Height”, which is based on the HSE document “Working at Height : a brief guide”, states “… this must include planning for emergencies and rescue, without resort to the emergency services in the first instance…”.

           

In Autumn 2019, the AGS Safety Working Group sent out questionnaires to AGS members, asking for their feedback on how they managed Work at Height when carrying out machine dug trial pitting activities, and particularly focused on logging activities close to the unprotected edge of a trial pit circa 2, 3, 4m+ deep.  Whilst a specific question was not asked about rescue plans, not one of the respondents identified rescue plans as a part of their work at height / trial pitting arrangements.   Because a specific “rescue” question was not asked in the questionnaire, it would be premature and unreasonable to deduce that none of the respondents employ rescue plans.   But in collating and interpreting those survey responses, it started to concern me that no-one even mentioned it in their response.

The questionnaire and discussions within the AGS Safety Working Group over the past year, contributed to a paper presented at the AGS “Safety in Mind” conference in November 2019, entitled “How far is SFARP when working at Height during trial pitting”.  Subsequent discussions following the presentation have concerned me that rescue plans for trial pitting, specifically rescuing a logging engineer who has fallen into a trial pit, do not appear to be as widely practiced as I might imagine.

There are all sorts of reasons why we carry out trial pitting, and why we have for many decades undertaken this by standing (for part of the operation at least) close to an unprotected edge of a pit several metres in depth.  A discussion about those aspects is contained within the “Safety in Mind” conference presentation (which is available on the AGS website) and will be the subject of the next article in this series.  There are discussions ongoing within the AGS Safety Working Group about Working at Height and trial pitting, and about new equipment coming into the industry which might be practicable, and which may further prevent a fall into a trial pit.   However, until that becomes available, we should as an industry, and as employers and managers be thinking about rescue.

Rescue from a trial pit is not easy.  You might have an extendable ladder within the boot of your car / van.  But if the fallen person is injured, can they even climb a ladder?  What if you descend the ladder, could you pick them up and carry them back up a ladder?  Perhaps you could attach a rope to them and get the JCB to lift them out?  Do you know how to attach a rope to an injured person, so that it will support them, and not lead to them slipping and being injured further? Perhaps if they were wearing a rescue harness then you could attach the rope to that, but that involves having a rope of sufficient strength available.  Maybe you could wait for the fire brigade, but that presumes they can get there in time, are not dealing with other emergencies, and also that they can easily get to where you are trial pitting, which may not always be easy. And importantly, will they get there before the pit collapses, because if not you are dealing with removal of a body rather than rescue of an injured person.  Maybe you think you could ride down on the JCB bucket and help the person into the bucket and lift them out.   There certainly are products and equipment in the construction and utilities industries which might contribute to implantation of a pre-planned rescue.  However, it is usually about this time in a discussion that someone will raise “Confined Space!”.  Whether any individual trial pit is a confined space is dependent on actual site conditions, but a trial pit is certainly a potential confined space, not least if that groundwater inflow is causing a rise of water at the base of the pit, or if ground gas is present.  And we probably all know the mantra about confined spaces – you don’t send another person in at risk to rescue because then we may have 2 people to rescue.  What a conundrum!  If it’s not easy to you, what kind of challenge does it pose to the JCB driver and your second young graduate engineer on site who are actually faced with it?

So, preparing for emergency rescue isn’t easy.  It might involve equipment you don’t have; you would need to train your staff and brief others; you haven’t implemented it before and are not aware of others who have done so.

Maybe it is easier to just believe because it hasn’t happened to you before, it’s not too urgent.  One thing the questionnaire responses identified, is that during hundreds of years of collective experience, none of the respondents or the author have experienced or known of a single case of a logging engineer / geologist falling into a trial pit.  This is comforting to some extent.  However, a fall into a trial pit would almost certainly lead to major injury, broken bones, back, neck etc. Or worse.  I would suggest that as employers, managers and as an industry, our methods of work should allow human beings to make human mistakes (such as tripping or stumbling close to the edge perhaps) without having their life substantially affected forever as a result.

