In July’s edition of the AGS magazine, Chris Raison posed the question: ‘AGS Digital Data – Why is it so difficult to get?’ In an age where the transfer of data in digital format is the norm for most business sectors, his question is very pertinent. The ground investigation industry is often perceived as being antiquated and ‘behind the times’ in its methods, and the issue of data flow is no different. Working as I do for a major ground investigation contractor that has been supplying digital data in this format for many years, I thought it appropriate to try and answer the question he posed.

Firstly I should state that I have a lot of sympathy with Chris. My company Soil Engineering, is part of a much bigger group of companies (Soletanche Bachy) that deal exclusively with the ground (piles, diaphragm walls and secant pile walls to name but a few of the techniques we offer). Interacting as we do with other parts of the group, we know of the frustration that our operating companies and divisions have, regarding this subject. We routinely hear of multi-million pound piling schemes, trying to be designed on the basis of a few photocopied pages of exploratory hole logs and lab test data!
How can this be? As Chris notes in his article, we are now in the 21st century and the easy transfer of digital data (via the AGS medium), has been with us for a quarter of a century. There are several possible reasons for the current state of affairs and these are listed below:
• Procurement teams unaware / uninterested in digital data
• Smaller GI projects don’t require digital data
• Digital data produced for only some aspects of GI
• Full digital data produced and ‘gets stuck’ with clients professional team
Taking each of these in turn;

Procurement teams unaware
It could be argued that the AGS has not done enough to promote the benefits of the AGS data transfer medium. Surely if everyone saw how easy the system was and what the end benefits were, no one would hesitate to use it? The problem is perhaps linked to AGS membership. After all the AGS exists to promote best practice in the geotechnical and geoenvironmental sectors, so why wouldn’t all companies operating in these sectors aspire to become members of the AGS? Membership entitles members to use of the AGS digital data dictionary.

We are however where we are with regards membership and if we accept that for every member company there may be another nine non-members, then we are perhaps only reaching 10% of the market place. If the procurer is unaware of the AGS digital data format, then how can they be expected to specify it when preparing GI procurement documents?
The extract in Figure 1 is typical of a GI tender specification not requiring electronic data of any form!

Figure 1: Extract from a tender that only requires a paper copy of the report

Smaller GI projects don’t require digital data

SEGL is aware that many smaller and in particular non-public funded schemes do not stipulate a requirement for digital data in the specification. That is if the procurer even bothers to put together a specification! A small to medium sized GI may only be perceived to need a pdf copy of the report.

So the question then is what to do. If GI companies are not asked to provide a price for this service, then why should they provide it? People who say that producing AGS data is achieved via a ‘push of a button’ are sadly misguided! For a simple GI, compiling an error free digital data file can take less than an hour, but for more complex projects can take many hours. So there will naturally be a cost attached. Who should pay this cost if we automatically generated AGS data for every project?

And then what would the procurer do with the data given that they didn’t ask for, don’t understand and have no idea what to do with?

Digital data produced for only some aspects of GI

For a straight forward GI where all of the work is carried out by in-house resourcing (rigs and laboratory testing etc), the GI contractor should have no difficulty compiling a digital data submission. However where various aspects of the GI are outsourced (subcontracted), the subcontractor may not be able to supply data in AGS format, or they can’t supply the data in the latest format. So what to do then?

Whilst SEGL always aims to only procure subcontractors who can supply their data in the requisite format, there is still great variability in the quality offerings of such companies and sometimes it is impossible to get all the data in the required format. This applies to both geotechnical and chemical testing laboratories, geophysical contractors as well as specialist in situ testing subcontractors.

This latter point is very pertinent to the recent HS2 ground investigations. The client (HS2) quite rightly requested the latest version of the AGS data format. However every major GI contractor on the framework agreement experienced severe difficulties in obtaining the data in this format from subcontractors who were still working with the previous version!

