Article

Some insights into the geotechnical implications of pyrite and its consideration and management

- by
Tags: Featured

The assessment of ground aggressivity and suitability of construction materials are fundamental aspects of geotechnics. Ground hosted sulfide and sulfate minerals are known to produce unwelcome implications for ground engineering. Confidence in selection of the most appropriate form of construction and mitigation methodology, must be based on the results of meaningful site-specific material characterisation and assessment of performance in the likely construction environment. It is apparent that many ground engineering practitioners do not fully appreciate that certain rocks and soils are liable to contain sulfur species that may negatively impact ground engineering projects. In practice assessment procedures are often followed without a clear understanding of the issues and how to best manage them. This approach is not always suitable for managing the extensive variability encountered in the UK. Furthermore, an appreciation of how the construction activities may bring about undesirable changes are necessary for design of appropriate mitigation and long-term management. This short article discusses some of the issues that may occur, particularly where pyrite is concerned and considers how these characteristics and associated risks may be managed.

Causes of construction groundwork damage brought about through physical deterioration of ground and engineering materials are attributed to a wide range of factors that involve physical, chemical, and biological processes. In the UK a high proportion of such occurrences in the engineering environment result from the presence of sulfate ions in groundwater, brought about through dissolution or reaction of sulfur compounds. Pyrite and gypsum are the most commonly occurring sulfur compounds likely to be encountered during construction works.  In certain locations, the source of the sulfate ions is clearly through dissolution of evaporitic deposits, but in many cases, covering a much wider geographical area, these are derived from the oxidation of iron sulfide minerals, particularly pyrite. Pyrite, and the other infrequent iron sulfide minerals are unstable in oxidising and damp atmospheric conditions typical of the construction environment and will rapidly weather, producing insoluble orange-brown hydrous iron oxide, with release of hydrogen (H+) and sulfate (SO42-) ions into solution as mobile sulfuric acid. This has a significant negative impact for ground engineering when reaction occurs consequent of ground disturbance, creating conditions that are aggressive to ground material including buried steel and concrete and, in some cases, raising sulfate to harmful levels.

Reaction of the sulfuric acid with other calcareous minerals such as calcite or concrete, give rise to selenite-gypsum as discrete crystals, and this involves expansion. The replacement of pyrite and calcite by selenite involves a volume increase of around 103%, developing ground stresses and causing differential heave due to indiscriminate crystal growth. This chemical alteration is frequently accompanied by rapid deterioration in engineering properties of the host material and the volumetric gain often causes disturbance in filled ground, and failures of foundations, earthworks, underground excavations, tunnels, and slopes. Observations have also documented abiotic pyrite oxidation where the pH of pore fluids was around pH >12, indicating that this reaction mechanism can also occur when pyrite bearing ground is treated using lime and cement.

The oxidation of pyrite is complex, it occurs through various reaction stages, at different rates, which conclude in a range of products. Ultimately reaction depends on various aspects including the crystalline form and grain size of the pyrite, the mineralogy and fabric of the host, and environmental conditions, including the exposure to weathering brought about by the engineering work. To manage any negative impacts to design and construction, the possibility of changes promoting the potential for pyrite oxidation during and after construction needs to be considered.

Sulfur is an abundant element in the Earth’s crust and occurs in geological materials of all ages and origins, in a variety of forms. Sulfur is highly reactive and readily combines with most non-noble elements, particularly under reducing conditions, to form metallic sulfides of which the iron form, pyrite (FeS2) is the most widely occurring, along with its less common dimorph marcasite (FeS2), and occasional pyrrhotite (Fe1-xS where x = 0 – 0.2). Gypsum tends to be the most widely occurring sulfate mineral and is frequently encountered during ground works. Gypsum occurs as a primary accumulation in evaporite deposits such as the Mercia Mudstone Group and forms through evaporation of saline waterbodies. But it is more widely occurring as the crystalline ‘selenite’ form, which tends to develop as a ‘secondary’ product of contemporary weathering action on pyrite in the presence of calcite. The oxidation of pyrite will also give rise to high concentrations of sulfate ions which are mobilised by groundwater. Not all forms of sulfur are troublesome in engineering situations, although this depends upon the environmental conditions. Some recalcitrant mineral sulfates, such as barytes, celestine, and organic sulfur are relatively stable in weathering environments, and do not contribute to the sulfur present in groundwaters, unless conditions are unusual, so they are unlikely to impact significantly in construction and geo-material applications. Therefore, knowledge of the likely occurrence and attributes may help to manage potentially adverse conditions that could occur during and after construction.

Pyrite is remarkably widespread in its occurrence and is found as a minor constituent in a wide range of naturally occurring materials. It occurs in rocks and engineering soils, ranging from ancient sediments to Recent deposits, igneous and metamorphic rocks and hydrothermally deposited mineral veins. Pyrite occurs as diverse forms including variously shaped grains, nodules, and well-formed crystals, ranging from microscopic to several cm across; the morphology of pyrite has an influence on its potential for atmospheric oxidation. Therefore, its appraisal may help to determine its potential reactivity and the suitability of pyrite bearing ground and geomaterials for particular applications.

The different forms of pyrite and their combinations all share the same internal arrangement of iron and sulfur atoms but conditions during formation affect the crystal form. Well-crystallised pyrite occurs in the brass-yellow macroscopic form as large masses, veins or as large discrete often striated cubic, octahedral or pyritohedral crystals a few millimetres to a few centimetres in dimension and are commonly referred to as the ’non-reactive’ form of pyrite.  Typically, these are found in rocks that are well indurated and / or have been subjected to moderate to high-temperatures and pressures.  These well-crystallised forms of pyrite have a densely packed structure and relatively small specific surface area such that they tend to respond slowly in weathering environments. Macroscopic forms of pyrite occur extensively in igneous and metamorphic rocks and some hard-rock limestones, sometimes in substantial concentrations distributed through the host and tend to be relatively stable in construction environments.  These deposits are widely worked in the UK for construction aggregates in which slow oxidation or combination with cementitious binders may lead to problematic chemical reactions. In less-well indurated sedimentary rocks, pyrite may occur as visible nodules or smooth faced crystals, but more typically, it takes the form of disseminated microscopic framboids that are very difficult to recognise.

The microscopic framboidal form of pyrite is of greatest concern to ground engineering. Framboidal pyrite tends to form in sedimentary environments under anoxic reducing conditions through microbial activity where it remains stable, but when exposed to oxidising and damp atmospheric conditions it may rapidly deteriorate with consequentially detrimental effects.  It is commonly found in dark coloured (grey and dark grey), fine-grained sedimentary deposits including clays, mudstones, argillaceous limestones, siltstones, sandstones, and low-temperature hydrothermal deposits. The microscopic reactive forms of pyrite may also occur in newly formed sediments, including marine sands and gravels and river flood plain deposits, which are widely used as construction aggregates. Framboids are raspberry-like spherules, typically 2 – 80 μm diameter, comprising of ordered agglomerations of microcrystalline pyrite grains that are themselves <0.3 – 2 μm in diameter. They occur as disseminated spherules, clusters, or dark greenish-grey coloured concentrations along partings. The framboidal structure results in grains with a large surface area in proportion to their volume, making them highly susceptible to oxidation in an oxygen and water bearing atmosphere and oxygenated water.  This reaction may be mediated and greatly accelerated by microbial intervention from bacteria such as the ubiquitous Acidithiobacillus sp., which rely on electron transfer between Fe2+/Fe3+ for their metabolic process and this functions as a key mechanism in the oxidation reaction. In the ground engineering discipline, this form of pyrite is often referred to as the ‘reactive’ form of pyrite.

