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

Article

Procurement of Ground Investigation Steering Group Survey

- by
Tags: Featured

This survey is a collaboration between the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS), British Drilling Association (BDA) and Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS). It builds upon the AGS/BDA 2017 survey ‘Spotlight on the industry’ which identified that poor procurement of ground investigation was amongst the top three concerns of the responders.

The purpose of the survey is to identify the level of understanding of, and detail the concerns with, the current procurement processes for UK ground investigation services. The responses will be used by Joint Industry Working Groups under the Procurement of Ground Investigation Steering Group to develop new or amend existing procurement guidance.

We welcome responses from across the industry and wider participation from all stakeholders will bring greater insight. Your response will be treated in confidence and the results of the survey will be shared with the geotechnical community.

The survey can be completed here and will take around 5-10 minutes to complete. The survey will close on Tuesday 31st December 2019.

Article

AGS Video Competition

- by
Tags: Featured

Following on from the success of the first AGS Photography competition last year, the AGS are holding their first official video competition for the geotechnical and geoenvironmental industry.

We’re on the lookout for your most creative video clips, including labs testing, site operations, work in offices, training and drone footage, as the AGS are looking to create a video which represents the diversity of the geotechnical and geoenvironmental industry.

Entry into the competition is free and the winner of the competition will win a hamper basket from luxury retailer, Fortnum and Mason, and two runners up will receive a bottle of champagne.

All entries will be reviewed by the AGS Officers, who will decide on a shortlist and overall winner. Full details will be announced in the March/April 2020 issue of AGS Magazine.

VIDEO REQUIREMENTS
The AGS are looking for high quality video clips of a geotechnical and geoenvironmental nature. Video clips can include projects, laboratory testing, collaborative working and more. Videos featuring staff should demonstrate health and safety procedures are in place, if appropriate.

HOW TO ENTER
Please email across your video clips before Monday 3rd February 2020 with the below points listed to ags@ags.org.uk. Please list the email subject as ‘AGS Video Competition 2019’;

o A short description of what it showcases and where it was taken (up to 50 words)
o Credit information (if applicable)
o Your full name
o Company name
o Postal address

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
• There is no limit to the number of videos you enter.
• The deadline for entries is Monday 3rd February 2020.
• Entry into the competition is free
• Applicants must be aged 18 or over.
• Video clips should be sent in standard video format.
• Applicants must be based in the UK.
• The photographer must have full copyright of all entered videos.
• All videos entered may be reproduced by the AGS and used in future AGS event and marketing literature without prior notice. This may include usage across the AGS’ social media channels, inclusion in the AGS Magazine and on the AGS website. The clips may also be edited by the AGS.

Article

Q&A with Dr Claire Stone

- by
Tags: Featured

Full Name: Dr Claire Stone

Job Title: Quality Manager

Company: i2 Analytical Ltd

Having decided at an early age that I wanted to work in analytical sciences in the environmental field, I was lucky enough to undertake an Analytical and Environmental Chemistry degree. Having completed my degree, I then studied for a PhD in Analytical Chemistry and through this work and post-doctoral work specialised in metals analysis, quality control/assurance and other inorganic analytical techniques. Having joined i2 in 2006, I first worked I was first employed as a method development chemist, I then went on to run the inorganic analysis departments, before becoming Quality Manager in 2009.

What or who inspired you to join the geotechnical industry?

It’s hard to say – I’ve wanted to be involved in this type of work for so long I don’t think I can honestly remember who or what first inspired me to do it!

What does a typical day entail?

As well as managing my Quality team to ensure all our laboratories are maintaining our accreditation and extending our scope of testing to ISO 17025 and MCERTS, I also work closely with our Technical teams to develop novel and innovative solutions both in terms of analytical methods and techniques. Being a senior chemist, I also speak to our customers about any challenging sites or problems they have and look to work with them to produce a cost effective analysis proposition.

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

The “asbestos dustiness” method development and accreditation of this particular technique is the project I’m most proud of. This is an innovative solution to provide additional lines of evidence for customers who may face challenges when dealing with asbestos contaminated sites.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?

Ensuring the highest quality standards are met whilst ensuring that the work carried out by the whole of i2 is commercially fit for purpose.