This article is not intended to be judgmental or critical.  It is intended to raise, for discussion or action, an issue of concern, certainly to me at least.  I have been involved in trial pitting for over 30 years and have derived great personal and project benefit from getting up close to the ground, and from the information that can be uniquely obtained from pits.  I have no interest in “banning” trial pitting.  The synthesis and collation of information on this subject over the past year however has prompted personal thoughts about whether we as an industry and employers are doing enough, particularly to seek other practicable technological solutions which allow us to continue to benefit from trial pitting.

Back to the initial telephone call.  Let’s imagine that the Fire Brigade have got there, and fortunately, before the sides of the pit collapsed.  Your staff member is out of the pit, but on their way to hospital with broken bones at least.  You now have 3 telephone calls to make which will keep you from your important meeting – to your Managing Director, to the HSE/RIDDOR, the outcomes of which will no doubt lead to business loss and potential prosecution, and most importantly to the family of your injured member of staff.

I am sure that some readers will think this is “scaremongering”, and that people don’t fall down trial pits, as long as they are “competent” and follow sensible guidance and the (“perfect”) RAMS.  Are you absolutely sure that you can rely on that; and what about UXO and Archaeology Watching Brief observers who also want to peer into the pit – are you sure?  Do you want to make those telephone calls or speak to the HSE Inspector under caution?

Please have this discussion within your own projects and organisations. Download the AGS “Work at Height” guidance note and read it and disseminate it around your organisation to raise awareness.  The AGS Safety Working Group are having this discussion and are establishing a Trial Pitting Sub-Group.  Please let the AGS know your thoughts, views, experiences and ideas on rescue, particularly if you already implement a proven methodology for such a situation, which would benefit other AGS members from its dissemination.

The time to think about emergency rescue from a trial pit is NOT when you need it – it is long before.  The person who needs to think about it is not your young logging engineer / geologist, but the employer and managers.

Article provided by Steve Everton, Director of Operations at Jacobs

Article

Q&A with Neil Parry

- by
Tags: Featured

Full Name: Neil Parry
Job Title: Technical Director
Company: Geotechnical Engineering Limited

I’m a chartered Civil Engineer and SiLC with 32 years’ experience working for major contractors and consultants on many different projects including major infrastructure, military, demolition and remediation schemes, latterly in the ground investigation sector. I am a member of the AGS Loss Prevention Working Group, chaired the Contaminated Land Working Group between 2013 and 2017 and was chair of the AGS between 2017 and 2019. I am involved in the working groups revising the specification for ground investigation and developing an NEC type contract for GI work, I am also currently chair of Ground Forum.

What or who inspired you to join the geotechnical industry?

I began my career working as a site engineer with Alfred McAlpine and AE Farr Limited in the late 1980s on construction sites such as the Avon Ring Road and building munitions igloos for the US Airforce. I was based at the offices of Acer Freeman Fox in Bristol, gaining design experience for my Civils chartership when AE Farr went into receivership, a victim of the severe downturn in 1990. Despite being re-employed by Amey Construction I decided that it was best for my young family to leave civil engineering contracting and take up the offer of consultancy work with Acer. I originally worked in bridge design and on water projects, but due to my undergraduate specialism in soil mechanics ended up in the geotechnical engineering team. I enjoyed the mix of site-based and design work and quickly realised that this was what I wanted to do for the rest of my career. I was lucky to work with several knowledgeable and inspiring leaders who encouraged me to progress within the geotechnical industry. When I had the opportunity to study for an MSc in the relatively new subject of environmental geology/geoenvironmental engineering I jumped at the chance and undertook the course on a part-time basis over three years. I really enjoyed learning a new subject and was encouraged by the people I worked with to continue in this sector. I continue to work on both geotechnical and geoenvironmental work.

What does a typical day entail?