It is cautioned that the allusion to the visible form of pyrite as ‘non-reactive’ is not strictly true, the well-crystalline macroscopic forms of pyrite are still susceptible to oxidation following exposure, but depending on their surface condition, reaction generally will occur over a much slower timescale and may not be considered significant where construction is concerned, although it may be expedited where physical damage occurs to the crystals and through reaction of less stable forms. Therefore, potential reactivity must be assessed, with judgement also relying on previous experience of that material.

In the UK, framboidal pyrite is widely found in the dark coloured deposits of marine and fluvial origins of Carboniferous, Jurassic, Cretaceous and Eocene age. These account for a large part of the near-surface stratigraphy that contains many major urban centres. Through weathering, sulfate minerals can be present at shallow depth, whereas sulfide minerals may predominate at greater depths where oxidation has not occurred. Weathering involves physical and chemical changes to the natural material as it adjusts to different overburden pressures and the presence of atmospheric gases.  The change in pressure results in development of fissures and joints which facilitate the movement of oxygenated groundwaters. Water movement promotes chemical adjustments including hydration, dissolution and alteration of certain minerals and the formation of other minerals.  The distribution of sulfate varies within the weathered zone, with the top few metres having negligible amounts due to removal by rain leaching, but elevated levels may be present at the base of the root zone at around 2 to 3 metres depth, decreasing towards the base of the weathered zone, and this is identified by presence of brown staining on fissure and bedding surfaces, and presence of selenite. The weathering state is revealed by the colour changes of the iron forms present. In weathered horizons, the orange-brown colour of ferric iron predominates, whereas with depth the grey colour of ferrous iron represents less weathered lithology and indicates an increase in the presence of unreacted sulfide minerals.

Although British, European, and other standards promote good practice in carrying out investigations, potential problems are often not adequately anticipated and catered for. Historically the Building Research Establishment have provided guidance for routine UK assessment of potential ground aggressivity based upon water and acid soluble sulfate content and acidity of soil and groundwater samples. This worked well for many decades with few instances of sulfate attack on buried concrete reported.  However, following investigation on several cases of sulfate attack on construction materials and disruptive ground heave during the 1980s-1990’s, it was realised that the consequences of pyrite oxidation were not being considered and had been attributed to various other assumptions. Precipitation of new minerals such as gypsum provoke possibilities of ground heave. As the process of dissolution and precipitation will not generally occur in the same location, both expansion and void creation may produce differential movements and heave causing structural damage. This necessitated revision of testing standards, and guidance advocating a staged approach based on initial review of the geological setting, followed by a planned investigation programme and detailed ground assessment. This requires an awareness of potentially aggressive material and importance of focused chemical testing. The severity of pyrite oxidation depends not only on the crystal form but also on the permeability and chemistry of the host deposits as well as the groundwater conditions. The site investigation may confirm the presence of significant quantities of pyrite, gypsum, and calcite but these values alone do not facilitate assessments of the reaction rate and significance to construction. Assessment also requires that the consequences of the construction activity and weather-related issues in the construction period and beyond are fully addressed to provide an adequate basis for the design of structures.

The consequences of pyrite reaction may become a significant hit for the construction budget and progress when unsuspected. The oxidation of pyrite bearing deposits during earthworks and construction has been observed to progress rapidly over a matter of weeks or months, producing conditions chemically aggressive to engineering materials. Therefore, to avoid or manage potential problems attributed to pyrite oxidation it is necessary to know not just that it is present, but also its distribution, its form and reactivity. Investigations and construction may overlook the potential for material deterioration, but this can be determined at a site level through observation of changes following exposure and targeted chemical testing. The distribution of sulfur compounds in soils and rocks can be highly variable so testing must ensure that sulfur-bearing horizons are not missed, and a suitable characteristic value selected for design. Material selected for laboratory testing should focus on the construction zone but also evaluate other strata that may be affected.

Knowledge of the mechanical behaviour of the host material and the changes brought about through exposure during construction may expedite management of the construction process by facilitating re-use of a favourably weathered product that would otherwise constitute an unsuitable material. Ultimately, management of material avoiding costly offsite disposal, may be achieved through informed investigation with pre-weathering of pyritic fill to mitigate the risk of heave through conversion of pyrite to selenite or by blending, encapsulation, or provision of targeted drainage and impermeable barriers.

Article provided by Mourice A. Czerewko, Associate Engineering Geologist, AECOM Ltd

Article

AGS Photography Competition 2023 – The Results

- by
Tags: Featured

In March 2023, the AGS launched their fourth photography competition.

Members of the AGS Executive and Business Practice Working Group including Vivien Dent, Sally Hudson, Jo Strange, Bradley Falcus and Steve Hodgetts took on the challenging task to judge the images by scoring across the following criteria;

  • Originality
  • Composition
  • Colour, Lighting, Exposure and Focus
  • Overall Impression, Impact and Visual Appeal

Four images were shortlisted, and we’re pleased to announce that Shannon Wade of Strata Geotechnics was the overall winner of the competition and won a luxury Fortnum and Mason Hamper.

Our three runners up, who each won a bottle of Champagne are Shannon Wade (Strata Geotechnics), Matthew Cook (Environmental Protection Strategies Ltd) and Aaron Stokoe (Brownfield Solutions Ltd).

The AGS would like to thank all those who took the time to enter the competition.

WINNING IMAGE

Shannon Wade, Strata Geotechnics

Image description: Truly highlights the highs and lows of rural GI. An additional scheme of work for The Coal Authority at the site of the Esgair Mwyn, Metal Mine near Pontrhydfendigaid to again improve water quality and prevent it leaching through metal mine spoil. The weather had been foul for days with limited shelter, our team worked their hardest in the conditions to get the works done safely and on time and were rewarded by a little bit of sunshine and a glorious rainbow.

FIRST RUNNER UP

Shannon Wade, Strata Geotechnics

Image description: Working nights with our Comacchio 305 on the M1 Southbound, J35 for National Highways undertaking works to inform design for addition PRS lay-bys on our existing Smart Motorways network.

SECOND RUNNER UP

Matthew Cook, Environmental Protection Strategies Ltd

Image description: The drilling of windowless sample boreholes at an RAF site in Cambridgeshire with RAF jets in the background, boreholes were being drilled to to provide information for use in improvements to site.

