Article Loss Prevention

AGS Guide to Good Report Writing 2015

17th Dec 2015 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: definitions formatting good practice grammar language Report Report Style spelling

The AGS Guide to Good Practice in Writing Ground Reports has had a 2015 up-date and is now free to download, please click here.

Given that a large proportion of the product that AGS members sell is in the form of written reports, it is vital that this product is fit for purpose. Not only must reports be technically correct and prepared with due care and diligence, they should also look professional and act as an advert for the quality and competence of the author(s) and the Company publishing it.

The AGS guide provides advice to report authors and reviewers on report style, language and definitions. There is a considerable amount of detailed help on these issues in the appendices to the report that staff at all levels in member firms are well advised to read (and to return to).

Although the technical advice in our reports may be sound and competent, the value of that advice can be seriously devalued by some simple common errors in language, formatting, spelling or grammar. These errors often disproportionately adversely affect the perceived quality of the whole report including its technical competence and the advice presented.

My own magnificent seven “favourites” are;

1. Bullet points that do not follow the sense of the introductory phrase.
Activities on site comprise;
– There are unbunded oil storage tanks on site,
– A security guard with a big Alsatian.
2. Very long sentences with multiple verbs and subjects and which cannot be read without pausing for breath.
3. Sentences with no verb at all (and therefore make no sense).
An investigation report dated 2012 as part of a desk study.
4. The spurious use of capital letters.
A Total of fifteen Samples were analysed for a range of Determinands and Geotechnical Properties.
5. The use of vernacular or local dialect in written reports.
He should of ensured samples were taken.
I instructed the driller to carry out SPTs at 1m intervals innit.
6. Repetition.
My unofficial record is seeing “the site” fourteen times in eight lines of text.
7. Incorrect use of apostrophes.
Apostrophes are used to indicate possession or missing letters. They are not used in plurals [PAH’s] or because there probably is’ one in the sentence somewhere so with any luck you will get it in the right place.

When writing a report (or indeed any official document) if in doubt about phrasing, terminology, spelling or grammar;

i. Use the AGS Guide,
ii. Refer to a dictionary, thesaurus and guide to grammar (e.g. Fowlers) as appropriate, and
iii. Read (and enjoy) Eats, shoots & leaves (Lynne Truss).

And final, please advertise the free availability of the AGS Guide to Good Practice in Writing Ground Reports to all staff in your Company.

Prepared by Hugh Mallett, Loss Prevention Working Group Chair

Article Laboratories

GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING TO BS EN ISO 17892: Briefing Note (updated December 2015)

14th Dec 2015 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: Labs methodologies progress standards Technical Specifications test procedures

GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING TO BS EN ISO 17892: Briefing Note (updated December 2015)

BSI recently published the first two Standards in the series BS EN ISO 17892 with a third standard to be published in the next few weeks. On the day they are published, they supersede the equivalent test methods in BS1377. This note is intended to keep you updated on progress on further Standards in the series. The note will be updated regularly.

Background:

In 2004 CEN and ISO published 12 documents in the series EN ISO/TS 17892. These are Technical Specifications, not full Standards, and as such their use is not mandatory. In 2010 CEN and ISO agreed to upgrade these to full EN and ISO Standards.

With CEN leading, and with active ISO participation, CEN Technical Committee 341 (currently Chaired by the UK’s John Powell, and with BSI providing the Secretariat) appointed a Working Group (WG6, with the UK’s John Masters and then Roger Brown as Convenor, and Alastair McKenzie as Technical Editor) with a mandate to re-write the 12 TS documents so that they get wide-spread acceptance world-wide.

Process:

The WG has been working for several years, and has the target to complete all 12 by the end of 2017 ahead of a planned up-issue of Eurocode 7 (BS EN 1997-1 and BS EN 1997-2). The WG consists of technical experts from more than a dozen countries, who are working together to write the Standards encompassing good practice from around the World, using routinely available existing equipment.

Once the WG has produced an acceptable draft, it is put into the public domain for comments in a process called “Parallel Enquiry” (parallel because CEN and ISO run it in parallel, but independently). Draft Standards are in the public domain and available for comment for several months. The WG then gets the comments back to address, either to incorporate into the draft if they agree with them, or to give reasons not to if they disagree. Once the draft is revised, it then goes back to the CEN and ISO Member countries for Final Vote. If successful, CEN and ISO translate the Standard and publish simultaneously in English, French, German and Russian.

UK Implementation:

As members of CEN, the UK must adopt and publish the new Standard within 6 months of publication by CEN and ISO, and simultaneously must withdraw any existing conflicting National Standard. With the first two, BSI published them the same day as CEN and ISO.

Testing can continue to the equivalent BS1377 methods, for example if a contract with a client requires it, but if so, they will need to be reported as for example “BS1377-2, Clause 3.2 – Superseded”.

The list overleaf details the 12 Standards in preparation, and the current status of their progress towards publication. Note that the final choice of which test procedures will be in the EN ISO Standard for permeability has not yet been confirmed. Other test methods might be added after these 12, but no decisions have been made yet on what tests these should be.