As most people will say there are rarely typical days in ground investigation/geotechnical engineering. If we have a major project that is about to start or I am visiting a site for the first time there is often a health and safety induction or briefing. The importance of health, safety and wellbeing is perhaps the most significant advancement in the industry that I have seen in the last 30 years and I am pleased to have seen this progress.

It is likely that I will attend a meeting, either internally, on AGS business or with one of our clients. Despite technical advancements allowing remote interaction I feel that the importance of face to face meetings cannot be overestimated and I believe that personal contact is a significant aid to promoting collaborative working.

I may be involved in reviewing a contract or undertaking technical checks of test results, logs or reports, hopefully providing positive encouragement and advice. I may also be required to design the anchor system for one of our slope climbing rigs prior to it being deployed to a slope anywhere in the UK.

Are there any projects which you’re particularly proud to have been a part of?

I try to take pride in whatever project I’m involved in at the time, whether it is a £20,000 investigation for a housing project or on major GI works costing millions of pounds for a large infrastructure scheme. Some of the projects that come to mind however are working on the feasibility of scheme options for the A465 ‘Heads of the Valleys’ Road, which is currently under construction many years later. I also worked on the geotechnical design and supervised the GI for a £200 million indoor ski centre in Taiwan. I have been involved in several brownfield land schemes such as the gasworks remediation for the Thistle Centre in Scotland and the demolition/remediation works for Bede Island in Leicester. Recently Geotechnical Engineering have undertaken work on several large infrastructure projects, which have been challenging and rewarding.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?

Like most people working in our industry I have several different roles and responsibilities, both within Geotechnical Engineering and the AGS. I am passionate about promoting the value of technical skills and it is disappointing when these are dismissed or marginalised reducing the benefit of the work we do. Working directly to the requirements of a specification may not produce the best technical value for the project and early contractor involvement greatly helps in improving specifications in respect to the proposed works.
I also find the it challenging to promote the fairness of relationships between parties when entering into contracts. I believe that those taking the risks under a contract should be rewarded for doing so and there is an important balance between assigning risk and responsibility between contractual parties.

What are the aims and objectives of the Ground Forum?

The Ground Forum provides a single point of contact for ground related industries (including the AGS, EGGS, BGA, FPS, BDA and several others) with government and official bodies, giving the geotechnical fraternity a voice within the construction industry. Ground Forum exists to:
• Provide an effective point of communication between Member Organisations.
• Enhance the profile of the ground engineering industry.
• Raise youth awareness of the satisfaction and rewards of a career in ground engineering.
• Promote good practice in all ground related disciplines.
• Enhance training through CPD.
• Promote the value of good ground engineering and geotechnics.
• Lobby the government and other construction organisations on issues of concern for the ground engineering sector.
As the Chair of Ground Forum, what does your role involve?
The chair of Ground Forum provides a coordinating role between the fifteen member organisations. There are three to four committee meetings every year plus attendance at events by the Construction Industry Council and Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. As there are a wide range of different views on the industry between the different bodies represented (for example the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3) and the International Geosynthetics Society) it is important to forge a common purpose and develop agreed objectives.

What are the current focuses of the Ground Forum?

Currently Ground Forum is focussed upon:
• Lobbying the Government to ensure infrastructure spending is maintained through to addressing the status of valued European employees and maintaining UK access to skilled operatives and professionals.
• The Impact of Brexit on ground engineering sector.
• Addressing the shortage of Ground Engineering professionals.
• Maintaining Ground Engineers on the Government’s shortage of occupations list.
• Supporting university degrees and specialisms in ground engineering.
• Ensuring the industry maintains its access to expertise and well trained graduates.

Why do you feel the AGS are an integral member of the Ground Forum?

The AGS has quite a diverse membership, representing several different aspects of the ground engineering industry. This is reflected in the different AGS Working Groups, including the proposed Instrumentation and Monitoring group. This helps the AGS to understand the needs across the industry and several AGS members have successfully chaired Ground Forum.
Why do you feel the AGS and the Ground Forum are important to the industry?