What AGS Working Group(s) are you a Member of and what are your current focuses?

I’m a member of both the Laboratories Working Group and the Contaminated Land Working Group and my current focus is on bringing more environmental chemistry input to the Laboratories group and ensuring that labs are well represented on the Contaminated Land group. Personally I’m looking at the challenges of deviating samples in respect to both geotechnical and geo-environmental analysis – an analysis is only as good as the sample provided!

What do you enjoy most about being an AGS Member?

The AGS events are always enjoyable and I was lucky enough to speak at one of them – having a presentation really well received by such a diverse audience has certainly made these events my favourite aspect of being an AGS member.

What do you find beneficial about being an AGS Member?

Being involved with a wide range of disciplines working in the geotechnical sector means that both personally and professionally strong relationships can develop and through collaboration more opportunities and challenges present themselves.

Why do you feel the AGS is important to the industry?

The AGS provides a focal group to work through a variety of challenges within the sector and I think the fact that it’s run by the members for the members gives it a great strength.

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

I would like to see more practical cross discipline experience in the people involved in the industry. I think that by appreciating and understanding the impact of others work and roles the whole industry would benefit.

Article Loss Prevention

Loss Prevention Alert 69: The need for well-defined objectives and scope agreed by the Client and Ground Engineering Specialist

- by
Tags: Featured

Over the last couple of years several AGS members have encountered contractual difficulties arising from the absence, or poor definition, of the objectives or scope of their work.  In some cases, this has led to substantial claims in legal disputes, in others a breakdown in the relationship with the client.

A common cause of disagreement (and in some cases legal dispute) between a client and the ground engineering specialist is a gap between the client’s expectations of the final product from a site investigation (most commonly a report) and that actually published by the specialist.  Sometimes that gap results from a shortcoming in the execution of the sitework or in the drafting of the report.  However, more often it results from a lack of clarity or agreement between the parties regarding the objectives or scope of the work / report.

LPA 69 has brought together some of these experiences, provided some examples of common issues and proposed some simple good practice measures to avoid such disputes, namely;

  1. Before you commence work, put in writing your understanding of the agreed objective(s) and the scope of work necessary to meet those objectives.
  2. Ensure the title of your work is appropriate by referring to the relevant standards and reflects the scope and methodology of the work.
  3. In your report, include a statement of the agreed objective(s) and scope of the work.

All practitioners are recommended to read the full text of LPA 69 (it is only 1500 words), to publicise or otherwise transmit this out to their teams, and (hopefully) to avoid these potential pitfalls in their future work. LPA 69 can be downloaded for free on the AGS website.

This topic of scope and objectives is one of the areas being covered 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 Hugh Mallett, Technical Director at BuroHappold Engineering.

Article

The Value in Ground Engineering

- by
Tags: Featured

Now more than twenty years ago in his review in rethinking construction, Egan said that the construction industry at its best is excellent, but at the time of his review there was concern that it was underachieving and needed to deliver more inherent value. His conclusions also highlighted that the industry in general needs to educate and help its clients to differentiate between best value and price. The same conclusions apply to the Ground Engineering industry, in fact more so since unlike other products of construction built out of the ground, almost all our work is usually concealed from sight, in the ground. For us as an industry then, there really is an imperative to be able to provide evidence and compelling description of our value. Without doubt we are aware of this and often internally discuss this, but our mission is to take this external and present the evidence in terms and language that is understood by our clients and multi-disciplinary partners who hopefully become our advocates.

So, what is value? Clearly value is not necessarily the lowest cost or the quickest solution. A straw poll of leaders in major infrastructure yielded responses along the lines of value being ‘…the most effective way to achieve an outcome with legacy being important…’ This description highlights need for definition of outcome to measure ultimate success, optioneering to assess the most efficient or effective approaches to get there, and an eye on the timeline and downstream benefits. It’s arguably the journey to the outcome and downstream legacy benefits where we need to work most to ensure that counterparts and clients understand the value of our work.