New Standard	Test	Superseded/will supersede	Current Status	Publication
BS EN ISO 17892-1	Moisture/Water content	BS1377-2, Sub-clause 3.2	Published	31/12/2014
BS EN ISO 17892-2	Bulk density	BS1377-2, Sub-clauses 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4	Published	31/12/2014
BS EN ISO 17892-3	Particle density	BS1377-2, Sub-cause 8.3	Approved for publication	15/01/2016 (1)
BS EN ISO 17892-4	Particle size distribution	BS1377-2, Clause 9	At Formal Vote	early 2016
BS EN ISO 17892-5	Incremental oedometer	BS1377-5, Clause 3	Submitted for Formal Vote	mid 2016
BS EN ISO 17892-6	Fall cone	No BS equivalent	Reviewing public comments	mid 2016
BS EN ISO 17892-7	UCS test	BS1377-7, Clause 5	Parallel Enquiry imminent (2)	early 2017
BS EN ISO 17892-8	UU triaxial test	BS1377-7, Clause 7	Parallel Enquiry imminent	early 2017
BS EN ISO 17892-9	CID, CIU and CAU tests	BS1377-8 (replaced in its entirety)	Parallel Enquiry imminent	early 2017
BS EN ISO 17892-10	Shear-box and ring-shear	BS1377-7, Clauses 4, 5 and 6	Under revision in WG6	late 2017
BS EN ISO 17892-11	Permeability tests	BS1377-5, Clause 5 and BS1377-6, Clause 5	Under revision in WG6	late 2017
BS EN ISO 17892-12	Plasticity Index tests	BS1377-2, Clauses 4 and 5	Under revision in WG6	late 2017

ISO (but not CEN or BS) published an incorrect version on 25/11/2015. The corrected version is due to be published 15/01/2016.
“Imminent” means within the next few months

Future of BS1377:

Four clauses as noted above in BS1377-2:1990 have been withdrawn already. BS1377 will need substantial updating as a result of the publication of the above new Standards. However amendments to BS1377 will lag behind the publication of the replacements, so for example if you buy a copy of BS1377 today, the four withdrawn clauses will still be present. BSI is currently reviewing what will happen to BS1377 in the long run. The 12 new EN ISO Standards do not cover all tests currently in BS1377, so some of it will presumably need to remain in some form or other.

Differences to BS1377:

The EN ISO 17892 Standards contain a number of subtle differences to BS1377. Looking at Part 1 for example, the minimum masses for the water content test are different to BS1377 (although these now become recommended rather than mandatory) and there are minor reporting differences in the water content result (now required to be reported to one decimal place between 10% and 100% water content). And you will need to remember to now call it “water content” instead of “moisture content”!

Accreditation:

UKAS are already assessing laboratories against the two new Standards for water content and bulk density. Laboratories with existing accreditation to the equivalent BS1377 method can convert their accreditation by a self-declaration, although not many have done so to date. Although the changes are subtle, labs will have to undertake a proper change-management process, including re-training of for the new methods.

UKAS currently believe this self-declaration mechanism should also be applicable to the further Standards as they are published for those labs already accredited to the equivalent BS1377 methods.

Article Loss Prevention Safety

Loss Prevention CDM 2015

8th Dec 2015 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: CDM 2015 loss prevention Principal Contractor Principal Designer safety

There appears a general consensus that working for a commercial competent supply chain and client, CDM2015 is reasonably straightforward to comply with. Although the changes are significant, good contractors perform similar duties that have kept them safe in the past.

A competent client will appoint a Principal Designer (PD) and Principal Contractor (PC) in sufficient time for the ground investigation to be undertaken by a contractor using sufficient resources in accordance with the regulations. Everyone knows where they stand.

In other situations, a commercial client may not fulfil their duties for making the appointments; or for providing all the information needed to safely operate the site.

In such circumstances, the contractor may elect to undertake the duties that are missing to get the work done; adopting the PD/PC roles. In effect, treating a commercial client like a domestic client. (Hyperlink to HSE http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg411.pdf)

Where a domestic client appoints only a contractor, the duties are automatically transferred if they do not exist elsewhere. Contractors may think life-of-project organisations like builders/architects/structural engineers are better suited to PD/PC duties, and this is probably true but may be out of the member’s control. Members could check whether any written agreements are in place before deciding whether to proceed. “

Contractors that do decide to take on a project in this way should recognise their additional duties (and competencies or otherwise), which can be discovered by looking at the regulations and the guidance. Some highlighted issues are presented below.

The contractor must ensure they have made the client aware of their own duties (either as commercial or domestic client), but also that they are taking on the additional roles (PD/PC) which may require extra resources. This should be done as part of the tendering process/offer of service, AND include details of when these roles will cease plus other limitations.

The contractor still needs to make wider arrangements to manage the site for the duration of the works by performing inductions, ensuring the site is secure, ensure suitable welfare arrangements are in place and generally comply fully with their part 4 duties under the regulations. They should also prepare a Construction Phase Plan (CPP) which will deal with how they intend to arrange the work and how they will manage foreseeable hazards both at and adjacent to the site.