There is a need to constantly promote the quality of our ground engineering professionals and the work they do in an industry that is literally “covered up”, so that our work is often unseen. Without bodies such as AGS, Ground Forum and their membership bodies I believe standards would be in danger of slipping with significant repercussions.

What changes would you like to see implemented in the geotechnical industry?

Although maintaining a high skill base is crucial and the possibility of skills shortages could have a major impact, I believe the promotion of health, safety and wellbeing is crucial to the success of the geotechnical industry. We need to look after our young engineers to allow them to develop both technically and in their quality of life.

The output from the recently established joint procurement of ground investigation working groups will hopefully lead to beneficial changes in what can often be the most important part at the start of a scheme. I’m hoping the results of these groups will be beneficial to all of the industry and adopted by client organisations throughout the UK.

Article

Mindfulness & Meditation

- by
Tags: Featured

Applying mindfulness to the workplace has benefits in terms of stress management, improved health and greater focus.

Mindfulness and mental health
Mindfulness is recommended as a treatment for people with mental ill-health as well as those who want to improve their mental health and wellbeing.
There are also different sorts of mindfulness meditation which can help people in different ways. Evidence shows compelling support for Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), which helps people to cope with stress, and for Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), which is designed to help people with recurring depression. They provide a flexible set of skills to manage mental health and support wellbeing.

The evidence for mindfulness
Mindfulness meditation has been shown to affect how the brain works and even its structure. People undertaking mindfulness training have shown increased activity in the area of the brain associated with positive emotion – the pre-frontal cortex – which is generally less active in people who are depressed.2
Many studies have shown changes in brain wave activity during meditation and researchers have found that areas of the brain linked to emotional regulation are larger in people who have meditated regularly for five years or more.3 The evidence for different types of mindfulness is promising and research has grown in recent years. Source: Mentalhealth.org.uk

What is mindfulness?

Being aware of what is going on inside and outside of yourself, moment by moment.

We frequently live internally, forgetting about the world around us and how our bodies respond to it. We often get wrapped up in our own thoughts, and are unaware of how our thoughts and emotions reflect on our physical body.

Mindfulness puts each of your senses into practice – smells, sounds, sights, tastes, and focuses these senses on the present moment and surroundings.

Mindfulness brings the present moment to the forefront, enabling you to positively change your perception, thoughts and feelings about yourself and your life.

What are the benefits?

Mindfulness enables you to enjoy both yourself and your surroundings. By being more aware of the present moment and the impact this has on you, you can establish a positive thought pattern.

Focusing on your internal dialogue will help you to understand a pattern of thought, enabling you to gradually train yourself to recognise when these become unhelpful and destructive.

Mindfulness gives you the opportunity to step back from your thought pattern and recognise that it doesn’t control you and can be altered in whichever way you wish.

This recognition will enable you to highlight signs of anxiety and stress perhaps before you normally would. Determining these signs more promptly will help you to combat them in their earlier stages.

In short, mindfulness could help you:
• Become more self-aware
• Reduce stress and anxiety
• Feel more in control of your thoughts and feelings
• Establish stronger coping strategies towards unhelpful thoughts and feelings
• To be kinder to yourself

How to practice mindfulness

Become more aware of each of your senses in order to switch off the ‘auto pilot’ thought processes. Pay attention to your thoughts, feelings, body and how you react to the world around you.

Notice the everyday – The sound of your feet hitting the pavement, the feel of your hands on your knife and fork or the shapes of the clouds. Paying attention to the things you encounter everyday will bring a new and brighter perspective on life.

Keep it habitual – Dedicate a certain time to being mindful. Try to keep this uniform each day as becoming mindful takes practice. This could be a bath before bed, or a walk to work for example.

Try something new – We are all creatures of habit, so stepping out from the norm can help to establish a new and fresh perspective. This can be something simple like sitting on a different seat on your commute to work, or running a different route for your jog.