Full digital data supplied and gets ‘stuck’ with clients professional team

SEGL supplies digital data for the majority of its contracts and certainly for all major contracts. As a company we pioneered embedding the AGS digital data file within the report pdf and some clients thought this a very good idea. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate what should be good practice for all GI’s:

Figure 2: Extract from a specification that is quite clear as to what is required in terms of reporting

Figure 3: Extract from the corresponding Bill of Quantities, allowing the contractor to price digital data

However, and this is a major however, since we work with other parts of our group, who are acting as subcontractors for say the installation of piles, we see what data they receive for their design. We are aware of major GI contracts (for which we have supplied full AGS data submissions), whose data has not found its way to the people who need it most, ie the pile designers! The same applies to numerous retaining wall and contiguous pile wall schemes.

So what is happening to the data? The answer is that much of the data is being retained by the clients professional team (consultants, structural engineers and architects etc), who do not pass it on either to main contractors or to smaller piling companies etc.

We are aware of a recent scheme for which we supplied digital data for some fifty boreholes and for which a piled solution was required. Much to our dismay we found that one of the companies in the group had spent hours re-entering all the exploratory hole data by hand into an Excel spreadsheet because they had only been given photocopies of logs! This is complete madness, but sad to say is an all too common occurrence.

What can be done?

The most obvious thing that can and should be done, is to better showcase the advantages of AGS digital data to the whole industry. In my view I believe that Chris is incorrect when he suggests that ‘many specialist GI contractors and Consulting Engineers have a misplaced view that AGS digital data is different to the GI report itself’. I believe that those who know about the AGS digital data format, know exactly what it is and what it does. The problem is that not enough procurers of GI’s either know about it or specify it. How many investigations are procured by structural engineers or architects etc who have no knowledge of the geotechnical industry, let alone knowledge of the AGS data digital format? This issue in itself accounts for many of the smaller GI’s that are procured each year.

There are further and alarming issues with other major consultants who know exactly what AGS digital data is, but who then request the data in Excel format only, because their design systems are set up as Excel spreadsheets! From my point of view this is missing the point completely, since they could easily receive data in AGS format and then import it into Excel. This would also make the data available for any users downstream, ie main contractors and specialist foundation contractors.

Chris also states that ‘it is time that the GI industry addressed this problem, added value to their reports and generally reduced the potential waste and experienced by users of their data’. Again in my opinion, Chris is addressing the wrong target audience here! All the larger quality GI contractors can and do provide AGS data when asked and without any problem. However, as we all know, those responsible for procuring GI’s invariably don’t select one of the larger quality GI contractors. Why? Well because they cost more! They will select ‘Cheap and Cheerful contracting’ and they will get exactly what they pay for, ie nothing of value. What a surprise!

I have attended and presented at numerous seminars and conferences over the last 25 years on the subject of adequate / fit for purpose GI. Everyone who attends agrees on the value of GI and on good quality data that is available to all those involved in the project life cycle. And yet nothing changes!

The solution lies primarily in the hands of those procuring GI’s. Perhaps more effort needs to be directed toward the ICE, ACE, RICS etc and also RIBA? In addition, perhaps we need to move to a more ‘American model’, where insurers require appropriate GI’s to be undertaken and data to be made available, in order to secure project funding.

If the UK ground investigation industry was to achieve this situation, the delivery of fit for purpose GI’s together with an attendant free flow of digital data might just become the norm!

This article is the personal view of the author and is intended as a discussion piece to continue the debate as to how the UK GI industry can improve the delivery of digital data.

Matthew Baldwin is the Technical Director at Soil Engineering and is a RoGEP advisor. Soil Engineering are an industry leading provider of ground investigation and ground stabilisation techniques.
This article was featured in the September/October issue of the AGS Magazine.

Feedback from Paul Chaplin, Data Manager, (Ground Risk & Remediation), WSP

“Having worked as a Geoenvironmental Data Manager for both consultants and contractors, I would say that Callum does have a point here. In my experience there isn’t a plethora of people within the industry that really know the ins and outs of the AGS format and one crucial thing that is often missed is that it is a data transfer format, not a data collection specification nor does it necessarily have to be the basis of the database structure.