The CPP should also identify any additional information that the contractor needs before starting work. If the client is not able to provide that information (e.g. services location, intrusive asbestos survey, ordnance assessment, etc.) then the contractor should arrange with the client for the work to be carried out.

Where the contractor carries out design work (e.g. temporary works including perimeter fencing, arranging traffic management, ground conditions assessment and alterations, excavation support, etc.) they should ensure they follow the principle of avoid the hazard or use a suitable control measure to minimise risk.

Without clear arrangements to the contrary, there is danger an early stage contractor could be assumed to be responsible for following phases of works. It is therefore important that where a contractor only is appointed, they clearly limit their role.

The following examples show where a contractor (PD/PC) might find unexpected resources required to comply with the regulations.

Obtaining service drawings & checking for unexploded ordnance
Managing extra contractors
Dealing with unexpected visitors
Maintenance of security or welfare where damage occurs
Changing investigation method due new information, unforeseen site conditions, or consequential events

It is probably the role of PD that introduces most uncertainty to the contractor because the role is generally unfamiliar to site staff. For instance, would using a borehole instead of a trial pit represent a clear-cut reduction in risk against striking a service, and is this a designer’s decision under CDM 2015?

If you found this article helpful, you may find the AGS Client Guide on CDM2015 useful, to download for free please click here.

Article Contaminated Land

The Specialist in Land Condition (SiLC) Register Scheme

13th Aug 2015 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: SiLC; Land Condition Record; LCR;

The Specialist in Land Condition (SiLC) Register Scheme was designed to support the use of the Land Condition Record (LCR), launched by the Urban Task Force in 1999 and to recognise the skills of those working in the broader land condition sector. It now provides a wider recognition of competence in the land condition field, but the LCR remains as a working tool.

A registered SiLC is a senior practitioner who has a broad awareness, knowledge and understanding of land condition issues. They can provide impartial and professional advice in their field of expertise and can verify the accuracy of a completed LCR.

The SiLC Register brings together professionals from a broad range of backgrounds who advise on land condition matters.

To become a SiLC you must have sufficient and relevant work experience since graduation and be a member of a professional body at an appropriate level. SiLCs are also required to complete an application and pass a written assessment and peer interview.

The application deadline for the next round of SiLC exams is on the 7th September 2015. The written test will take place between the 21st September and the 12th October 2015. Interviews will follow for successful candidates from the 30th November until 11th December 2015.

If you are interested in becoming a SiLC please visit their website for further information including fees, introduction days, the application form and candidate guidelines.

Article Loss Prevention

Duress or Commercial Reality?

12th Aug 2015 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: clients commercial contract duress indemnity liability pressure

By Zita Mansi, BLM Solicitors

An AGS member queried whether he has any redress in circumstances where he is obliged to sign a contract with onerous terms in order to receive payment for work he has already carried out. The onerous terms might include, for example, provision of a Limit of Indemnity of £5million where the fee is only £5,000, the risk of which had not been priced into the fee agreed for the work, or long payment periods of 60 or 90 days.

In such a situation, the member must choose between agreeing to the onerous terms or suing the client for its unpaid fees (which is often a commercially unattractive option). The member queried whether this qualified as “duress”.

The necessary ingredients for a successful economic duress claim are:

Pressure which is illegitimate;
This pressure is a significant cause inducing the “victim” to enter into the contract; and
The practical effect of the pressure is that there is compulsion on or a lack of practical choice for, the victim.

If the above ingredients are established then the victim of the duress is entitled to accept the term and later pursue a claim for undue influence in order render the contract void.

The courts have held, that “illegitimate pressure must be distinguished from the rough and tumble of the pressures of normal commercial bargaining.” Cases where pressure has been considered “illegitimate” are those where the perpetrator has committed a crime, a tort or a breach of contract.

Establishing that the victim had no realistic practical alternative but to submit to the pressure is also a high hurdle to overcome. In the scenario described above, the AGS member could (a) refuse to commence work until satisfactory terms are agreed or (b) carry out the work and then sue the client for payment if reasonable terms cannot be agreed. Although these options are commercially undesirable, they are practical options nevertheless

Ideally, no AGS member would carry out any significant work unless and until satisfactory contract terms had been agreed in writing. However, there are many reasons why this may not happen in practice. For example, the works may be required urgently so that only the most basic terms, such as the scope of works, price and timescale, are discussed verbally beforehand. AGS members would do well to have a set of their own standard terms and conditions that can be quickly adapted and sent to their clients before commencing work, for use in such situations.

Members can also refer their clients to the AGS Client Guide on Limitation of Liability Clauses, and Professional Indemnity Insurance which may assist their negotiations.

Article Contaminated Land Loss Prevention

Deleterious Materials – Good Practice in Use and Specification

5th Aug 2015 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: Asbestos; Deleterious Materials; Contracts; Made Ground; Hazardous Materials;

Written by Hugh Mallett, Chair of the AGS Loss Prevention Working Group

Introduction
Despite the publication of the British Council of Offices “Good Practice Guidance in the selection of construction materials (Ref 1) we are still seeing some contracts in which clauses prohibit the use of “deleterious materials”. Typically, these clauses will then provide a list of prohibited materials, which usually includes asbestos.