THIRD RUNNER UP

Aaron Stokoe, Brownfield Solutions Ltd

Article

Second Generation Eurocode EN 1997: Where are We and Where are We Going? Webinar summary

- by
Tags: Featured

On 20th September 2023, the AGS held a webinar entitled Second Generation Eurocode EN 1997: Where are We and Where are We Going?. The webinar was chaired by Chris Raison (Director at Raison Foster Associates) and included presentations from Dr Andrew Bond (Director at Geocentrix), Matthew Baldwin (Independent Consultant) and Stuart Hardy (Technical Leader – Geotechnical at Laing O’Rourke).

The webinar was split into two parts, the first part which was presented by Andrew Bond focused on preparing for the Second Generation Eurocodes and gave a clear timeline for publication. Andrew also provided information about Second Generation Eurocode EN 1997: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General Rules.

In the second half of the webinar, Matthew Baldwin presented on Second Generation Eurocode EN 1997: Geotechnical design – Part 2: Ground Properties, explaining the changed content and layout of this part of the standard.

Stuart Hardy provided an overview of Second Generation Eurocode EN 1997: Geotechnical design – Part 3: Geotechnical Structures and covered the changes which have been made to the clauses and what has not changed from current UK practice.

If you missed the webinar, the recording is now live on the AGS website and is free for AGS members and £30 for non-members (Ex. VAT).

News

AGS Magazine: September 2023

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists is pleased to announce the September 2023 issue of their publication; AGS Magazine. To view the magazine click here.

This free, publication focuses on geotechnics, engineering geology and geoenvironmental engineering as well as the work and achievements of the AGS.

There are a number of excellent articles in this issue including;

Use of chemical preservation – the importance of quality in sampling and analysis – Page 16
Surface Emission Surveys – Page 21
Mitigating the risk of asbestos when using vacuum excavators in made ground – Page 24
Inside: Geosense – Page 28
Q&A: Bradley Falcus – Page 32

Plus much, much more!

Advertising opportunities are available within future issues of the publication. To view rates and opportunities please view our media pack by clicking HERE.

If you have a news story, article, case study or event which you’d like to tell our editorial team about please email ags@ags.org.uk. Articles should act as opinion pieces and not directly advertise a company. Please note that the publication of editorial and advertising content is subject to the discretion of the editorial board.

Article Safety

Mitigating the risk of asbestos when using vacuum excavators in made ground

- by
Tags: Featured

Vacuum excavation[1] is widely used in the ground investigation industry as a means of excavating inspection holes and trenches to check for utility services prior to drilling or probing.  The significant safety benefits of vacuum excavation compared to hand digging are that the operatives are not as close to any exposed utility services and that the hazards associated with damage to utility services by hand-held digging equipment are significantly reduced from the activity, a true reduction of risk through engineering controls.

Urban and brownfield sites typically contain made ground and industry suggests that asbestos is detected on most brownfield sites that are investigated[2]. A recent SOBRA report indicated that the asbestos detection rates in soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis vary from 1.4% to 20%[3].  SOBRA concluded that: ‘Anecdotal information from the industry suggests that asbestos is detected at the majority of brownfield sites that are investigated. This data suggests that, on average, asbestos is detected in a small (but nevertheless potentially significant) proportion of samples from those sites.’  Excavation on brownfield sites could therefore encounter asbestos in soil both as visible asbestos containing material (ACM) or as loose fibres, which are not visible to the eye.

The Construction Plant-hire Association (CPA) guidance1 states that if asbestos is suspected during vacuum excavation, work should stop so advice can be sought, and that disturbance of asbestos should be prevented.  It suggests that suitable documented control measures and in some cases specialist or dedicated suction/vacuum excavator machines are required for the removal of asbestos impacted soils.

To comply with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, CAR-SOILTM and AGS Guidance, the CPA recommended that where asbestos is suspected additional controls should be introduced which include: use of suitable PPE and a grade P3/FFP3 face mask; working with a water lance (not air lance) which is less likely to cause asbestos fibres to become airborne; cleaning and disposal of outer clothing; good hygiene; and decontamination of the machine.  The guidance indicates that if asbestos was seen, a laboratory could attend site and undertake monitoring of the machine’s exhaust air, at the downwind public boundary, as well as personal monitoring and swab testing of the machine including the filter. These control actions are reliant on the presence of asbestos being identified or suspected by the Vacuum Excavation operatives or pre-notified to them.

As asbestos in soil can be difficult to identify and loose fibres would not necessarily be visible to the naked eye, the principles of the Construction Design and Management Regulations 2015 (regulation 12.2 including Schedule 3 & 12.4) should be followed. Those employing vacuum excavator should set out the arrangements for controlling risks within the construction phase plan, Schedule 3 ‘Work which puts workers at risk from chemical or biological substances constituting a particular danger to the safety or health of workers or involving a legal requirement for health monitoring’. In addition, where members of the public could be at risk from vacuum excavation of impacted soils within an urban or residential setting, the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Section 3 ‘General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees’.

It is therefore a requirement for any contractor adopting vacuum excavation to provide to sub-contractors suitable and sufficient information about the risk of asbestos being present within the target area soils and the controls required to mitigate this risk.

Therefore, for those proposing to use vacuum excavation in environments where soils contain or are suspected of containing asbestos; it is recommended that:

  • they notify operators of the vacuum excavation equipment of the presence (or potential presence) of asbestos in the soil.
  • they consider adopting mitigation controls (in addition to those identified by CPA described above) such as would be required for asbestos in soils environments e.g. using controlled wetting, mist curtains, etc.
  • the control measures within the CPA guidance are adopted for all brownfield sites until the risks to workers and the public from airborne asbestos resulting from the use of suction/vacuum excavators are better categorised; and
  • asbestos in air monitoring is undertaken to support the use of vacuum /suction excavators on brownfield sites including both personal monitoring, boundary monitoring and monitoring of exhaust air to better understand the risk levels to workers and the public.

The CPA guidance suggests that exhaust air emissions could impact other workers and the nearby public, highlighting that the type of filtration used within vacuum excavators does not capture and contain asbestos fibres. While it is possible to dampen the soils entering the vacuum excavator, the mechanical action of the vacuum causes the excavated soil to be dried and could therefore facilitate fibre release, both at the location being excavated and also at subsequent sites using the same plant, prompting a need for thorough decontamination of the plant (in line with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012) when it is used to extract asbestos impacted soils.

The management of waste is also a consideration when undertaking vacuum excavation where the presence (or potential presence) of asbestos in the soil is known. In such a scenario, the extracted material and plant decontamination washout, cleaning and swabbing materials should all be treated as waste, handled, transported, and disposed of in line with legislative requirements.

The use of vacuum excavators to expose utility services or to disprove the presence of utility services remains a lower risk than conventional machine and hand dug excavation and remains a preferred excavation method when excavating made ground with on urban or brownfield sites where there is a risk of utility services. However, careful planning of these activities is required to ensure that the significant physical risk posed by the utility services is not replaced by a significant health risk posed by potential asbestos release.

By following the principles of good task planning; communicating potential risks, assuring safe systems of work, waste control and staff competence, suitable and sufficient risk mitigation for the use of vacuum excavators on made ground can be achieved.