Certainly, in the public sector, delivery of an outcome is rightly increasingly emphasising more than just simply cost with a move away from just transactional business to integrated, collaborative outcomes-focused delivery. Social value is often mentioned in tender criteria for ground engineering work, but a blended approach considering all of the Capitals is the direction of travel in major project procurement, these being human, manufactured, financial, natural, social and intellectual. Our industry regularly makes substantial contributions in all the Capitals areas, and especially in the circular economy, but would benefit from work, perhaps most appropriately initiated by the AGS, to measure and document outcomes more explicitly against these criteria in an array of common project tasks, building a body of compelling case study evidence. This would need to be accessible in the widest sense, kept current and be in those common areas that the target audience can easily relate to in language they appreciate. Doing so would probably place us at the forefront of the construction industry ahead of our colleagues in other related disciplines but we need it more given our benefits to a project are usually less obvious as noted above, unlike architecture, structural or civil engineering.

A decade ago the Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) initiated a study with similar intent, advocating for the use of geosystems in civil engineering applications. The primary objective was reduction of wastage but this was to be achieved by greater knowledge and use of engineered geosystems (geosynthetics) as actually selected alternative options to conventional ground engineering construction approaches. In doing so this raised the profile of the geosynthetics industry principally through the presentation of case studies quantifying cost, time and environmental benefits by evaluation against more conventional construction approaches. The guidance was presented in an accessible way with information that clients and the developer market could relate to by including non-technical information and quantification in directly relevant terms, these being mainly financial savings.

Quantifying the benefits, the information was compelling mainly from identifying, especially in time and cost terms, the advantages of re-using site-won spoil which would otherwise have been sent to landfill and substituted for imported higher specification aggregates as well as high carbon steel and concrete. Case studies included back analysis of actual construction of environmental, financial and carbon cost of works including a grade separated highway interchange, a noise/environmental bund, retaining walls and fill platforms as compared to the delivery of the initial design. The study did present challenges in compiling evidence in that initial design information was sometimes not developed in detail and required reasonable assumptions in quantities to derive environmental and financial costs. However, the outcomes were nevertheless clear in terms of potential benefits.

Refreshed and expanded upon, this approach could be used as a template for building information on the benefits that the ground engineering industry brings, by utilising case studies underpinning common themes with clients. Current conversations within our industry are commonly too internally-focused, and availability of this type of information is invaluable to allow us to take our regular conversations externally and talk in those terms clients, counterparts, developers and, for that matter, the general public understand. Generally, the industry has a wealth of experience in the benefits of various ground engineering tasks which are almost waiting to be documented.

Case studies could include several case studies valuing a focused and appropriate site investigation versus the usual acknowledgement by decision-makers on the ‘need for boreholes’ without understanding the specific direct downstream benefits these provide in risk mitigation and options for geotechnical design and the opportunities for more sustainable or innovative solutions. They may also include common work in optimising retaining walls through further analysis and the direct opportunity to slim down or shallow the wall through more analysis. Ground improvement is essentially entirely directed to optimisation of shallow foundations and surely would be more commonly used or requested if information on applicability and advantages was better described in a non-technical and quantified way. Earthworks and re-use of materials is an area where there is perhaps most to gain through this approach.

In summary then, surely with the tools and knowledge we now have and routinely use, the time is ripe for us to take the initiative and move one step further in talking about value with our clients, regularly including specific value statements in our work, describing short term investment for longer term gain, development of non-technical guidance documents to demystify the industry, surveying our clients to let them know we’re serious in focusing on our customers and solicit areas for work to improve our offering, creating a collective compendium of quantified case studies identifying the value that the ground engineering industry contributes to society including the value ground engineering can bring to enhancing sustainable solutions. Some of this the AGS has certainly initiated but is this not a wider role for the AGS to initiate through a working party or similar?

Remembering the sage-like but obvious conclusion from Egan, we as specialists need to educate and help our clients differentiate between value and lowest price.

Article provided by Patrick Cox, Director Major Projects at AECOM

Article Report Data Management

AGS Data Management Working Group Update

- by
Tags: Featured

Jackie Bland, Leader of the Data Management Working Group, has provided an update on the top issues the Data Management Working Group discussed at their last meeting which took place on 18th September 2019.