There is often an expectation from consultants who are reasonably au-fait with AGS data to request that the contractor deliver things that may not have not been explicitly asked of them at the outset. “Please provide in AGS 4.0” is often used as a catch-all statement. Some information captured may be really important to the contractor, but be of little interest to the consultant (and vice-versa) and ultimately may depend on how far it is going to be analysed. Is it purely from a ground conditions / test results perspective? Or, as was the case with other major infrastructure projects, is the data also to be used as a project management tool to decide what the contractor could charge, and ultimately, be paid for?

Geology Codes are a prime example of going beyond the contractor’s remit of providing factual information. As per the AGS guidance, if required, the consultant should provide a list of geology codes to the contractor who may have a first pass at allocating a code. If the consultant overrules, then changes can be made during a clearly defined, agreed and staged log review process. (Prelim, Draft, Final etc). If this was not part of the specification and several weeks into the job the consultant decides that this is now a requirement, should contractor have to acquiesce? Does the catch-all statement cover that without there being a time/cost implication for the contractor?

There are many things still hanging over from earlier versions of the AGS format, which were not as fully formed as the current version. If there wasn’t a corresponding field for something that was required/collected it would regularly be placed in different field that did exist and the logs modified to utilise that field. AGS 4.0 arrived and was far stricter about what it would accept. Unfortunately, this is still not enough to stop PID results arriving in the Stratum Details table, or monitoring points such as standpipes not including any corresponding pipe construction information. This is where the “know-how” comes in. This can be supplemented with Data Management Plans, additional data related specification documents that are clear to all, along with a single point of contact between both contractor and consultant to iron out the inevitable wrinkles.

I would argue that good quality AGS Data is actually a by-product of effective data management throughout the Ground Investigation, not an end goal in itself, and it should be delivered alongside any Ground Investigation Report (possibly even at regular intervals during the GI). To achieve it is no small undertaking though, especially on large infrastructure projects and perhaps the upfront preparation, additional time and resources that have to be dedicated to it are not fully appreciated or understood.”

Feedback from Callum Irving, Consultant Engineering Geologist (Design), TSP Projects

“First of all, I would like to say how pleasing it is to see this topic discussed in such an intelligent and nuanced manner. I believe it is precisely what our industry requires at this moment. I would like to add to this discussion by offering a more pragmatic eye. The main challenge I find with AGS data is that it requires specialist software and in a lot of cases expert know-how to extract the information. Companies are still generating AGS 3.1 or simply not following AGS4 format rules. The specialist skill set and software is not yet prevalent in the industry. While I am an advocate of AGS, the reality is that PDF may still offer a more practical solution for many depending on the end goal and size of project.

The real power of AGS comes in big data analysis and data sharing across the industry. With the goal to produce localised geology/geotechnical data sets and geological ground models to reduce, not increase poorly targeted ground investigation. This then paves the way for evidence-based ground investigation and smarter geo engineering. This is where I believe we should focus our efforts.

There is a notion that more intrusive ground investigation gives you greater certainty in design. I would argue that robust ground/risk modelling and targeted investigation in relation to the engineering is far more valuable.”

This article was featured in the September/October issue of the AGS Magazine.

Full Name: Matthew Baldwin BSc, MSc, C.Geol, FGS, RoGEP Advisor
Job Title: Technical Director
Company: Soil Engineering

With over 36 years working in the engineering geology sector I have become experienced at what works with regard to investigating the ground. For the last fifteen years however I have spent much of my time helping to educate others via university MSc course lecturing, in house and external training and conference presentations.

My main interests lie in helping academia understand what industry wants within degree courses, as well as in getting published and publicised the new generation of ‘Eurocode’ documents. I would like good ground investigation to be recognised as the cost saving and risk reducing tool that it really is!

What or who inspired you to join the geotechnical industry?
Chance! I had always wanted to work in mineral prospecting and had a job lined up in Namibia in 1981. At the last minute however, I found out that the previous two mine geologists had disappeared and so I turned the job down! Instead I took an MSc in Engineering Geology at Durham University and the rest is as they say is history!