There will, however, be some conditions which limit the ability and effectiveness of these controls measures to mitigate the risk of asbestos, especially when working within heavily populated areas. In such cases careful evaluation of available risk controls effectiveness is required.

[1] Industry guidance ‘Safe Use of Suction/Vacuum Excavators, Good Practice Guide, Construction Plant-hire Association, Safety Publication Series, SAVESIG GPG1, January 2019’ describes suction/vacuum excavators as ‘items of plant utilising a powerful fan or pump to cause a pressure reduction in a suction hose in order to excavate pre-loosened earth and granular materials, and draw them into a temporary store in a receiving hopper for subsequent discharge. As the spoil reaches the hopper, it is separated from the moving air by cyclonic and other filtration methods, with cleaned air exhausted via an outlet system whilst the spoil is contained within the sealed hopper.’  Ground engaging tools that break soils can be utilised with suction/vacuum excavators and ‘air or water pressure through a lance is considered a safer system than manually breaking soils and allows quick and easy displacement of material around sensitive areas of services. The use of a lance minimises the need for the operator to be at the edge of or within an excavation.

[2] The Distribution of Asbestos in Soil – what can the data mining of sample results held by UK laboratories tell us? Discussion Paper by the SoBRA asbestos sub-group, March 2020

[3] The March 2020 SOBRA paper considered asbestos test results from five laboratories across different time periods since 2011. The origin of the soil samples was not known, and the test methods varied.

Article by Madeleine Bardsley, Technical Director at WSP and Jon Rayner, Director SH&E at AECOM

Image credit: AECOM

Article Contaminated Land

Surface emission surveys to measure ground gas

- by
Tags: Featured

Surface emission surveys are used to measure the rate that ground gases are emitted into the atmosphere, which can be quantified in order to determine the risk to the environment or other receptors, such as a property and human health. The concentration and flow of ground gas can alter depending on the location of a monitoring point, source material, geology, atmospheric conditions and groundwater levels. Therefore, an emissions survey can be a useful line of evidence to better conceptualise the actual concentration/volumes of ground gas that may be impacting a given receptor.

Surface emission surveys are commonly used on landfill sites following the placement of a temporary or permanent capping layer, in order to confirm compliance with the environmental permit or conditions. Guidance on this subject can be found in the Environment Agency’s document LFTGN07 V2 (2010). A useful precursor to a survey, and requirement of landfill surrender is to visually assess any evidence of vegetation stress or dieback that could be caused by ground gas, as well as note the condition of the surface layer i.e. note any defects in the capping layer that may allow a route for ground gas to escape.

A surface emissions survey typically comprises two elements:

  1. A walkover survey taking gas readings just above the ground surface, and landfill infrastructure (which is often referred to as the surface emissions survey)
  2. flux chamber tests at selected locations based in (i) or on a grid.

The walkover survey uses a handheld instrument, such as a flame ionisation detector (FID) or tuneable laser diode, which detects organic compounds such as methane at very low concentrations (0.1 parts per million). This again can be used to assess any defects in the capping layer and leaks from landfill infrastructure. The EA guidance states that if a FID survey records concentrations of over 100ppm over the capping layer, or 1000ppm next to a discrete feature such as a monitoring well, then remedial action should be undertaken. The survey results should be geo located and typically contour plots of the data are produced.

The flux chamber survey is used to quantify the volumes of methane emitted from a landfill to confirm that any active gas venting systems are working correctly and to minimise the amount of methane emitted into the atmosphere, a requirement of the Landfill Directive (1999). In the UK it is most common to use a static flux chamber. Essentially a flux box is a vessel of a known area/volume where the concentrations of gas can be monitored (using a FID or other monitoring device with an equally low detection limit) over a period of time in order to calculate the emissions based on the flux in concentrations (see Pictures 1/2). However, it is important to note that the flux box, like any other gas monitoring method, has its limitations. It can be difficult to create a good seal between the flux box and underlying ground, therefore a level surface with the vegetation removed is necessary. Also, a flux box can provide skewed readings if placed over preferential points such as cracks or on the edge of a capping layer where gas can escape, so the survey requires careful design involving multiple points spread across an area, based on the initial surface emissions survey.

With respect to contaminated land investigations where the principal objective is to assess the risk to an existing or future development, a surface emission survey is a valued line of evidence to confirm calculated rates using measured borehole data, along with empirical data. In relation to calculated rates, the ‘Peckson method’ is often cited, which assumes that borehole’s zone of influence is 10m2.  However, this method does not consider differences in the permeability of the underlying geology (leading to over conservatism) and potential preferential pathways such as services. A more detailed assessment to calculate the movement of ground gas via diffusion or advection can be undertaken using Ficks or Darcey’s Law.

A flux box survey can also be useful technique where there is a shallow source of gas / where shallow groundwater levels limit the use of monitoring wells (flooding the response zone, which prevents the ingress of gas), assuming the conceptual site model indicates a viable risk. Other lines of evidence, including visual description of the source material and soil testing for organic matter, should always be used alongside the emissions test to provide robust risk assessment. The flux box test is not well suited to assess risk from deep sources, or if new pathways for ground gas migration are introduced by the development from foundations or services.

With regards to monitoring, the placement of shallow monitoring wells (<5m) over a deeper source can aid characterisation of the risk if there are intervening cohesive layers that limit the vertical migration of the gas, or in establishing flow dynamics in historical landfills by contrasting the results with deeper wells. Careful consideration should be given to the existing and possible future pathways of gas migration when designing the monitoring positions ideally placing them at some significant point between the source and receptor. The use of continuous monitoring devices that record gas concentrations and flow (depending on the device) along with atmospheric conditions (typically every 1 hour) have become a well-established method of monitoring ground gas. They are extremely useful for rapidly assessing any trends in concentrations and the ‘worst-case conditions’, the results of which can be used when calculating the emission rate.

In summary, emission surveys are commonly used on active landfill sites to ensure compliance with the environmental permit. These techniques can also be used as a line of evidence when assessing the risk to a development from ground gas. However, these surveys do have limitations and should not be used in isolation.  Anyone using the approach should ensure that the design of the survey is relevant to the CSM for the site. Further technical guidance would therefore be beneficial to the contaminated land industry to ensure consistency of approach in different ground model and risk assessment situations.

Picture 1 Continous monitoring device

Picture 2 Example of Flux Box

Picture 3 Example of Flux Box

References

  • The Ground Gas Handbook, Steve Wilson, Geoff Card and Sarah Hains, 2009.
  • LFTG07: Guidance on measuring landfill surface emissions, Environment Agency, 2010.
  • BS8576 Guidance on investigations for ground gas – Permanent Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds, British Standard Institute, 2013.
  • Ground gas – an essential guide for house builders, NHBC, 2023

All images provided by RSK.

