News

AGS Magazine: September 2022

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are pleased to announce the September 2022 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;

The Geotechnical Data Conference 2022 – Page 6

A Guide to Direct Strain Pressuremeters: From Site to Design – Page 8

The relationship between LOLER and drilling machines – Page 14

Introduction to Cone Penetration Testing – Page 16

Brownfield and Biodiversity Net Gain – opportunities and risks – Page 30

AGS Q&A – Alex Dent of WSP UK Ltd – Page 38

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.

 

News

AGS Magazine: August 2022

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are pleased to announce the August 2022 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;
AGS Annual Conference @ Geotechnica 2022 – Page 6
AGS Geotechnical Data Conference – Page 8
UK Specification for Ground Investigation (Third Edition): Now Available for Purchase – Page 13
AGS publish Roadmap for AGSi – Page 15
Use of DoWCoP for Landfill Developments – Page 16
The impact of ‘Net Carbon Zero’ on the Geo-Engineering Industry – Page 22

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

PFAS – Nomenclature

- by
Tags: Featured

Per- and Poly-Fluoro Alkyl Substances (PFAS) are a universe of several thousand manufactured fluorinated organic chemicals with very varying chemical and physical properties (Figure 1).  Some are still in use, some are present in legacy fire fighting systems and some have been banned.

This short article was initially intended as an overview of the land contamination risk management aspects of PFAS but ended up using all the words AGS Magazine articles run to in exploring definitions and naming conventions for PFAS.

Figure 1 PFAS hierarchy (only terms used in this article are shown) (After colour conventions of ITRC[1] and OECD Level numbering)

Definitions

Definitions matter[2] especially when regulations apply to named substances.  The OECD and the Environment Agency[3] consider almost any chemical with at least one fully (per-) fluorinated methyl (–CF3) or methylene (–CF2–) group as a PFAS (OECD, 2021)[4].  Under this definition, the simplest PFAS is tetrafluoromethane (CF4), also known as carbon tetrafluoride or R-14 (a low temperature refrigerant).

Figure 2 Fully fluorinated methyl and methylene groups. Black = carbon; green = fluorine; grey = covalent bond with the rest of the (unshown) alkyl chain

The US EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics definition is narrower: PFAS have at least two adjacent carbon atoms, where one carbon is fully and the other at least partially fluorinated.  This would exclude CF4 and about 40% of the substances that would meet the OECD definition.

The US Congress[5] definition sat in between the OECD and US EPA definitions: “perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances that are man-made chemicals with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”

OECD recognised that organisations may develop their own working definition of PFAS to meet specific needs. OECD even provided an approach based on molecular structural traits to organisations to make their own categorization in a coherent and consistent manner. The OECD highly recommends the context and rationale for such definitions be transparent to avoid confusion.

Table 1 PFAS related acronyms used in this article

Acronym Meaning
PFAS Per- and PolyFluoroalkyl Substances
AFFF aqueous film forming foams
PFOA Perfluoro octanoic acid
PFOS Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid
PFCA Perfluoro carboxylates
PFSA Perfluoroalkane sulfonates
PFAA Perfluoroalkyl acid
PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
PASF Perfluoroalkane sulfonyl fluoride

 

What’s in a name?

There are three parts to the name of individual PFAS: the first tells you whether it is Poly- or Per-Fluorinated, the second tells you how many carbons in the alkyl chain (Hx = 6; Hp = 7; O = 8; N = 9)  and the third what the functional group at the end of the molecule away from the fluorinated chain is (sulfonic acid = SA; octanoic acid = OA).

Long and short chain PFAS have significantly different properties – affecting the risks they pose and their amenity to different remediation strategies.  According to the OECD (2013), “long-chain PFAS” are:

(i) Perfluoro carboxylates (PFCAs) with 7 and more fully fluorinated carbons, such as PFOA (8 carbons) and PFNA (9 carbons);

(ii) perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFSAs) with 6 and more fully fluorinated carbons, such as PFHxS (6 carbons) and PFOS (8 carbons); and

(iii) precursors such as PASF- and fluorotelomer-based compounds that can degrade to long-chain PFCAs or PFSAs.

Human health, ecological and controlled waters risk assessments reflect the fate, transport and for the first two the toxicity of the hazard.

The most studied PFAAs to date are PFOA and PFOS – the primary PFAS focus of many site investigations. However they are not the only PFAS and they cannot be used as surrogates for all PFAS.

Long and short chain PFAS behave in different ways. Short chain PFAS are very mobile, soluble and have low adsorption potential. It has also been recognised that PFAS have broad toxicity[6].

The C8 Science Panel[7], that featured in the legal case depicted in the Dark Waters film, determined that a “probable link” exists between C8 (PFOA) and the following 6 diseases:

  • Kidney Cancer.
  • Testicular Cancer.
  • Ulcerative Colitis.
  • Thyroid Disease.
  • Pregnancy Induced Hypertension (including preeclampsia)
  • Hypercholesterolemia

Discussion

We have been here before. About 30 years ago the dawning realisation that petroleum hydrocarbons were too broad a universe to have their varied fate, transport and toxicity represented by a single “total petroleum hydrocarbon” analysis led to the “TPHCWG” working group that gave us the Equivalent Carbon hydrocarbon fraction method of assessing the risks to human health from petroleum hydrocarbons.