This can cause particular issues when the earthworks on a site include the re-use of Made Ground (Fill). Typically analysis of this material on most sites in the UK will indicate that some samples of that material include asbestos containing materials. With an improved screening test (since about 2010) asbestos is often being detected in a proportion of samples of Made Ground at a large majority of sites. Typically the analyst reports that for samples subject to screening, whether or not any of the three main types of asbestos (amosite, chrysotile and crocidolite) are “detected” or “not detected”. Further testing to quantify the amount of asbestos in the soil sample may often then reveal that a proportion of samples where asbestos was detected, the quantity of is <0.001% (the limit of quantification). Such a material would now fail to comply with a clause that prohibits the presence of “any deleterious materials”.

Good Practice
As long ago as 1997, the BRE (Ref 2) and the BCO (Ref 3) published advice promoting a change in the practice of including lists of excluded materials in contract documentation. Those documents encouraged a change in emphasis from the exclusion of materials to ensuring good practice in their selection. Accordingly it became more common for contract documents to refrain from including exhaustive lists of prohibited materials, instead referring to the BCO and BRE reports, such as that presented below.

Prohibited Materials means any materials:
(a) which by their nature or application contravene any relevant British Standard or EU equivalent
(b) which contravene the recommendations of the British Council for Offices’ publication Good Practice in the Selection of Construction Materials (2011) or
(c) which are generally considered to be deleterious within the building design professions in the UK at the time of specification or approval;

And

The Consultant further warrants to the Client that it has not specified for use and will use the standard of skill and care provided for in clause 3.1 not to specify for use and will use such reasonable skill and care consistent with the supervisory and inspection responsibilities to be undertaken as part of the Services to see that there shall not be used in the Works any materials which at the time of specification or use (as the case may be):
are known to be deleterious when used in the manner in which they are to be used (either to health and safety or to the durability of the Works); or
contravene any relevant standard or code of practice issued from time to time by the BSI Group or under a European directive relating to standards; or good building practice; or
do not accord with the guidelines contained in the edition of the publication Good Practice in the Selection of Construction Materials (British Council for Offices (BCO)), current at the date of specification or use.

Current difficulties
However, notwithstanding this good advice and the ready availability of relatively standard clauses of the type presented above, it is still not uncommon for some contracts to prohibit materials in a way that is not helpful. For example;

Contracts which attempt to indemnify the Client from “any proper costs claims damages losses penalties fines liabilities encumbrances liens costs or expenses which might be incurred or suffered by the owner or occupier of the Premises as a result of the existence of Hazardous Materials upon about above or beneath the Premises” and then defines “Hazardous Materials” as any substance which contains asbestos. From the discussion above, this would include almost all Made Ground where some asbestos (even if only present in trace amounts) is likely to be present.

Furthermore, clauses can require that “Works shall not include retention of asbestos or asbestos containing material (ACM) within made ground on the Premises where any Survey discloses ACM content greater than 0.1% w/w. In that event, Remediation Works must achieve a reduction of overall ACM within the made ground through controlled screening and picking below 0.1% w/w.”

Firstly, it is difficult to demonstrate conclusively that ACM in Made Ground are above or below this threshold [due to sampling/ testing issues] and to define any areas where such contamination was present would be problematic and could become contentious. Secondly (and more importantly) – this requirement is contrary to the risk based approach to remediation that is current policy and which is promoted in the Good Practice guidance. Essentially, the provision requires that if there is Made Ground with ACMs in it at > 0.1% but that this soil is at depth (say >1m) and which will then be covered by a building or car parking and therefore presents no risk to anybody or the environment, nonetheless, it would have to be excavated, screened and the ACMs removed until you could conclusively demonstrate that the ACMs in the whole mass of soil were <0.1%. On a risk based remediation, all that would be required is that a record of the presence of the ACMs buried beneath the buildings/ car park was retained (e.g. in the Verification Report and recorded in the Health and Safety file) such that if in the future someone was to excavate into this material, the potential risks could be appropriately mitigated.

Recommendations
AGS Members are recommended to scrutinise clauses which refer to the selection / retention of materials which may be considered hazardous in particular circumstances. They should not agree to the inclusion of clauses which are contrary to the advice in the BCO document but should seek to include clauses which refer to and accord with the guidelines contained in the BCO “Good Practice in the Selection of Construction Materials” and /or include a qualifying phrase about the particular use of materials which may or may not be deleterious dependent upon specific use(s).

References
1. British Council for Offices. Good practice in the selection of construction materials 2011.
2. BRE. List of excluded materials – a change in practice. Digest 425. Sept 1997
3. British Council for Offices. Good practice in the selection of construction materials. 1997

Article

BS5930:2015 – the new version of the Standard on Ground Investigation is now available

30th Jul 2015 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: BS5930 Code of practice ground investigation

Written by David Norbury – Independent Consultant and Chair of the Revision Panel

BS5930 has underpinned ground investigation practice in the UK and abroad since its original publication in 1981. The original version broke new ground by standardising for the first time many of the aspects of an investigation and was published at about the same time as international guidance from ISRM and IAEG on similar themes. This standard always had wider coverage by including guidance on selection of drilling methods, and covering field and laboratory tests.