Release of AGS4.1
The Data Management Working Group are in the process of working on AGS4.1 which is due to be released at the AGS Data Format Conference in 2020. As standards are changing, the group need to ensure that all data can be transferred between relevant parties. We also need to be aware that perhaps different methodologies may be required in future for transferring this data. The update to AGS4.1 is important to members of the AGS because frustratingly large costs can be incurred in bespoke system design where there are no appropriate or specific locations within the format to store the data. It’s preferable that everyone follows a standard within the industry and therefore the same update can be applied to all software packages capable of receiving or producing AGS digital data.

Release of AGSi
AGSi is almost ready for beta publication in 2020. AGSi has been developed by the Data Management Working Group over the last few years. It provides the ability to move the ground model in a structured way between parties and will hopefully reduce the meetings, sheets of paper and the requirement for the same software package. This also continues our groups’ desire to continue to be truly be software agnostic or software independent.

The AGS Data Format Conference 2020
The Data Management Working Group are in the early stages of organising the AGS Data Format Conference 2020 which will be taking place on Wednesday 23rd September 2020 and will be returning to the National Motorcycle Museum in Birmingham. Sponsorship opportunities for the conference are already available and make sure to keep an eye out for future issue of the AGS Magazine and on the AGS website for registration details and speaker line-up.

Registered Users of Data Format
There are now 87 registered companies of AGS Data Format. As a reminder, it is now a requirement to be a registered user of AGS Data Format if your company supplies or receives AGS Data. Also, we ask that, if you are a consumer of AGS data, you check that any company supplying you with AGS data is shown on the list of registered users. To register as a Data Format user, email ags@ags.org.uk for further information.

Article

Safety and technical concerns of using a DCP

- by
Tags: Featured

Introduction

The use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) also commonly known in the UK as the TRL Penetrometer or TRL Probe has been under discussion recently in the AGS Safety and Geotechnical Working Groups due to concerns raised by members regarding the significant danger of injury from damage to underground utilities, manual handling injury and the quality of the geotechnical data output.

The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) is an instrument designed for the rapid in-situ measurement of the structural properties of existing road pavements constructed of unbound materials. The robust and simple design means that the DCP is quick and easy to use, portable, low cost and suitable for use in locations where access may be difficult. It is commonly used in the UK to determine a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) profile for pavement design.

This article discusses the history of the test, the safety concerns and geotechnical design limitations of the DCP in modern practice and provides alternative methods which must be considered by the Designer.

Historical Background

The earliest technical references to the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) suggest that it was developed in 1959 by Professor George F. Sowers, Professor of Civil Engineering, Georgia institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA1. The original DCP used a 15 lb weight dropping over 20 ins and used a 40o cone. This DCP was originally developed for field exploration and for verifying individual footing foundations during construction. The DCP was further developed in South Africa for the evaluation of in-situ pavement strength or stiffness of newly constructed roads in the 1960s. Dr. D. J. van Vuuren designed this version of the DCP with a 30° cone2.

The Transvaal Roads Department in South Africa began using the DCP to investigate road pavement in 19733. Kleyn reported the relative results obtained using a 30° cone and a 60° cone. In 19824, Kleyn described another DCP design, which used a 60° cone tip, 8 kg (17.6 lb) hammer, and 575 mm (22.6 in) free fall. This design was then gradually adopted by countries around the globe including the USA and by Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) in the UK. In 2004, the ASTM D6951-03 Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications described using a DCP with this latest design5.

Typical DCP/TRL Probe

DCP Procedure

The 8 kg free fall hammer is manually lifted and dropped through a height of 575mm. The distance of penetration of the cone tip is then recorded and the cycle repeated. Continuous measurements can be made down to a depth of approximately 850mm or when extension rods are fitted to a maximum recommended depth of 2 metres.

DCP testing consists of using the DCP’s free-falling hammer to strike the cone, causing the cone to penetrate the base or subgrade soil, and then measuring the penetration per blow, also called the penetration rate (PR), in mm/blow. This measurement denotes the stiffness of the tested material, with a smaller PR number indicating a stiffer material. In other words, the PR is a measurement of the penetrability of the subgrade soil.