The current body of scientific evidence clearly indicates that there are real, present, and significant hazards associated with specific PFAS – not least PFOS and PFOA – but significant gaps remain related to the impacts of other PFAS on human health and in the environment[8].

The time has now come for us to realise that PFAS may be a universe of substances but they are too diverse to be considered together or to consider individual substances – such as PFOS or PFOA – as surrogates in the way that we have been able to use benzo(a)pyrene as a surrogate for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).

Understanding and dealing with the societal challenge that is PFAS will involve a multi-disciplinary approach: chemists to resolve behaviour and develop analytical methods, toxicologists to establish dose-response relationships, geologists to predict subsurface fate and transport, engineers to implement remediation.

[1] https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/2-pfas-chemistry-and-naming-conventions-history-and-use-of-pfas-and-sources-of-pfas-releases-to-the-environment-overview/

[2] https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/dean_adejumo_caiati_etal_jspg_v16.pdf

[3] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1012230/Poly-_and_perfluoroalkyl_substances_-sources_pathways_and_environmental_data_-_report.pdf

[4] https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/CBC/MONO(2021)25&docLanguage=En

[5] https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s1790/BILLS-116s1790enr.pdf

[6] https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/dean_adejumo_caiati_etal_jspg_v16.pdf

[7] http://www.c8sciencepanel.org/

[8] https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/pfas-roadmap_final-508.pdf

Article provided by Paul Nathanail, Director, LQM

Article

Granular working platforms for construction plant: An overview on guidance documents available

- by
Tags: Featured

Temporary granular platforms for construction plant (including haul roads, working platforms and general hard standings) are a necessary feature of almost all construction sites but the need to ensure that they are adequate for the intended use is often overlooked. Inadequate design would most likely lead to significant incidents of overturning plant that would result in, at best, cost and delay or, at worst, injury and/or death. A major cause of plant instability is a poor site surface or working platform. This may be due to a lack of design, poor quality installation, or a lack of maintenance or inspection. Given the consequences of a rig falling over, most would agree that each of these aspects should be carried out thoroughly and by competent people.

While current methods for the technical design of granular working platforms have proved generally reliable, it is recognised that there is a lack of consistency on how and when they are applied, resulting in varying degrees of economy (and possibly un-economic design in certain instances). In addition, the introduction of the ‘Eurocodes’ (although not entirely applicable) has brought about an increased expectation that temporary structures should be designed in line with current national standards.

In 2019, ‘a Guide to good practice’ document was published by the Temporary Works forum (TWf), that summarises all existing rigorous and empirical design methods and good practices available in UK industry. The Guide is not intended to replace current guidance, but it is hoped that it will supplement current guidance and provide an overall approach that addresses the aforementioned issues.

This guide is, therefore, aimed at:

  • providing recommendations for the overall design of working platforms;
  • improving the application of current structural design methods;
  • suggesting a suitable method for the application of Eurocodes;
  • considering ways of achieving greater economy while maintaining a suitable level of reliability with regard to the particular risks under consideration;
  • providing an introduction to related health and safety and sustainability issues

The guidance offered is intended primarily for temporary works designers, in particular less experienced engineers. It is also, however, intended to act as an aid to others involved in the procurement and use of granular working platforms.

The link to the TWf Guide is below:

https://www.twforum.org.uk/viewdocument/working-platforms-design-of-granu

Another useful document that summarises good practice and guidance from around Europe and beyond, is the ‘Guide to Working Platforms’ that was published by the European Federation of Foundation Contractors (EFFC) in January 2020 and the link is below:

EFFC-DFI_Guide_For_Working_Platforms_Edition_1_LowRes-1.pdf

 

Article provided by Chaido Doulala-Rigby, member of the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS), Geotechnical Working Group.

Article Sustainability

The impact of ‘Net Carbon Zero’ on the Geo-Engineering Industry

- by
Tags: Featured

The UK Government has committed to Net Carbon Zero by 2050 Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).  Underpinning this goal is a 10 point plan encompassing the following areas:

  • advancing offshore wind
  • driving the growth of low carbon hydrogen
  • delivering new and advanced nuclear power
  • accelerating the shift to zero emission vehicles
  • green public transport, cycling and walking
  • ‘jet zero’ and green ships
  • greener buildings
  • investing in carbon capture, usage and storage
  • protecting our natural environment
  • green finance and innovation

Whilst this puts a focus on the energy industries, this does not mean that the construction industry and associated industries are exempted. Indeed, according to the UK Green Building Council, around 10% of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions are directly associated with construction activities. The number rises to 45% when taking into account the whole of the built environment sector.

Therefore, members of the AGS and their clients have an obligation to change behaviours, practices and methodologies to meet the challenge of net carbon zero. The clock is already ticking and changes need to be made sooner rather than later if the 2050 deadline is to be achieved.