The subsequent 1999 revision was an update to reflect the ongoing evolution of investigation methods. Since then there have been two major amendments 2007 and 2010) to incorporate the requirements of EN standards related to Eurocodes, specifically the standards associated with EN1997-2, in sampling, testing and soil and rock description. BSI rules do not permit additional amendments, and the decision was taken to undertake a full revision not only to include additional requirements relating to the Eurocodes but also to ensure that current best practice was incorporated throughout the document.

BS 5930:2015 presents an update on the requirements for the investigation of sites in order to assess their suitability for construction and to identify the characteristics of a site that affect the design and construction of the project. The Standard emphasises the importance of the evolving ground model and that ground investigation is not necessarily a linear process. It also considers related issues including the environment and the security of adjacent land and property.

According to the drafting panel, BS 5930 should be used on all investigations to help ensure:

geotechnical design and ground investigations are achieving the best results;
UK practitioners are carrying out their work in ground investigation and geotechnical design in accordance with the latest EN and ISO standards;
UK practitioners can export their skills to other countries where the same international standards are in use;
the most appropriate equipment is deployed to carry out ground investigation from selection of exploratory techniques, to methods of sampling, testing and measurement;
complete, accurate and informative description of the soils and rocks encountered; and
complete reporting of the investigation for use by others in the design chain whether by paper, pdf and digital data transfer formats.

Apart from changing the title from ‘site’ to ‘ground’ investigations, readers might not see much change in the content. However, a lot of effort has been input to update best and current practice, accommodate EN ISO standards and to cut repetition. Not least, the structure of the content has been significantly revised and the Section headings of the revised standard are listed below. Several of these sections have been raised from clause to section level, as denoted by an asterisk below, to better reflect their importance to the investigation process.

Preliminary considerations
Desk studies and field reconnaissance**
Planning ground investigations
Field work
Geophysical field investigations**
Description of soils and rocks
Field tests
Field instrumentation**
Laboratory tests on samples
Reports and interpretation
Review during and after construction

The schedule of Annexes supporting the main text is as follows:

National safety legislation**
General information required for desk study
Sources of information
Notes on field reconnaissance**
Detailed information for design and construction
Ground Investigation in ground affected by voids *
Photographic records**
Integrated investigations**

The revision process started in late 2011 and was completed in late 2014 when the draft for public comment was issued. The pubic certainly commented with over 1000 comments being received – the largest number ever seen by BSI. A period of intense work in early 2015 saw these comments reviewed and incorporated ready for publication in July 2015. The four year period to revise such a large standard is testament to a lot of hard work by the members of the Panel listed here for the record:

David Norbury representing the Geological Society of London
David Entwisle representing AGS
Dick Gosling representing British Drilling Association
John Powell present as Chair of B/526/3
Andrew Ridley co-opted to writ on instrumentation
Mike Smith present to guide us on integrated investigations
Graham Taylor representing British Geotechnical Association

and with significant contributions from George Tuckwell on geophysics and Tom Phillips on safety, and not forgetting our patient editor Mary Groom.

Download your copy here.

Article Safety

Applying 2015 CDM Regulations to Ground Investigation

1st Jul 2015 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: AGS CDM 2015 CGL Construction Design Management ground investigation safety

Construction Design Management (CDM) updated their regulations earlier in the year to further improve health and safety across the construction industry and manage risk accordingly.

Is your Company up to speed with the new changes? Do you know how the new regulations affect ground investigation? Jo Strange, Technical Director of CGL and an active member of the AGS Loss Prevention Working Group, has written an insightful article in this month’s Ground Engineering magazine on Applying 2015 CDM regulations to ground investigation. To read the article in its entirety, please click here

What are your thoughts on the new CDM regulations? Share your opinion on the AGS LinkedIn Group

The AGS Safety Working will be issuing guidance on CDM shortly, watch this space!

Article

WHY SHOULD YOU BE AT GEOTECHNICA 2015?

23rd Jun 2015 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Article written by Julian Lovell, Chair of the AGS Safety Working Group and Managing Director of Equipe.

Over the last 6 years, Geotechnica has become the biggest and best geotechnically-dedicated conference and exhibition that the UK has to offer. From humble beginnings in marquees in a field on The Upton Estate in rural Oxfordshire, to the excellent purpose-built facilities of the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre, Geotechnica has become a staple in any and all geotechnical stakeholder’s calendars.
In this issue of theGeotechnica, we look forward to this year’s Geotechnica and outline exactly why you should be attending 2015’s event. Whether it is to attend the always excellently received geotechnical conference featuring speakers from high profile clients such as HS2 Ltd and Network Rail; discover the latest product developments and innovations; meet prospective clients, contractors and suppliers, or to catch up with friends new and old – Geotechnica offers something for everyone.

Growth in the sector – tackling the challenges
The Geotechnica 2015 conference and exhibition provides a unique opportunity for the geotechnical industry, its clients and the supply chain, to discuss how best to meet the challenges of the UK construction’s growing order book.