What does a typical day entail?
I don’t have typical days, and that is what keeps me ‘fresh’ and interested in the industry. Due to the number of international and national committees I sit on (including technical, standards and trade bodies), my calendar is planned several months in advance. When I add in the in house training courses I run, presentations to clients and attendance at various seminars and conferences, my weeks are quite crowded.

I suppose it is often the ‘unknowns’ that provide most excitement and challenge though. These range from calls for technical advice both from within my company, but also from across the wider Bachy Soletanche group, to looking at appropriate sampling regimes for challenging geology, to requests for mentoring and training of employees.

Are there any projects which you’re particularly proud to have been a part of?
Sadly those projects that retain a special place in my memory tend to be those from the distant past. This is partly because ground investigation in the 1980’s and early 1990’s was less adversarial than it is now, and also because there appeared to be more genuine interest in both the industry and the subject matter, ie the ground!

The NIREX (low level nuclear repository) investigations were in my view unparalleled, insofar as they offered engineering geologists the chance to see a vast array of intrusive GI techniques as well as the full array of in situ testing and sampling. So many GI’s over the past 20 years have done the bare minimum and there now exists a whole generation of engineering geologists who aren’t aware of the techniques that we can and should be using to understand the ground.

In addition I would have to cite the investigations in the Irish Republic for the motorways that we now take for granted. For many of these major GI’s we were having to produce site specific logging and sampling schemes to deal with the encountered geology, and again the supervisory teams learnt so much of value.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?
Trying to help educate an industry where there is a lot of ignorance about ground investigation! There are various reasons why the procurers and to some extent the clients professional team on site (civil engineers, structural engineers and architects etc), don’t appear to have the knowledge / experience that would enable them to ensure ground investigations were designed and executed correctly. I could fill several pages on this subject!

All too often we see incorrect drilling / sampling techniques being proposed, inappropriate in situ testing, or no in situ tests, and then to cap it off the clueless scheduling of laboratory testing.

Although I have spent the last couple of decades banging the drum in relation to the importance of GI procurers knowing ‘their stuff’, this would seem to have largely fallen on deaf ears.

The other big challenge I have as part of the international committee involved with the updating of Eurocode 7, is getting practitioners to see the benefits of using the standard and the various supporting documents, numerous as they are!

What AGS Working Group(s) are you a Member of and what are your current focuses?
As immediate past chairman of the AGS I am involved with the senate and the executive, both of which are the decision and ratification parts of the association. I am however part of the business practice working group and firmly believe that this committee has done much good work over the past few years.

Both mine and the BPWG immediate focus is on making the AGS relevant and accessible to the younger end of the industry. It is vital that we get both graduates and undergraduates sharing their experiences and learning via contact with the AGS and the vast talent and experience pool that resides within it.

What do you enjoy most about being an AGS Member?
The AGS members share the same common goal of wanting the industry to provide a quality service via member companies that also take health and safety in the work place seriously. Because the members of the various AGS working groups all share these aims, every time we meet, I know that we are all looking at how to advance the industry in a controlled and professional manner.

What do you find beneficial about being an AGS Member?
Personally I know that I can contact other AGS members for advice / commentary on new industry initiatives and that I will get a reasoned response. From a company perspective, AGS membership is a ‘quality mark’ and helps Soil Engineering along with other member companies differentiate themselves from others in the market place.

Why do you feel the AGS is important to the industry?
The AGS is the only trade body that represents contractors, consultants and suppliers and then speaks with one voice for all their interests. Because of the ‘knowledge pool’ that the AGS enjoys via its membership, the association is able to speak with authority on a wide range of technical issues. It has working groups to whom both other parts of industry and indeed the government via the HSE listen to.