Article provided by Andrew Tranter, Principal Environmental Consultant at RSK

 

Article Contaminated Land Laboratories

Use of chemical preservation – the importance of quality in sampling and analysis

- by
Tags: Featured

Geraint Williams, ALS Laboratories and Tim Rolfe, YES Engineering, both members of the AGS Contaminated Working Group, discuss how representative samples should be collected to ensure subsequent laboratory analysis is robust and reliable

Introduction

This article covers the preservation requirements for common contaminants and key chemical indicators of Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) including metals, ammoniacal nitrogen, cyanide, sulphide and manganese II.  It provides practical guidance for those involved in groundwater monitoring and surface water sampling and is relevant for risk assessors, remediation contractors and regulators.

In September 2022, members of the contaminated land group were invited to complete a short questionnaire.  This survey highlighted inconsistencies in the use of chemical preservation.  AGS received comments about a lack of confidence in laboratory results where preservation has not been used, the need to follow established practice and a call for more scrutiny and oversight: “I would have no confidence in the data…”.  Other direct quotes include: “we review reports where preservation has not been used and have to conduct further rounds of monitoring to obtain better quality data”.

Taking account of the concerns highlighted in the previous survey, the following article provides more information on why preservation is so important.

Dissolved Metals

Dissolved metals can be impacted by many physical and chemical factors, particularly redox conditions, pH or temperature which can trigger changes due to precipitation, co-precipitation, sorption or dissolution of particulate matter.  These factors can cause significant positive or negative bias to dissolved metal concentrations.

Samples are acidified to prevent precipitation of metals, especially iron.  Once precipitation has occurred there is no way of knowing how much metal was in solution, or in suspension, at the time of sampling.  The only way of resolving this is to filter out suspended metals in the field, placing the filtered sample in a dedicated nitric acid bottle to ensure that all metal dissolved at the time of sampling remains in solution.

Ferrous Iron

Ferrous iron, once sampled, will generally rapidly oxidise to ferric iron and precipitate as ferric oxyhydroxide.  Hydrochloric acid is used to fix the ratio of ferrous and ferric iron.  Adding the acid in the laboratory is not an acceptable substitute since the ferrous iron is highly likely to have oxidised in transport.

The concentrations of ferrous and ferric iron are used as supporting evidence for the presence of MNA of organic contaminants by biodegradation, therefore measurement of the correct species is essential to understanding the aquifer conditions.

When iron precipitation occurs in a sample, other metals can co-precipitate, causing substantial changes to the overall dissolved composition of metals.  Co-precipitation of metals is covered in more detail in a previous AGS magazine article published back in August 2020.  It highlights how concentrations of arsenic, lead and cadmium can be significantly affected with losses of between 80 to 97% reported.

Manganese II

Samples for manganese II require filtering in the field to remove insoluble Mn IV compounds before adding to a bottle containing hydrochloric acid.  The acid prevents oxidation of Mn II to insoluble Mn IV.  Mn II acts as an indicator of anaerobic degradation of organics, where manganese IV acts as an electron acceptor.

Ammoniacal Nitrogen

Ammoniacal nitrogen includes both the ionised form (ammonium, NH4+) and the unionised form (ammonia, NH3).  An increase in pH favours formation of the more toxic unionised form (NH3), while a decrease favours the ionised (NH4+) form.  Temperature also affects the toxicity and form of ammonia.  This relationship is detailed in the Table 1.

Table 1 Percentage Un-ionised Aqueous Ammonia (0-30°C, pH 6-10)

Source: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (2010) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life.

It is possible to simply measure the ammoniacal nitrogen, and then to calculate the ammonia, if the pH and temperature of the sample were measured at source.  As illustrated above, at the range of pH typically encountered in groundwater samples, the percentage of the more toxic un-ionised ammonia can increase approximately threefold between a sample temperature of 10oC and a room temperature in the laboratory of 20oC.

Because of the volatility of ammonia, the action of nitrifying bacteria, and the changing equilibrium between ammonia and ammonium, groundwater and surface water samples must be collected using sulphuric acid to fix the ammoniacal compounds to prevent further change.  Sulphuric acid reduces pH to <2.  The acid will convert the ammonia to ammonium and the results are reported as ammoniacal nitrogen.  This prevents microbial degradation and off-gassing of ammonia.

Cyanide

Laboratories use sodium hydroxide to keep the water alkaline and the cyanide in solution.  If the water is not preserved and is slightly acidic, the cyanide may convert to hydrogen cyanide and be lost from the sample.  The reported concentration from the laboratory will therefore underestimate the cyanide present in groundwater or surface water, and where speciated cyanide analysis is being undertaken the concentration of the more toxic ‘free-cyanide’ will be most affected.

Sulphide

Sulphide oxidises to sulphate in contact with oxygen. The industry standard technique for preservation of sulphide utilises zinc acetate.  Zinc ions from zinc acetate react rapidly to form zinc sulphide, an insoluble precipitate, sequestering the sulphide species and preventing off-gassing and oxidation.  Ensuring that the correct proportions of sulphide and sulphate are reported is essential to assessments of concrete design classification and of aquifer conditions for MNA decisions.

Summary

How samples are collected and analysed is crucial to the reliability of human health and controlled water risk assessment and in assessing the effectiveness of MNA.  Chemical preservation is required to ensure that samples are representative of field conditions.  Samples collected for analysis of unstable contaminants, that have not been preserved, are unlikely to provide valid, consistent, or defensible analytical data.  This article is written in advance of guidance being published by Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE) on MNA.

References

  • AGS Guide to Environmental Sampling, Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists, 2019
  • BS EN ISO 5667-3: 2018 Water quality: Sampling – Part 3: Guidance on the preservation and handling of samples
  • BS ISO 5667-11: 2009 Water quality. Sampling. Guidance on sampling groundwaters
  • CCME (2010) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Publication No. 1299; ISBN 1-896997-34-1
  • Society of Brownfield Risk Assessment (SoBRA) Practical Tips to Share: Improving Risk Assessment – Field to Desk

Image credit to ALS Laboratories (UK) Limited

Article provided by Geraint Williams, ALS Laboratories and Tim Rolfe, YES Engineering

Article

Q&A with Bradley Falcus

- by
Tags: Featured

Full Name: Bradley Falcus

Job Title: Senior Geo-Environmental Administrator

Company: Central Alliance Pre-Construction Services Ltd

I’m an early career professional who believes that the power of people can never be underestimated, nor should it be underappreciated. Over the past four years since my masters degree, I have become experienced in the geotechnical sector working in archaeology, geophysical exploration and ground engineering. I have quickly adapted to a management role within this timeframe, developing a team of trained geo-environmental and business administrators before the age of 30. I am passionate and driven to make a difference in the geotechnical sector, be that business-by-business, or wider reaching to the AGS’ members.

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

I suppose my answer to this is split into two, one for my role within Central Alliance and one for my role within RSK. Working as one of the Data Managers on the Wales and Western Framework (Network Rail) has been a fantastic opportunity for me to learn and develop. The role is multifaceted and requires a great attention to detail and seems to continue to grow arms and legs with every week that passes. I enjoy working with my colleagues at Central Alliance on framework projects like this, it gives me the opportunity to work closer with them as part of the project management team and share in the delivery of great results to our client.