The dramatic rise in UK infrastructure and building projects following the recession has created skills shortages across the construction industry. For the geotechnical sector, this upturn in work presents significant challenges. High Speed 2, for example, is set to swallow almost 40% of the sector’s capacity when ground investigations start later this year.

The urgent need to tackle the issues of capacity and skills, while maintaining quality and safety standards, will be the focus of Geotechnica 2015. On the first morning of the event the conference will bring clients, consultants, contractors, suppliers and manufacturers together to discuss how best to meet the challenges ahead.

The morning session will be chaired by Professor David Norbury who will provide critical information of the soon to be published BS 5930 revision. Jonathan Gammon, High Speed 2’s Head of Ground Investigations, and Mike Brown from Network Rail, will then outline work plans, plus their needs and expectations. The talks will not only outline current requirements but the Client’s will also discuss future requirements and aspirations and ask how the Community can meet these.

Remote monitoring advances
The Wednesday afternoon at the geotechnical conference will see a series of presentations looking at how the field instrumentation is advancing and how emerging technologies can be used to efficiently monitor geotechnical structures remotely. The session will look at a few of these technologies but also discuss how the data can be used more efficiently and possibly in the future be shared with the Community.

Talks from Dr Andrew Ridley of Geotechnical Observations and Professor Neil Dixon of Loughborough University will head up the session, with case studies and technical discussions from Dr David Gunn and Dr Jonathan Chambers of the BGS. Short presentations from Martin Clegg of Geosense, Heba Bevan of Utterberry, James Preston of Monitoring Optics and Roger Hazelden of TRW Conekt will round up the day’s talks with insights into the emerging technologies which are likely to take the industry by storm.

Health and Safety Updates
Over the last 12 months, we have all been discussing forthcoming changes to the Construction Design and Management Regulations. These have now been laid before parliament and came into effect on the 6th of April earlier in the year. On the Thursday morning of the conference there will also be a session sponsored by the British Drilling Association on health and safety, with discussions on changes brought about by the new CDM 2015 Regulations lead by John Underwood, Construction Inspector at the Health and Safety Executive.

The CDM 2015 regulations have been discussed at length in theGeotechnica in the last few issues, however Geotechnica 2015 will provide an opportunity for contractors to hear directly from the HSE on how these new regulations will directly affect day-to-day tasks on working sites.

Other topics discussed on the Thursday morning include the rising issue of asbestos in soil (also covered in Issue 40 of the magazine by Derwentside Environmental Testing Services’ Hazel Davidson), with a presentation from expert Seamus Lefroy-Brooks, Managing Director of LBH Wembley.

Finally there is the exciting news of the re-launch of the BDA Audit which has recently been revised in order to improve levels of assessment and competency which will complement the launch of a Level III NVQ for Land Drilling planned later this year. Delivering this update will be Peter Redford who is a director of BDA and chaired the working group which carried out the review of the auditing process. He will present these changes to attendees at Geotechnica 2015, outlining the changes to non-conformance, an updated and digitised audit format and alteration of base-rate auditing fees.

AGS Data efficiencies
The final conference session is sponsored by AGS and will be focussed on digital (AGS) data and how it can help to make organisations more efficient. The afternoon of presentations and discussions offers engineers and clients an opportunity to learn how others are using digital data and the AGS Data Format for managing geotechnical information within their organisations. The session will consist of a series of inspirational and practical presentations with plenty of discussion time that will help you make better use of the AGS Data Format.

Whether you are; an experienced user of AGS Data, someone wanting to learn more about using or specifying AGS Data, or an early-career engineer looking for an introduction to data management, this afternoon will provide you with a valuable learning opportunity.

Speakers in this session include Chairman of the AGS Data Management Working Group Jackie Bland, General Manager of Ground Technology Services Ben Armstrong, Simon Miles of Atkins, and also Dr Roger Chandler, Managing Director of Keynetix.

Each 30 minute session consists of a 15 minute practical application presentation by the speaker(s) followed by a panel and audience discussion about the topics with advice from the AGS Data Management Committee and other practitioners.

This session is a must for any handlers of AGS Data, and also for anyone wishing to gain a greater grasp of what AGS Data can offer you in terms of improving your organisations efficiency from site to final report.

Latest product innovations – demonstrations and launches
One way the geotechnical sector can meet the increasingly growing demand is by improving efficiency through innovation, a theme running through the two days at Geotechnica, both at the conference and also at the exhibition. Conference sessions on advances in digital data capture and remote monitoring on the Wednesday afternoon will be complemented by product launches and live demonstrations in the exhibition area running throughout both days of the event.

New product launches are due from a number of companies including two large rig manufacturers. Firstly Geotechnica 2015’s Gold Sponsors Casagrande UK will be launching the new C5XP, as well as a new vibro-rotary head by Eurodrill. Not to miss out on the rig launch party, Rockbit UK will be launching the new Massenza MI 3 and a new Wildbore De-sander unit and EK bag system, as well as demonstrating the Pagani CPTu penetrometer throughout both days on request. The Equipe Group will also be officially launching there SAFER-G Sensor-based rotary rig guarding system to the UK market, as well as a new KeyLogbook update release.
The laboratories present at Geotechnica will also be getting in on the act, with Derwentside Environmental Testing Services introducing there new asbestos in soil test – the fibre release test. ALS Environmental will also be demonstrating some of their OnSite tools including XRF, UVF and PetroFLAG.