Recognise your thoughts – Some people have a very busy and vocal inner dialogue. This can become intrusive and often go unnoticed. But paying attention to it will enable you to make positive changes. Mindfulness isn’t about quashing your usual thought pattern, but instead questioning it. Are those thoughts useful? Are they causing you harm? Embrace your thoughts, acknowledge them, and try to release them as easily as they arrived. Exercise can often help to quiet a worried and busy mind.

Free yourself from the past and future – The beauty of mindfulness is that it can be practiced anywhere. It can be helpful to acknowledge that you may have been confined by past problems, or occupied by future worries.

Mindfulness Techniques

We have discussed that mindfulness can be practiced within normal daily life, but it can also be helpful to dedicate some time to establish more formal mindful practice in the form of mindful meditation.

The word “meditation” is something you could think of as a big umbrella word. Rather like “sport” it covers a whole host of different styles, activities and methods.

It is something which anyone can do and enjoy when you find a method which suits you.

Things you need, to gain the most benefit from meditation and mindfulness:
1. Focus
2. Relaxation
3. Self-acceptance and patience

1. Focus
• Keep your mind engaged in your meditation
• As soon as you are aware of wandering thoughts bring yourself back to focus
• When a thought crosses your mind in meditation, acknowledge it but don’t start a conversation with it! Let it go now and allow it to come back later or file the thought away for later action
• Allow yourself to just say “I don’t know!” if you start to question yourself
• Tighten and relax each muscle group from top to bottom
• Focus on what you see, hear, smell, taste and feel moment by moment
• Return to focus

2. Relaxation
• Allow yourself to be relaxed when you start to meditate
• Allow the meditation to enhance those feelings
• Close your eyes and place your hands flat on your solar plexus
• Calm on each outbreath
• Imagine breathing in relaxing coloured air – you can also breath out unwanted feelings with a relevant colour to you.

Ask yourself –
• Am I physically comfortable?
• If using music – is the volume right for me?

Also check you are mentally comfortable –
• Do I feel safe?
• Am I comfortable that I won’t be disturbed?
• Have I allowed time? (Set an alarm!)

3. Acceptance and Patience
• Don’t worry about whether you are doing it the “right” way. The way you are doing it is right for you right now!
• Do not try too hard
• Accept that thoughts will enter your mind and distractions will occur and simply return to the meditation each time your mind wanders without giving yourself a hard time
• Practice will make it easier and more effective – the more you do it the better you get
• Return to focus

Helpful Meditation Techniques

Guided Visualisation
• Start by relaxing your body
• Engage all your senses and imagine: sights, sounds, smells, temperature and touch
• Guide yourself through an imaginary journey to a place where you can relax and enjoy feeling safe and calm

Laugh your troubles away
• Make a little cave in your hands
• Put your troubles inside
• Take a peek and laugh them away

Seated meditation
• Be awake, conscious, engaged, calm and relaxed
• Sit upright and be comfortable
• Use your chosen hand position

Breath counting meditation
• Close your eyes and allow yourself to relax
• Start to focus on your breath, then begin to count the out breaths
• If you lose count because you have become distracted, start again
• Do this to start with for up to 50 natural breaths then build it up as you like

When you have practiced you will get a feel for what you enjoy and what works for you, so you can create your own style of meditation.

To provide Mindfulness in your workplace and for further information contact The Healthy Employee Ltd
E: office@thehealthyemployee.co.uk
T: 07778 218009

Article Loss Prevention

Collateral Warranties, Reliance and Limiting Liability

- by
Tags: Featured

It is common in construction projects for contractors, sub-contractors and consultants to be asked to provide collateral warranties and/or letters of reliance/assignments to parties other than the main client. In this article we consider the scope of such liability to third parties and, also, the extent to which it can be limited in contractual documentation.

The ability to limit your liability to third parties will often mirror or be dependent on the extent of any limitations of liability set out in the contract with the original client. It follows that, when drafting terms of appointment, care should be taken to ensure your liability is as limited as possible. In particular:

1. The contract should expressly prohibit assignment. It should also exclude third party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Whilst most standard construction contracts will include such a restriction, it is always sensible to double check that it is there.