What changes would you like to see implemented in the geotechnical industry?
Ever since I started working in the industry some 36 years ago, we have collectively complained about the overall state of ground investigations. Despite numerous initiatives aimed at improving standards, the industry is in my view no better than it was 40 years ago. This is largely thanks to the plethora of small GI companies that do not provide the same level of quality or health and safety standards as the larger companies. And yet through a lack of understanding that cheaper isn’t better, the procurers of GI’s are happy to employ them because they are cheap!

We need to move to a situation akin to the American system where building projects require ‘fit for purpose’ GI’s, or they won’t be insured. I have tried via a joint venture with the FPS to engage with UK insurers, but without luck so far. I genuinely believe however that either this or government legislation (unlikely) is what we need.

Soil Engineering overwater investigations on Loch Lomond

Training employees to log the Chalk with help from Rory Mortimore

Working in Berlin with European Colleagues on the next version of Eurocode 7

This Q&A was featured in the September/October issue of the AGS Magazine.

Until recently the only way to measure and identify Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) in soil, water and other environmental matrixes has been to use Gas Chromatography (GC), to separate out and quantify the hundreds of individual hydrocarbon compounds and then try to identify the TPH product type from the resulting chromatogram. GC requires skilled operators and a fully equipped laboratory but chromatograms from different laboratories or between different GCs cannot easily be compared, which reduces reproducibility and confidence. On-site methods have been used to measure TPH, but these are typically semi quantitative and cannot identify individual TPHs. With the development of UVFF (UV-Fluorescence Fingerprinting), reliable and accurate TPH identification and quantitative data is now possible while still retaining the significant benefits of rapid results, ease of use and flexibility of on-site analysis. This method is now accepted by environmental regulators worldwide, including the Environment Agency.

Under UV light, each TPH type fluoresces with a unique and consistent spectral fingerprint, even when the TPH type is substantially degraded. The instrument’s solid-state detector (similar to that used by NASA on the Mars Lander) measures this fluorescence across multiple wavelengths. UVFF is unique in that it resolves the raw sample data into as many as three individual hydrocarbon types, selected from a library of 20 reference materials including petrol, diesel, jet fuels, lubricating oils, coal tars and creosote. It does this automatically and consistently in just a few seconds. This method is sufficiently powerful to allow coal tar mixed into bitumen to be identified, and an estimate of the percentage of coal tar provided, useful when analysing road planings and cores. It then calculates the concentration of each of the TPH types identified using the corresponding matched library calibration curve. It also calculates the concentrations of BTEX, 16 PAHs, and Benzo(a)pyrene. The result is a table of values for TPH, BTEX, GRO, DRO, C5 – C10, C10 – C18, >C18, 16 EPA PAHs, BaP, total aromatics and, for some samples, phenolics. With a low part per billion sensitivity, most samples actually require dilution before analysis. This removes potential interference, but also allows measurement of concentrated or pure materials. Even when diluting the sample, the simplified sample preparation allows a sample throughput of 3 minutes per sample or 15 samples per hour, even for an unskilled operator.

From a practical point of view, this technology requires minimal operating skills and consumables, is robust and compact, running on just 5-12V DC. Operation is therefore possible from the back of a vehicle or on a remote site by using a small battery. It can also be used to complement laboratory GC-based methods by indicating if background natural organics are present, by identifying unexpected hydrocarbons such as coal tar and providing an initial TPH concentration. The GC can then be calibrated to the correct material and the sample suitably diluted. This removes the problems of carry over and calibration errors, minimising re-runs and damage to GC columns, significantly reducing costs.

This article was featured in the September/October issue of the AGS Magazine and was contributed by Peter Fleming, Analyser Specialist, QROS Ltd and Colin Green, Managing Director, QROS Ltd.

Fugro are holding a one-day seminar on 15th November 2018, which will be focused on dynamic site characterisation, innovation and how an integrated approach can reduce project risk. The event is free of charge to professionals working in the industry. The seminar will be held at Fugro House in Wallingford.

Register online: at www.fugro.com/coastal18
By email: contact Amy Bennett, a.bennett@fugro.com providing: name, company, job title, address, postcode, email and telephone number.