The Geotechnical Academy
The Geotechnical Academy will again be at Geotechnica to demonstrate how it provides a unique learning experience for young geo-professionals. The training is designed to be fundamentally vocational, with many opportunities throughout the modules to participate in practical activities such as rig audits, insitu testing, laboratory testing, site visits and production of a ground model. An important aspect of The Geotechnical Academy is to allow delegates to gain knowledge through a shared learning experience with delegates from different facets of the geotechnical industry. We frequently bring together main contractors, specialist contractors and geo-environmental and geotechnical consultants, all with very different experiences of the industry.

This year at Geotechnica, The Geotechnical Academy stand will perform the traditional service of providing information. Academy staff will be there to discuss module content and practical activities and to welcome new enquiries. However, in addition we will also be presenting the new Geotechnical Academy Conference on Thursday 9th July. This will be an afternoon conference session offering an innovative learning experience for all geo-professionals as well as providing an opportunity to experience first-hand the type of experience delegates can expect if they attend The Geotechnical Academy. The event is being supported by Alcontrol, Lankelma, Keynetix, Equipe and Geotechnical Engineering Ltd who, along with other companies, all contribute to individual Academy modules throughout the year.
Come along and experience The Geotechnical Academy Conference on Thursday 9th July and contribute to enabling your geo-professionals to provide a quality service to the construction industry.
Packed exhibition line-up

The exhibition line-up for this year’s event is stellar. Geotechnica has always boasted the most varied and robust line-up of exhibitors in the UK, however the offering in 2015 may be the best yet. Companies from all areas and corners of the industry will be represented, with the very best in geophysics, ground investigation specialists, civil engineering, environmental and geotechnical laboratories, drilling rig, plant and equipment suppliers, instrumentation and geothermal specialists all out to impress the hundreds of attendees.

Geotechnica 2015 will be held on 8th and 9th July at the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre, Royal Leamington Spa. To register for your free place and for more information, visit www.geotechnica.co.uk; follow us on Twitter @equipegroup and visit the Equipe Group LinkedIn page.

Article Safety

Construction Design & Management Regulations 2015 – implementation

23rd Jun 2015 - by Ann-Marie Casserly

Tags: AGS CDM 2015 construction Equipe HSE RPA Safety Services

Article written by Tom Phillips, RPA Safety Services and Julian Lovell, Chair of AGS Safety Working Group and Managing Director of Equipe.

CDM2015 came into effect on the 6th of April 2015 and duty holders within the geotechnical sector are starting to grapple with the reality of implementation. With an increased emphasis on Client responsibilities, in an industry sector where the Client is rarely directly involved in the ground investigation phase, questions about how the regulations will be applied are being asked.

In conversation with the Health and Safety Executive, Tom Phillips of RPA Safety Services and Julian Lovell, Managing Director of Equipe and Chair of the AGS Safety Working Group attempt to clarify some of the questions consultants and contractors are raising.

Q. The definition of ‘construction’ in regulation 1, excludes site survey and in many cases our clients see ground investigation as site survey. Could you clarify the limits of site survey?

Site survey is restricted to non-intrusive works so taking levels, making measurements, site walkovers, gas monitoring and visually examining structures for faults would all be typical examples. If the works involve penetrative works, even with hand tools, the work is classed as construction and the regulations apply.

We are keen to stress though, that the regulations should be applied proportionally to the level of risk involved. A shallow, hand dug trial hole will require minimal paperwork in terms of a construction phase plan, as the risk is low, but duty holders will still need to consider the risks associated with such things as underground services, contaminants, ground stability, preventing falls into the excavation and they must plan how the work will be carried out, kept safe and made good. In many cases, simple repetitive work will be based on standard company procedures but these will need tailoring for the site and locality in question and the prevailing conditions.

Q. Consultants and contractors are finding it difficult to get clients to accept and fulfil their duties under regulation 15 (1), which states: ‘A contractor must not carry out construction work in relation to a project unless satisfied that the client is aware of the duties owed by the client under these Regulations.’ In many cases they are not employed directly by the client and have no contact with them at all.

To what extent does this prevent contractors from starting work and will they be held liable for client’s failures to make the correct appointments and satisfy their duties?

The regulations do not prevent geotechnical contractors working, even if the client has not fully complied with their duties. Key for the contractor, is to ensure they have made the client aware of the client’s duties under CDM. This can be done as part of the tendering process, or following appointment.

In such instances, the contractor still needs to make wider arrangements to manage the site for the duration of their attendance (appropriate to the role they are carrying out) despite a lack of formal appointment.

The contractor should therefore ensure the site is secure, ensure suitable welfare arrangements are in place and comply fully with their part 4 duties under the regulations. They should also prepare (or contribute to an existing) Construction Phase Plan which will deal with how they intend to arrange the work and how they will manage foreseeable hazards both at and adjacent to the site.