Technical Output from the DCP

The most common use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) is to provide a quick and simple field test method for evaluating the in-situ stiffness of base and subgrade layers for roads and highways, and DCP testing has been used in many countries and US States for subgrade evaluation and QA/QC procedures. The greatest advantage offered by the DCP is its ability to penetrate underlying layers and accurately locate zones of weakness within the pavement system.

Correlations have been established between measurements with the DCP and conventional in-situ CBR so that results can be interpreted and compared with CBR specifications for pavement design. TRL Report TRL5875 is the most common correlation method used in the UK and is widely specified. A typical test takes only a few minutes and therefore the instrument provides a very efficient method for obtaining information which would normally require the digging of test pits.

Technical Limitations

This instrument is typically used to assess material properties down to a depth of 1000 mm below the surface. The penetration depth can be increased using drive rod extensions. However, if drive rod extensions are used, care should be taken when using correlations to estimate other parameters, since these correlations are only appropriate for specific DCP configurations. The mass and inertia of the device will change and skin friction along drive rod extensions will occur.

Correlations to CBR in homogenous, fine grained soil types are potentially the best use of the tool, or for finding boundaries of known (engineered or natural) layers where there is significant difference in resistance i.e. soft clay over dense gravel. Heterogenous soil types, e.g. Made Ground, with a recommended CBR from DCP may represent a false materials characterisation presented in a report to a civils designer not fully understanding the technique’s limitations.

Health and Safety Concerns

The nature of the test means it is manually operated from ground level without view of the materials and ground conditions being penetrated. The standard equipment comprises in basic terms a metal cone which is connected to metal rods which are driven into the ground using a metal weight and slide mechanism. Incidences of personal injury from manually driving or pushing metal spikes or road pins into buried services have been well documented and must be considered a significant risk. The equipment is not insulated and the procedure requires the operative to hold the equipment6,7 and includes the potential to force-drive through obstructions which might include unobserved buried services.

Although not a DCP test but effectively a similar process, AGS in 2017 (SP Energy Networks) reported an incident where an operative drove a steel road pin into a HV electrical cable and more recently a Safety Alert was released by Geoffrey Osborne in 2019 relating to a similar incident. Driving of road pins on Network Rail requires a permit as it is deemed a significant risk and many contractors have banned the use of road pins or the driving of other metal rods (i.e. earth spikes) into the ground.

With regard to manual handling, the equipment is bulky and unstable unless held firmly at what may be head height for some operators including the 8 kg hammer at the top. Generally, it requires two persons to perform the operation, but is often carried out by single operators to minimise cost. Although some DCP systems have mechanical jacks to extract the rods the typical use in the UK is by back hammering or manual pulling if there is resistance during extraction of the rods and cone. These practices could lead to not only damage of the equipment but the risk of musculoskeletal injuries must be considered.

The device was designed before modern standards in health protection, or the practicality of manual handling in a more regulated industry was considered. It is the role of the Designer in CDM to reduce or preferably eliminate risks. Designers specifying a DCP as part of a compliant ground investigation to obtain data for pavement design are simply failing in their CDM duty where this hazard is identified because a CBR value can be obtained in a safer way which can reduce or even eliminate the risk.

Alternative methods for CBR

The common practice to determine CBR values before DCPs were through collecting a bulk sample from hand excavated pits and carrying out laboratory testing. It is acknowledged that excavating a trial pit to obtain a sample is not without risk, but that is a recognised industry methodology and would be expected to have mitigation to avoid underground services strikes.

In situ CBR values can be obtained from surface or the base of a hand excavated trial pit using In-situ CBR equipment or Plate Load Test (PLT) equipment in accordance with BS 1377 procedures. The limitation of these tests is that they only provide a single value and not a profile and results can be detrimentally affected by coarse materials in mixed soils or near surface desiccation in fine soils.

If a CBR by depth profile is essential for design then the use of equipment such as the Lightweight Deflectometer (LWD) could be considered. The LWD is a device that estimates the in-situ modulus of a material using the impulse load produced by the impact of a falling weight. LWDs are particularly useful for estimating the moduli of asphalt, aggregate base, granular subbase and subgrade pavement layers. LWDs consist of a mass (often 10 kg), an accelerometer or geophone, and a data collection unit and are designed to be light enough to be moved and operated by one person.