Within the wider RSK Group, I am a co-chair of the RSK Pride Network, an employee ran network which supports and welcomes LGBTQ+ people in the workplace. In July 2023, RSK were one of the sponsors of Bristol Pride. We brought together staff members from across the UK and had a wonderful celebration of our RSK Family. I can honestly say it has been an amazing event to organise and run – hopefully we’ll have more like it in the future and maybe we can extend the invite to other AGS members.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?

Time! I think with a role like mine, it’s quite easy to forget when to switch off. Some days it will be nine hours of meetings, some days it will be nine hours of tender compilations, some days it will be nine hours providing training. Every day is different from the one before it; and even though that makes it interesting, it can be overwhelming if you don’t have the right procedures in place. Best advice from me is to make sure you take time for yourself, in and out of your work hours – don’t be a martyr to Ground Investigation by slaving away for hours and hours.

You have recently joined the AGS Business Practice WG to help develop Equity, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion within the AGS. What are your aspirations for the AGS?

Two of the UN Sustainable Development Goals are Gender Equality and Reducing Inequalities; these are targets that we as an industry have to take seriously going forward. I believe that trade associations like the AGS have a fundamental role to play in changing the attitudes of businesses across the UK and internationally on how we can be more equal and inclusive. I really do have aspirations that the AGS will be able to champion employment equality and equity, increase graduate opportunities and to represent the underrepresented. I hope that we can, as the BPWG, spark conversations around the topic of reducing inequalities across our industry and continue to welcome generations of new bright minds to the fold.

What do you enjoy most about being an AGS Member?

I love being able to connect with so many intelligent and interesting people that are part of the AGS. It’s inspiring as a young professional (I think I qualify for that title) to attend conferences and webinars to learn from the vast amount of experience there is in the group. Personally, I cannot wait for the next in-person meeting and hope to see many friendly faces there.

What do you find beneficial about being an AGS Member?

Being able to keep on the pulse of all the updates from the geotechnical and geoenvironmental sector – rules, regulations, guidance and procedure change so quickly, it’s always good to be part of the movement than behind it. Also being able to interact with the different working groups is invaluable, by attending conferences and meetings you have the opportunity to shape the future of the geotechnical industry.

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

The AGS is one of the best platforms for collaboration in our industry –  Helen Keller, an activist for disabled rights, said that ‘Alone we can do so little, together we can do so much’ and I think about that quote quite a lot and what it means for us. It’s important to know that we aren’t as secular or ‘alone’ as we sometimes believe to be. The AGS is a shining example of fantastic minds, creative people and keen advocates coming together for the future of our sector.

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

In my dreams? I would love to have collaborative networks created between AGS member businesses which minority communities (for example: POC, LGBTQ+, people who are neurodivergent, people who are disabled, etc) would be invited to join. These networks could have regular meetings, chaired by the AGS, where they would be able to give direct feedback and guidance on what the industry can improve upon. I’d hope we could create a welcoming space for all people to join us from all backgrounds and ensure that their voices are heard. In the meantime, I would love to see guidance from the BPWG on tackling unconscious bias and good hiring practices in our industry as a fundamental step in the right direction.

Article

Inside Geosense

- by
Tags: Featured

Name: Tim Clegg

Job title: Managing Director

Company name: Geosense Ltd

What does the company do and what areas does it specialise in?

Geosense is a leading UK manufacturer and global supplier of Geotechnical Instruments and data acquisition systems. We specialise in the design and manufacture of MEMS and Vibrating Wire monitoring sensors which are used in many sectors including site investigation, dams, bridge, deep excavations, infrastructure, mining and more.

Where is Geosense located?

We have a purpose-built manufacturing facility in Suffolk.

How many people does the company employ?

Currently 59. Interestingly, three years ago it was around half that, but we have needed to grow to meet the rising demand for our products. We recruit mainly from the local area, with many of our staff joining us as school levers and working their way through the business to hold managerial roles. Since Covid, we have also been able to expand some roles to fully remote working with two members of the sales team based in Manchester and a member of technical support near Oxford. We have also recently employed our first overseas employee in the US.

How long have you worked at Geosense?

I worked part time during school holidays from the age of 16. My full-time role at Geosense started in 2013 so I would say I have been at Geosense 10 years. Time does fly!

What is your career background, and what enticed you to work for Geosense?

My career background is short! I started as a pot washer at a local pub and worked at a local supermarket before heading off to the University of East Anglia in Norwich. I studied Economics for 3 years before joining Geosense assisting in the production department.

Geosense is a family business but working at Geosense was not always a route I wanted to go down, nor one which was expected. However, I can say I love my job and consider myself lucky to have the opportunity to work in this industry.

Knowing what I know now, the best part of working at Geosense is the exciting projects we work on, and the people we work with. This industry is full of passionate people who genuinely care about the work we do and the value we provide on every project.

What is your current role within Geosense and what does a typical day entail?

I am currently Managing Director. A typical day? I am incredibly lucky that I get to work across multiple departments all performing important functions in the business. Officially my role is to ensure everyone is happy and to make decisions on current and future strategy. Unofficially I do anything that is required on any given day.  In short, I get to work with a great team to make some very exciting stuff happen.

This week I have been working with our software developer on an exciting new development digitising our calibration data. I was also looking at new types of sustainable packaging and had a 6am call with Singapore and a trip to the Houses of Parliament. As I said, quite varied!

Having been Commercial Manager, Sales and Customer relationships is what I know and I help a great team who look after our customers across the globe. Customer care and support is key to every member of the Geosense team.

What are the company’s core values?

We recently did a workshop with the whole company to put forward and agree on our companies values as we enter into an exciting period of growth in the company. The company has grown significantly, and we wanted to develop new values that could help us navigate the future whilst recognising what made us successful. We chose the following:

Open & Honest Communication

Care & Respect

Collective Responsibility

Client Focused

Agile

These values embody what Geosense is and how we want to work, they were decided and agreed by every single member of staff.

Are there any projects or achievements which Geosense are particularly proud to have been a part of?

In 2022 Geosense was one of 141 companies in the UK to win a Queens Award for Enterprise for International Trade. Seen as the most prestigious award a UK company can receive, we are particularly proud that the certificate was one of the last to be signed by the late Queen Elizabeth II. The main thing is that it recognised the hard work and skill of every single member of the company, past and present, during the last three years.

As for projects, we are proud to have been involved in many well-known UK projects such as Tower Bridge, Tideway, HS2, Battersea Power Station, HARP and Woodsmith Mine, to name but a few.

I am hugely proud when I walk around London and know that our sensors have helped monitor some of the capital’s most iconic structure. Often very frustrating for friends and family who join me scouring buildings for the total station or dataloggers!

How important is sustainability within the company?

As a responsible modern business, we have sustainability in mind on what we do right now and our plans moving forward. Our production facility is heated/cooled using ground source geothermal and our roof is full of solar panels.

We have an internal environmental committee, with members from all areas of the business discussing and creating our vision to have as small as possible negative impact on the planet. We are also currently implementing a roadmap to zero plastic packaging for all products.

Recently we digitised all our calibration data which means that we will be phasing out paper calibration records in favour of QR code-driven digital records. If clients do want paper copies, we will be donating £1 for every paper copy to Forestry England.