2. Include a cap on liability – this is acceptable, so long as it satisfies the criteria of ‘reasonableness’ under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. It should be in respect of “all such claims” as opposed to “each and every claim”. You should note that the level of professional indemnity cover you hold is not, in itself, a limit on your liability.

3. Include a net contribution clause to protect you in circumstances where there are other parties who are also liable to the client. Such a clause ensures that you are not left responsible for the entire sum claimed, and that liability can be shared out between the various parties involved.

4. Include an exclusion for indirect and consequential losses. This will ensure that you are not responsible for losses that are too far removed from the services provided.

5. Restrict the time limit for all claims to a period of six years from the date of the delivery of services/a report.

A carefully drafted appointment or contract, including the provisions referred to above, will provide strong grounds on which to challenge any third party claims that may later develop.

Collateral Warranties

Breaches of contract can cause loss to many parties in a construction project. There is, however, usually no direct contractual link between you and third parties such as project funders, purchasers or future tenants. Collateral warranties create that otherwise non-existent link by creating a separate contract between you and the third party.

Whilst it would, of course, always be preferable to avoid providing collateral warranties, this often will not be possible. It is therefore sensible when agreeing terms of appointment to limit the obligation to provide collateral warranties to only closely defined groups, such as the first purchaser or the first tenant and to resist wording that requires a collateral warranty to be provided to “any party with an interest”. It is also prudent to agree a cap on the total number of collateral warranties the terms of appointment obliges you to provide, and the number of times those warranties can be assigned to others.

When agreeing the terms of a collateral warranty, you should take care to ensure that its obligations mirror, and do not go beyond, the terms of your main contract with the client. A collateral warranty will generally include a “no greater duty” or “equivalent rights of defence” clause, which confirms the parties’ intention that the liability under the collateral warranty should be no greater than the duty you assumed under the main contract with your client. This fundamental principle was confirmed by the court in Swansea Stadium v City & County of Swansea [2019] and the Scottish Court of Session in British Overseas Bank Nominees Ltd v Stewart Milne Group Ltd [2019]. If a collateral warranty is drafted as a bespoke document, or if a standard form is amended, care should be taken to ensure that the “no greater duty” wording is included.

Bearing in mind the stand alone status of a collateral warranty, its content should be considered as closely as the terms of the original terms of appointment. As such, it should exclude third party rights in a similar way to the main contract and should provide for assignment only if prior consent is given.

You should also bear in mind the issue of time-bar, or limitation, which has recently been considered by the courts in the cases of Swansea Stadium v City & County of Swansea [2019] and British Overseas Bank Nominees Ltd v Stewart Milne Group Ltd [2018]. In the Swansea case it was held that the limitation period ran from the date of the original building contract, not the date on which the collateral warranty was granted. This was reinforced by the Court of Session in British Overseas Bank.

For the avoidance of any doubt, you may wish to ensure that there is an express clause included in the collateral warranty stating that no actions or proceedings shall be commenced after the expiry of six or twelve years (as appropriate) from the completion of the services provided. This is particularly important if the collateral warranty is provided some years after a project has been completed.

Reports and third parties

Another area in relation to which liability to third parties may arise is the assignment of reports, originally prepared for the original client, to a third party (e.g. a developer purchasing the site from the original owner).

The question arises as to what extent that third party can rely on the content of your report. This issue was considered by the court in the case of BDW Trading Ltd v Integral Geotechnique (Wales) Ltd 2018. The judgment clarifies that any third party seeking to rely on your report will have to obtain a formal assignment “or other legal document” in order to do so. The court noted a significant distinction between “using” the report (in the sense of reading it and making decisions based on it) and “relying” on it in a legal sense. We reviewed the court’s decision in this case in LPA 68 to which you can refer for further detail as regards the background of the case. LPA 68 can be downloaded here.