Conclusions

The use of DCP to provide QA/QC data for newly constructed highways and earthworks where the location of buried services is known is considered to be a useful, quick, low cost and relatively low risk method. However, when DCPs are specified along routes for new highways or more generally to determine CBR values for pavement design the risk becomes significantly greater from injury through damage to buried services and the method has technical and quality concerns.

The method has been extended for purposes beyond its original design which often do not take into account the modern environment. The construction CBR value provided through laboratory testing which also provides soil type and compacted density, or through an in-situ surface test such as In-situ CBR/PLT is recommended as being faithful to the original correlation with Californian rock gravel performance under relevant loading conditions.

The use of LWD equipment could reduce both the risk of injury from damage to buried services and manual handling even further and this method will provide a CBR depth profile which is now the most common reason in ground investigations for specifying a DCP.

The justification for the Designer to specify DCP must be carefully considered and not driven by lowest cost and a robust risk assessment must be carried out. Ground investigations, especially those on brownfield sites, using the DCP may not be considering the technical limitations of the test and may not fully take into account the safety risks. Therefore, Designers under CDM may be failing in their duty to eliminate or reduce risk and through specifying DCPs are putting persons at harm.

The AGS is currently considering the safe use of DCPs and alternative methods in order to reduce or eliminate the safety risks to members. It would welcome opinions and thoughts from its members and also technical data which could support the promotion of alternative methods.

References

1 George F. Sowers and Charles S. Hedges: 1966 : Dynamic Cone for Shallow In-Situ Penetration Testing – Vane Shear and Cone Penetration Resistance Testing of In-Situ Soils, ASTM STP 399, Am. Soc. Testing Mats., p. 29.

2 van Vuuren, D. J. : 1969 : Rapid Determination of CBR with the Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometer, The Rhodesian Engineer.

3 Kleyn, E. G. : 1975 : The Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP). Transvaal Roads Department, South Africa.

4 Kleyn, E. G., Maree, J. H., and Savage, P. F. : 1982 : The Application of a Portable Pavement Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Determine in situ Bearing Properties of Road Pavement Layers and Subgrades in South Africa. The European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

5 ASTM D6951 / D6951M – 18 : 2018 : Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications.

6 Zohrabi, M and Scott, P.L : 2003 : TRL Report TRL587, The correlation between the CBR value and penetrability of pavement construction material. Transport Research Laboratory

7 Done, S.; Samuel, P. : 2004 :User manual UK DCP 2.2. Measurement of road pavement strength by Dynamic Cone Penetrometer.

8 Jones C R and J Rolt (1991). Operating instructions for the TRL dynamic cone penetrometer (2nd edition). Information Note. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.

9 BS 1377 : 1990 : Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. British Standards Institute

Article contributed by James Harrison, previously Delta Simons and Julian Lovell, Equipe Group

Article

Reducing risk and preventing claims on complex brownfield residential sites.

- by
Tags: Featured

NHBC is the UK’s leading warranty provider for new homes in the UK with a market share of around 80%. We deal with over 4,000 sites per year from 9,000 house builders on our Register with around 165,000 new homes currently registered annually.

Builders on the NHBC Register are required to build new homes in accordance with NHBC’s Standards to be acceptable for Buildmark warranty cover. The Standards specify the Technical Requirements of NHBC along with the performance standards to be achieved in the design and construction of new homes. Guidance is also provided on how the performance standards may be met.

Part 4 of the NHBC Standards covers foundations including requirements for; land quality, building near trees, strip and trench fill foundations, raft, pile, pier and beam foundations, and vibratory ground improvement techniques.

Consultants and/or specialist contractors preparing remediation strategies or substructure designs for NHBC registered house builders should be aware of the requirements of NHBC’s Standards. This is to ensure that the designs prepared will satisfy NHBC’s Technical Requirements and performance standards in order to be acceptable for Buildmark warranty cover.