We are a proud UK manufacturer and, where possible, keep the majority of our supply chain within the local area and the UK. We firmly believe in managing a sustainable supply chain.

How does Geosense support graduates and early career professionals who are entering the industry?

We are big advocates of training and personal development for our staff. A number of the team are completing formal qualifications as part of their roles at Geosense.

Geosense has always been proactive in providing training and support for engineers. Recently we launched our Geosense Academy which provides tailored training on our products/applications to a wide range of professionals, including graduates and early career professionals. To date over 80 engineers have been through the academy.

We are always open to summer placements for graduates if they want to learn more about the industry or manufacturing.

How has COVID-19 impacted Geosense today? Are there any policies which were made during the pandemic that have been kept to improve employee wellbeing and productivity?

I think the main impact that should be addressed is the affect that COVID had on everyone’s wellbeing. I am very glad that this is now something that is being discussed more and businesses are taking a more active role in managing wellbeing. At Geosense, we have increased the number of mental health first aiders to 5, and also offer an EAP system to offer support to staff. We are also providing food in the canteen to help ease some of the burden of the cost of living for our staff.

Flexible working was already being implemented but COVID certainly sped things up for us! Since COVID we have continued with flexible working and have also introduced flexible working patterns for production which has been really well received.

One small thing we introduced in the sales team was a Monday morning meeting where the first section of the meeting was to go through what everyone did at the weekend, with a Friday meeting to share what the plans were for the weekend. This made the meetings not just about business and made a huge difference during COVID. At least the things we do at the weekend now are a lot more exciting than they were during COVID!!

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

I must admit I used to think the AGS was mainly centred around data format.

However, having attended many conferences and being involved in the AGS I&M working group, I have seen a large group of passionate professionals who want to help standardise the industry and make the use of Geotechnical methods as easy and useful as possible. Also, while a lot of our work is construction aligned, we often get ‘lost’ within the construction industry bodies. The AGS fulfils an important role for the sharing of ideas and discussing how best to pass this information to different parts of the wider industry,

I now see the AGS as a group who want things done properly in our industry!

What are Geosense’s future ambitions?

To grow while still enjoying the journey!

Our industry is experiencing an exciting period with great innovation and increased adoption. We are at a point we can shape and point the industry in a good direction.

With greater connectivity options, digital innovations, and the ability to do more with data the future is very bright indeed.

Article

London Build 2023

- by
Tags: Featured

The UK’s leading construction show returns to Olympia London’s Grand Hall on November 15th & 16th.

London Build offers thousands of unique experiences over the two days with 500+ incredible speakers across 8 stages, 350+ exhibitors, Meet the Buyers, live product demos, networking parties, entertainment, live music, the UK’s biggest Festival of Construction and endless networking opportunities with leading architects, developers, housebuilders, contractors, government and more.

Featuring:

  • 35,000+ registered visitorsfrom contractors, architects, civil engineers, developers, local councils, house builders/associations and construction professionals
  • 500+ inspiring speakersacross 8 conference stages including Future of Construction, BIM & Digital, Fire Safety, Sustainability, Diversity & Inclusion and more
  • 200+ hours of CPDtraining and education
  • The UK’s biggest Festival of Constructionwith DJs, musicians, live performances, celebrity guests, entertainment and competitions
  • Meet the Buyers with Procurement Teams exhibiting from Balfour Beatty, Skanska, Mace Dragados, BAM UK, Costain, SMP Alliance and more
  • Architect’s Hub with project displays and 3D models of upcoming projects from leading architects across the UK
  • The latest insightsand updates on major upcoming construction projects and opportunities across the UK
  • Exclusive networking eventsco-hosted with Urbano Build, London Constructing Excellence Club, Forum for the Built Environment, The CIOB, Building People, Let’s Build, Building Equality and many more
  • The UK’s largest networking events for Women in Constructionand Diversity in Construction
  • An inclusiveAmbassador Programme supporting Women in Construction, Diversity in Construction and Mental Health in Construction
  • 350+ exhibitors showcasing the latest services, products and innovations transforming the industry

Register for tickets at www.londonbuildexpo.com/

News

AGS Magazine: July 2023

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists is pleased to announce the July 2023 issue of their publication; AGS Magazine. To view the magazine click here.

This free, publication focuses on geotechnics, engineering geology and geoenvironmental engineering as well as the work and achievements of the AGS.

There are a number of excellent articles in this issue including;

Geotechnica 2023: Conference Lineup Confirmed – Page 8

AGS Ground Risk Conference: Are you Managing Risks or Taking Risks? – Page 10

Assessment and Mitigation of Turbidity Risks from Piling – Page 18

A comprehensive comparison of field-based analytical technologies for both qualitative and quantitative determination of petroleum hydrocarbons in soils – Page 26

Findings of SiLC DoWCoP industry survey: Regulatory challenges for regeneration of historical landfills and reuse of stockpiles and mineral waste – Page 32

Guidance on the opening of core and dynamic sampler liner – Page 36

Plus much, much more!

Advertising opportunities are available within future issues of the publication. To view rates and opportunities please view our media pack by clicking HERE.

If you have a news story, article, case study or event which you’d like to tell our editorial team about please email ags@ags.org.uk. Articles should act as opinion pieces and not directly advertise a company. Please note that the publication of editorial and advertising content is subject to the discretion of the editorial board.

Article Safety

Guidance on the Opening of Core and Dynamic Sampler Liner

- by
Tags: Featured

Introduction

For engineering geologists in the UK ground investigation industry, the opening of core and dynamic sampler liners to enable the logging of recovered material is a standard and often daily procedure. This operation is frequently carried out onsite, under field conditions, using a variety of tools including knives to complete the task effectively.

Statistics on accidents involving knives within the geotechnical and environmental sector aren’t readily available, however relevant information is accessible from the UK plastics industry. Reviewing four separate plastics manufactures with online published information our research indicated;

  1. A plastic film manufacturer identified that hand knife injuries contributed to over 50% of their total accidents.
  2. A polyethene manufacturer indicated that over 50% of their accidents were hand injuries.
  3. A plastic components manufacturer appointed a new safety manager who noticed that hand knife injuries accounted for a significant percentage of the company’s total injuries.
  4. A pipe extrusion company noted that their largest category of injuries were cuts, and of these 75% were caused by knives.

Within the ground investigation industry there are many anecdotal incidents where operatives and logging engineers have caused serious harm to themselves whilst using knives, and it is more than likely that injuries involving the use of knives is more common than those instances that are reported.

The aim of this article is to explore the methods available to the engineer in the field and provide guidance on the safe cutting of core and dynamic sampler liners.

The use of knifes and other cutting devices is covered by The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 1998), which requires work equipment to be suitable and safe for the task it is being used for.

The only focused advice from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is How to reduce hand knife injuries. HSE PPIS12(rev1) May 2000. However, this is not specific to the construction industry but provides practical advice to anybody involved in managing the risks of using hand knives as part of their work.