The case is a good reminder of the commercial value of formal assignments of reports (or collateral warranties or letters of reliance) to third parties. When negotiating such transactions, proper consideration should be given to the significant extra risk that is being created in terms of potential liabilities and suitable remuneration for the risk assumed should be sought.

In the event of a formal assignment, how can you minimise your exposure to future claims from the third party assignee? It would be advisable to have a standard agreement to assign readily to hand, as requests to assign are often urgently made. A standard agreement should be carefully thought out and should include the following terms:

• Any further assignment of the report is absolutely prohibited.
• No proceedings or action can be brought after 6 years from the date of the report (not the date of the assignment).
• The adequacy of your performance in preparing the report shall be assessed by reference to standards prevailing at the time the report was prepared and the terms of the original appointment, not by contemporaneous standards/terms.
• No liability will arise from any changes to site conditions since the report was prepared.
• An express financial cap on liability.
• An exclusion of liability for consequential losses.
• Confirmation that any claim by the assignee will be subject to (1) any right of set off that you may have against the client, such as an unpaid invoice and (2) any defence you may have against the client, such as a cap or other limitations on liability contained in the original contract.

Finally, you should avoid any suggestion that the report is to be treated as if it had been originally prepared for the assignee. For this reason, requests to change the name of the client referred to in the report should be firmly resisted.

Conclusion

Whilst it is difficult to completely avoid potential liability to third parties involved in a construction project, recent case law suggests that the courts will be sympathetic to your position. The BDW Trading case confirms that a claim in respect of a report prepared for a client can be relied upon by a third party only where there is a formal assignment. Also, limits of liability, net contribution clauses and exclusion clauses have all been enforced by the courts of late. It is therefore worthwhile ensuring, first, that the main contract with the client limits liability insofar as possible: this will involve standing firm as regards reasonable limits of liability and the inclusion of net contribution clauses. Thereafter, all collateral warranties/assignments should echo, or enhance, those limitation of liability clauses.

Zita will be speaking at the half-day AGS Commercial Risks and How to Manage Them Conference which is taking place on Wednesday 22nd January 2020 at the Manchester Conference Centre in Manchester. For further information on the conference and to book your place to attend, please visit the AGS website or email ags@ags.org.uk.

Article provided by Zita Mansi, Senior Associate at Beale & Co

Article

New AGS Members in 2019

- by
Tags: Featured

The AGS is pleased to announce that in 2019, nine member organisations, four affiliate organisations and one practitioner member were accepted by the Membership Panel and approved by the Executive.

Nine students and graduates were also accepted as AGS members.

The new member organisations are S M Associates, ACS Testing, Ecologia Environmental Solutions, Hixtra, Strata Geotechnics, RSK RAW, Curtins Consulting, The Environmental Protection Group and Geotechnical Observations. The new affiliate organisations are Beale & Co, 1st Line Defence, Geosense and Landmark Information Group. The new practitioner member is Ken Marsh.

AGS Membership is open to geotechnical and geoenvironmental companies who employ specialist who can provide competent services and affiliate companies who provide support services and supplies to the members. Students and Graduates can also become members of the AGS. Full details of membership criteria can be found at http://www.ags.org.uk/about/become-a-member/

Article Loss Prevention

Soil Quality Limits for Buried Water Pipes

- by
Tags: Featured

It is common practise to use the guidance published by UKWIR, ref 10/WM/03/21 “Guidance for the selection of water supply pipes to be used in brownfield sites”. 2009-10, in assessing the potential risk to buried water pipes from soil contamination. However, it should be noted that some water companies have their own bespoke threshold concentrations, which take precedence over the UKWIR guidance. These may not be publicly available.

Therefore, to mitigate the risk of inaccurate advice being provided, any guidance on selection of water pipes should be caveated as requiring a check and confirmation by the local water company.

Jo Strange, Technical Director at CGL on behalf of the AGS Loss Prevention Working Group