Additionally landowners, land developers, development agencies and third parties remediating brownfield land for sale to house builders for residential development should also be aware of NHBC’s Standards and requirements. This will help house builders to avoid potential difficulties when they register the site for Buildmark warranty if the remediation strategy adopted, and the verification of any works undertaken, prior to acquisition of the land does not satisfy NHBC’s requirements. NHBC can offer support to non-NHBC registered companies remediating land for subsequent sale for residential development through a Land Quality Endorsement (LQE) service (www.nhbc.co.uk/lqe)

The NHBC Standards are available online at:

http://www.nhbc.co.uk/Builders/ProductsandServices/Standardsplus2019/#7

In Part 4 of the NHBC Standards, Chapter 4.1: Land Quality – managing ground conditions provides a framework for managing geotechnical and contamination risks with the objective of ensuring that:

  • All sites are properly assessed and investigated for potential geotechnical and contamination hazards.
  • Foundations and substructure designs are suitable for the ground conditions.
  • Sites are properly remediated where necessary or appropriate, and design precautions are taken.
  • Appropriate documentation and verification are provided to NHBC.

On potentially hazardous sites, NHBC seeks to adopt a pro-active risk management regime on developments registered for Buildmark warranty with the aims of:

  • Reducing the potential for defective or damaged buildings.
  • Ensuring risks to human health are addressed.
  • Mitigating the likelihood of claims against Buildmark and significant claims costs for both house builders and NHBC.
  • Avoiding reputational damage for all stakeholders.

With the increased use of brownfield and marginal land for residential development, sites frequently have significant geotechnical and environmental issues that need to be satisfactorily addressed in order to meet the requirements of NHBC.

It is essential that a holistic approach to the overall remediation strategy is adopted for all brownfield and marginal sites. This is to ensure that both the geotechnical and environmental issues are considered in tandem and are aligned, so that the aims and objectives of each individual strategy are not unduly compromised, and the overall strategy delivers the desired performance over the 60-year design life required for new homes.

When undertaking technical assessments for new residential developments on brownfield or marginal sites with complex geotechnical and environmental issues, typical areas of concern and focus on proposals and designs submitted to NHBC for Buildmark warranty cover include:

a) Geotechnical

  • Inadequate or insufficient geotechnical site investigation and testing.
  • The presence of soft and compressible alluvial soils prone to large and potentially long-term settlements.
  • Deep un-engineered or partially engineered fills within landfills and quarries.
  • Landforming on sites with deep Made Ground or compressible soils with significant cut and/or upfilling resulting in heave or significant settlements.
  • Clarity of objectives for geotechnical remediation strategy including proposed foundation solutions.
  • The appropriateness of proposed ground treatment(s) to achieve the required bearing capacity and settlement characteristics for the development platform.
  • Suitability of engineered fill specifications particularly when proposed for the direct support of spread foundations, including; compaction method, testing regime, testing frequency, treatment of failures and verification.
  • The potential for collapse compression/inundation settlement on deep fill sites due to rising groundwater or infiltration including consideration of building drainage solutions on the site.
  • The robustness of the verification reporting on the implementation of the earthworks strategy.
  • Planned development over, or in close proximity, to high walls.
  • Long term settlements secondary and/or creep settlements over the 60-year design life of the new homes. Typically, NHBC will require any assessment to demonstrate that angular distortions/tilts will be no worse than 1 in 400 over the design life.
  • Potential short and long-term differential movements between rigid foundations solutions (e.g. piles) and external areas over the design life of the new homes.
  • Robust analysis and assessment of short and long-term settlements due to; building loads, raised ground levels, consolidation of cohesive soils and long-term creep in deep backfills and/or Made Ground. This includes the adoption of appropriate geotechnical parameters in settlement analyses/estimates.
  • Theoretical settlement estimates/assessments validated by load testing and/or settlement monitoring to demonstrate the actual load/settlement characteristics of the remediated development platform.
  • Due allowance for negative skin friction in pile designs on sites with deep fills and Made Ground or significant upfilling.
  • Co-ordination of geotechnical and environmental remediation strategies.
  • Co-ordination of post-remediation infrastructure/development works to ensure the geotechnical remediation works undertaken are not compromised or adversely affected (e.g. further changes to ground levels after remediation)