As with all risks associated with work activities, a risk assessment is required to identify the risk and put into place suitable and sufficient control measures to reduce the risk. When considering risk controls for core and dynamic sampler liner cutting it is important to select the most effective control measure, this is achieved by considering the hierarchy of controls.

As highlighted by the graphic, the most effective risk controls are elimination, substitution and engineering controls, weaknesses within administrative controls and personal protective equipment are created through the reliance on humans to follow rules. Where this reliance can be removed, more effective controls have a positive impact on reducing harm.

Considering, the hierarchy of controls application to core and dynamic sampler liner cutting mitigation, the following could be considered:

Elimination: alternatives to core liner could be identified that eliminate the use of knifes or the need to cut liners. Consideration should be given to different techniques which may eliminate the need to cut core liners or in fact not use core liners at all.

Substitution: can be applied to the core liner itself, identify alternative types of liners which are easier to cut and reduce the effort used to cut the liner improving knife control and reducing the risk of cutting. The volume of core liners produced can also potentially be reduced, through the reduction of intrusive locations, the use of other investigative methods (e.g. CPTs) or substituting some of the field work for computer modelling utilising AI based technologies.

Engineering Controls: provide significant options to reduce cutting associated with core liners, from specifying safety knifes with self-retracting or hidden blades or by the introduction of purpose-built core liner cutters, jigs for powered tools or other mechanical options.

Administrative Controls: in relation to fixed blades bans within site rules and procedures or alternative equipment detailed within method statements. These controls have weaknesses surrounding implementation, as they need greater levels of supervision and trust of the operatives and fixed blade knifes have a habit of finding their way onto site.

Personal Protective Equipment: is universally used on every project and sometimes overused, throwing PPE at a problem without taking the time to understand the holistically to begin with. Cut resistant gloves, gauntlets and other protective items have been significantly improved in recent years, providing good dexterity as well as high cut resistance.

Through the research required to write this article, consulting with people across the industry and those outside of it, methods of core and dynamic sampler liner cutting which significantly lower the risk of cuts to hands have been identified. These are not risk free, but in practice significantly reduce the risk of significant hand injuries when compared to the use of fixed blade knifes which should not be used for core and dynamic sampler liner cutting.

Core Line Cutting Rig

In a purpose-built logging shed core liners can be cut using a bench and cutting rig arrangement where liners are put within a rigid frame and the liners mechanically cut either by a hooked blade arrangement in a safety jig or vibratory cutter (noting that the introduction of vibrating tooling introduces vibration, noise and dust risks which need to be controlled). In either case the cutting is carried out without the need for the technicians/geologist fingers to be anywhere near the cutting edge, reducing the risk of injury. However, with what is available on the market today, this type of set up is almost certainly prohibitive in terms of suitability of the site environment when working in the field.

Oscillating Blades and Smalls Grinders

The use of oscillating blades (preferred due to safer handling) and small grinders is a technique that can be beneficially used where the cores and liner can be placed in a rigid structure (such as a core box), and at a suitable height for the operator to ensure ergonomic working practices, reducing the risk of musculoskeletal injuries. This can be achieved in the field by using trestles or the open tailgate of a truck. Rechargeable battery units should be preferred to eliminate introducing the additional risk of trailing cables and electric shock.

Using Oscillating Blades and Smalls Grinders will introduce additional hazards which must be controlled through the introduction of suitable and sufficient controls, these include: manual handling, flying debris and dust, noise, vibration and the potential damage to the core/sample itself through overcutting.

Safety Cutters

There are a number of different safety cutters available to the industry which are capable of cutting core and dynamic sampler liner. These types of cutters prevent the small surface area of the blade coming into contact with the fingers.

Unfortunately this type of cutter is often the source of great frustration when they fail to work either due to user error or their lack of suitability for the task in hand, particularly when they were too wide to get between the core and the core liner. It is well documented that when such frustrations occur it is human nature to bypass the agreed procedures and revert to fixed blade knifes and inaccurate statements made that ‘all safety cutters will not work’.

Due to these very real risks, the selection and testing of safety cutters is imperative to ensure that the tools are fit for purpose, task and the environment which they are used in.

Safety Knives

There are a number of different safety knifes available in the marketplace. These type of knifes have an automatically retracting blade when pressure is released from the blade. These will then require resetting before the blade is re-exposed.

As safety knifes work using the same manual techniques as a fixed blade knife, their use, provided the correct knife has been selected for the task, is more widely accepted by those within the industry and they do not require controls to be introduced.

When using retractable safety knifes, if they are poor maintained, they are susceptible to being damaged by rusting and the mechanism clogged by debris, eventually preventing it from working effectively. This, together with other maintenance and user information should be documented into administrative controls to support their effectiveness.

As with any task, training should be provided on how to open core liners and other samples safely, regardless to which of the above techniques are employed. This training should cover the core cutting methodology, how to replace blades on retractable knives, regular cleaning and maintenance of cutting tools.

When considering the task itself it is important to place the liner in a fixed sturdy location such as a core box or other configuration that holds the liner firmly in place, place the knife perpendicular to the core, facing away from the body at a 45o angle and ideally use two hands, pull the knife allowing slow controlled cuts, avoiding the jerking action that often leads the knife slipping.

Consideration in using this method should be given to the strength and dexterity of the person cutting the liner. Additionally, certain types of core liner can be prone to shattering and splintering when cut. The operator shall remain vigilant at all times when cutting liners in case they are fragile and the cutting methodology reassessed.

Other basic controls when handling knifes should be applied, even when using safety knifes, these consist of but are not limited to;

  • Not handing a knife to a work colleague. Instead, lay it on a flat surface for them to pick up.
  • Keep the thumb of the hand using the cutter away from the blade, and your other hand far enough away to avoid laceration.
  • Knife blades should be kept sharp and knives maintained and checked before use.
  • Any damaged or knives or blades should be disposed of in a safe manner.
  • Ensure there is good lighting available where the task is being undertaken.
  • When done with a knife, store it edge-down or covered.

As with all cutting activities, they should be supported using appropriate PPE including cut-resistant gloves, safety footwear, eye protection and clothing to cover exposed arms and legs. Although cut resistant gloves and forearm gaiters cannot eliminate the risk of getting injured entirely, they can reduce the severity of the injury.

The right kind of cut-resistant glove to purchase is the one that best protects the user from the hazards they face. Heavy duty gloves or gloves that are too large for the individual will affect the dexterity of the user and they may be tempted to remove the gloves, which exposing them to risk. Always ensure that when selecting gloves, cut resistant and dexterity are considered.

Summary

The cutting of core and dynamic sampling liner within the geotechnical industry will remain an important part of the normal operations of field based engineers. Knives are the most commonly used hand tool for this type of activity, however they require proper selection, application, and training in use and storage. The improper use of cutting tools and knives can lead to significant hand injuries, however using a simple risk assessed approach, the severity and likelihood of injuries sustained can be greatly reduced if not eliminated.

Article provided by Liz Withington (Principal Engineering Geologist, CC Ground Investigations) and Adam Latimer (Director, Ian Farmer Associates)