The construction phase plan should also identify any additional information that the contractor needs before starting work. If the client is not able to provide that information (e.g. services location, intrusive asbestos survey, ordnance assessment, etc.) then the contractor should arrange with the client for the work to be carried out as a separate part of the contractor’s contract.

Where the contractor is the main contractor on all or part of the site they should manage all work in the area they are responsible for unless a principal contractor is appointed and active. Where the contractor carries out design work (e.g. temporary works including perimeter fencing, arranging traffic management routes, ground conditions assessment and alterations, excavation support arrangements, etc.) they should ensure they follow the principle of avoid the hazard or use a suitable control measure to minimise risk.

Q. When a geotechnical contractor is appointed as Principal Contractor (PC) or Principal Designer (PD), in the early stages of a GI phase, or they pick up those duties by default, is there a danger they could be deemed PC and PD for subsequent phases?

Absolutely. Without clear arrangements to the contrary, there is every danger that a geotechnical contractor could be assumed to be responsible for following phases of works. It is therefore important that where a geotechnical contractor is appointed, or by default is expected to carry out the duties of the Principal Contractor and Principal Designer (a requirement on any project where there is likely to be more than one contractor), they clearly limit their role to their phase of works only. This will include limiting the Construction Phase Plan to the geotechnical phase. Where the existing contract paperwork is not clear on this issue the contractor should write to their client to confirm the extent of the contractor’s role.

Q. Regulation 2 defines a contractor as ‘any person (including a non-domestic client) who, in the course or furtherance of a business, carries out, manages or controls construction work’. Does this definition mean consultants may be classed as contractors?

The duty holder ‘contractor’ relates to those who: determine the manner in which the work is being done (this may also include a design element so they may hold dual roles), provide supervision or engage other contractors. This can include ‘consultancies’ in many instances.

As an example, where a consultant engages a drilling contractor and determines the nature and type of works or supplies supervision, they would both be deemed contractors and it will be the consultancy’s responsibility to ensure the client is aware of their duties. The client would then need to make the necessary appointments. Where a domestic client is involved, the consultancy (as a contractor) may be deemed to be principal contractor and principal designer by default, even if the client fails to make formal appointments. Where a commercial client is involved, any failure to appoint will result in the client carrying the role of principal designer and/or principal contractor.

How AGS Data Makes Organisations More Eﬃcient?

23rd Jun 2015 - by Caroline Kratz

Tags: AGS data format Geotechnica

A series of short presentations about advances in the use of capturing and using Geotechnical Data from site, through the laboratories to report and beyond. The talks will discuss the use of AGS through the process and will include a number of case studies to show how it works for real projects.

For further information and to register to the event, please visit www.equipegroup.com/services/geotechnica/geotechnica.html

Article Executive

Chairman’s Address

28th Apr 2015 - by Caroline Kratz

Tags: AGS Ken Marsh Matthew Baldwin Seamus Lefroy-Brooks

AGS Members Day is always an enjoyable and informative event, which manages to balance the AGS governance issues with topical presentations form invited speakers. Biannually, Members Day also sees the formal election and taking up of office for the incoming chairman. This year I took over from Seamus Lefroy-Brooks, whose two year tenure seems to have flown by! I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of both the AGS committee and the wider membership, to thank Seamus for all the hard work he has put in. For the Chairperson there is a lot of unseen work that goes on behind the scenes, in order to ensure that both main committee and the various subcommittees function effectively.

As a trade organisation, the AGS has a duty to its membership, to keep a weather eye on a variety of issues that might impact on the membership. Because the AGS successfully represents contractors, consultants, laboratories as well as suppliers, the range of issues is broad and includes technical, health and safety and commercial ones to name but a few.

During periods of economic downturn, it would be easy to sacrifice some of the aims of the AGS, ie to promote best practice and to provide guidance for members. I am pleased to say however that under the stewardship of the last two Chairmen (Seamus and Ken Marsh), this has not been allowed to happen, and now as the industry faces a period of relative economic buoyancy, the key will be to look afresh at issues that face the industry.

As I said at Members Day, I am particularly keen to ensure that the AGS becomes relevant and accessible to the whole geo-environmental community. By this I mean that we need to engage with students, graduates and young company employees as well as those companies and individuals who have been members for a number of years. We must better disseminate the great pool of knowledge and experience that sits with the AGS committee and subcommittee members, and make it available to all.

The redesigned website will play a key part in this process, as will better marketing of the AGS throughout the industry. We will be looking at the accessibility of AGS publications and guidance notes etc, to see how we can better get information out to those practitioners who need it. The committee has also received approaches from overseas organisations wishing to follow the AGS ‘model’ and this is something we will look at. It says a lot about the AGS, when comparable industry sectors in other countries think that our ‘model’ as a trade organisation is worth adopting!

So in summary there will be no let-up in the work that the AGS does on behalf of members. As we strive to make the AGS a better knowledge centre, we will be canvassing thoughts from members to ensure that we address issues that are of concern and that are relevant to very day geo-environmental practice. I am looking forward to working with both committee members as well as the membership at large over the next two years.

Matthew Baldwin

Chairman of the AGS

April 2015