b) Environmental concerns

  • The adequacy of desk studies/Phase 1 assessments.
  • Robustness and completeness of conceptual site models.
  • Inadequate or insufficient geo-environmental ground investigation, testing and assessment following Phase 1 investigations.
  • The appropriateness of the contaminant testing suite and the frequency of testing and distribution on the site.
  • The use of appropriate assessment criteria for contaminants in soils and controlled waters.
  • The interpretation and assessment of environmental data obtained from ground investigations and appropriate updating of the conceptual site model.
  • Appropriate characterisation of ground gas regimes and any protection measures that may need to be adopted.
  • The robustness of the verification reporting following implementation of the environmental remediation strategy.
  • Co-ordination of geotechnical and environmental remediation strategies.
  • Co-ordination of post-remediation infrastructure/development works to ensure the geo-environmental remediation works undertaken are not compromised.

Often when things go wrong, the investigation of claims against Buildmark identify how these could have been avoided as the following examples demonstrate:

Example 1 – Excessive ground movement

In this example, the new homes were constructed on a site with soft compressible soils, including peat, to depths of 9m below the original ground levels. The properties were on piled foundations with a cantilevered path around the perimeter of the building to support services and safeguard the threshold at entrances to the buildings. However, during development, a piling mat was installed, and ground levels were also subsequently increased by up to 1m to suit final development levels. No measures were implemented to mitigate settlement of the underlying soft ground due to the increase in ground levels. After 12 months, 200mm to 300mm of settlement was recorded around the properties resulting in excessive differential movement occurring between the rigid piled substructure and the external ground. This incurred significant remedial costs on the affected properties. Claims on these properties could have been avoided by ensuring that the strategy for the site not only considered the foundation solution for the buildings but also the effects of raising ground levels on the underlying soft compressible soils.

Example 2 – Excessive ground movement

This example is another situation where potential for post development ground movements was not considered. In this case, the site was underlain by soft and very soft alluvial clays to depths of 15m. Piled substructures were adopted due to the poor ground conditions, but no consideration was given to post development settlements that may occur. A piling mat was provided to facilitate the piling works and some upfilling of the site was undertaken. This resulted in consolidation of the soft alluvial soils with between 75mm to 100mm of differential movement between the substructure and external that compromised access to the building and incoming services. Once again, claims on these properties could have been avoided by ensuring that the strategy for the site not only considered the foundation solution for the buildings but also the effects of raising ground levels on the underlying soft compressible soils.

Example 3 – Contamination in soils

On this rural development of 5 plots with extremely large rear gardens, fibrous boarding was identified in the gardens following occupation by the homeowners. Subsequent investigations revealed the presence of Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) in the topsoil and subsoil, typically within 500mm of ground level but locally up to 1m in depth. The volume and concentration of ACM in the soil was determined to represent a significant risk to human health and substantial remediation was required in the gardens. Investigations identified; inadequate site investigations were undertaken prior to development along with lax control during the decommissioning and demolition of buildings previously occupying the site. The claims on these properties could have been avoided with an adequate site investigation and conceptual site model for the site, together with appropriate controls during the demolition of the original buildings.

In the examples given above, the claims against Buildmark warranty resulted in significant claims costs and disruption to the lives of the affected homeowners. These could have been avoided had the ground conditions been fully appreciated and appropriately managed, during both the development of the scheme design and subsequent construction.

In summary, it is essential that all brownfield and marginal sites with complex ground conditions are appropriately investigated and assessed to identify the potential geotechnical and environmental risks. This should include consideration of; the works required to create the development platform and any additional risk this may create, the types of building proposed and the intended foundation solutions etc.

For residential sites registered for NHBC Buildmark warranty, development designs and proposals will be assessed against the requirements of NHBC’s Standards and expected to satisfy Chapter 4.1: Land Quality – managing ground conditions.  All designers providing services to NHBC registered house builders and/or land owners or land  developers remediating brownfield sites for residential end-use should ensure they are familiar with NHBC’s requirements to; avoid development proposals being determined as unsuitable for Buildmark warranty cover, to assist in reducing risks and to help prevent claims for the benefit of all stakeholders, particularly home owners.

If you’d like to learn more about our LQE service please visit www.nhbc.co.uk/lqe or contact us on lqe@nhbc.co.uk

Article contributed by Adam Gombocz, Senior Geotechnical Engineer and John Jones, NHBC Engineering Manager