There are a number of instigators and drivers which trigger a starting point on this journey. This could be an internal commitment from senior management or funders requiring businesses to meet a standard or set commitment, such as ‘Pledge to Net Zero’ Home | Pledge to Net Zero or ‘SME Climate Commitment’ Commitment – SME Climate hub. These schemes trigger baseline carbon footprinting and structured planning towards  the 2050 (or earlier) target.  Alternatively, the trigger could be external through commercial 3rd party requirements. The whole supply chain is affected by the Government Pledge and therefore public client bodies will be requesting evidence from suppliers of they will meet the current targets. We can expect that these requirements will also be seen from private clients, especially as they develop their carbon reduction requirements beyond Scopes 1 and 2 and into Scope 3[1], which requires assessment of the supply chain.

Having established a driver and committed to reducing carbon, the next step is to measure the business’s carbon footprint and establish a comparable metric. This will vary between business types, but there is much guidance and support available from organisations such as the Carbon Trust. The process can be started small with simple assessments related to energy usage and develop complexity with time , especially as the ‘wins’ and reductions become harder to achieve.

Beyond business carbon footprints sits project carbon footprints.  PAS 2080:2016 “Carbon Management in Infrastructure ” is already 6 years old and was designed to help organisations in the construction industry move to a sustainable future by identifying areas for improvement and utilising sector best practice. The PAS2080 framework looks at the whole life cycle carbon management when delivering infrastructure assets, aiming to reduce carbon and reduce cost through more intelligent design, construction and use. There are also multiple tools to assist in assessing carbon footprints and opportunities for carbon reduction through good design and construction practice. The EFFC/DFI’s Carbon Calculator for foundations allows contractors to establish their carbon footprint on site and determine a benchmark against which reduction can be assessed and where the carbon intensity is within a project. The Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS) plans to mandate that all projects over £1m in value require EFFC/DFI Carbon Calculator calculations to be submitted. For projects less than this, the FPS is considering a simple ‘rule of thumb’ calculation that can be applied to give an approximate carbon value. This process can be adapted to some site investigation driller techniques.   Similarly, structural engineers Elliott Wood have developed ‘The Structural Carbon Tool’ in conjunction with the Institution of Structural Engineers to enable assessment of embodied carbon in structures. This includes geotechnical structures such as basements, retaining walls etc.  On the contaminated land side of geo-engineering, SURF-UK has developed guidance towards Sustainable Remediation which includes a number of Environmental Indicators such as ‘Emissions to Air’ and ‘Natural Resources’ and will expand to carbon measurement. Use of such tools is increasing and we can expect it to become a normal part of ‘value engineering’ or ‘options appraisals’.

What could reduced carbon methods may look like?  Each business will have different effective solutions. A big part is having the relevant technology available commercially, which is a work in progress for plant and commercial vehicles where battery power is currently limited in scope and range. In the meantime, sustainable fleet management and driving is already established as good practice .eg FORS, which provides a measurable starting point.   Electric drilling rigs have been available for some time, but often require a commercial electricity supply which is problematical, especially whilst the electricity supply infrastructure is not in place to support demand.  Technology is continually developing and changes to support carbon reduction can be expected to become more frequent and more available.

Also think about office related improvements. Switching energy suppliers to green non-carbon based suppliers where possible, committing to zero waste to landfill/ recycling and resourcing eco-friendly supplies from re-cycled/recyclable materials will provide first steps to carbon reduction.

For businesses who believe they can carry on as always and simply off set their carbon without fundamental changes to processes, this is the equivalent of putting a plaster on a wound that needs surgery.

The drive to reduce carbon is no longer a ‘wish-list‘ item.  Being able to demonstrate how your business and designs or procedures contribute to carbon reduction is becoming both a technical and commercial requirement.  It will soon be a ’must have’ and geo-engineers need to be thinking ahead to meet the needs of both Clients and Government drivers. If everyone starts to think about what they could do to manage their carbon footprint and plan towards it and put relevant demands on their supply chain, the goals will be achieved sooner.

[1]  Scope 1: Direct emissions that result from activities within your organisation’s control. This might include on-site fuel combustion, manufacturing and process emissions, refrigerant losses and company vehicles. • Scope 2: Indirect emissions from any electricity, heat or steam you purchase and use. Although you’re not directly in control of the emissions, by using the energy you are indirectly responsible for the release of CO2. • Scope 3: Any other indirect emissions from sources outside your direct control. Examples of Scope 3 emissions include purchased goods and services, use of sold goods, employee commuting and business travel, outsourced transportation, waste disposal and water consumption (Ref. www.carbontrust.com)

Article provided by Jo Strange, Technical Director at CGL

Article

Use of DoWCoP for Landfill Developments

- by
Tags: Featured

There have been a number of incidences of the Environment Agency (EA) objecting to the use of the ‘Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (DoWCoP) published by Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE), V2, 2011, for re-use of soil on developments on both permitted and un-permitted landfills. There has also been inconsistency in their interpretation of the Waste Regulations in relation to applying DoWCoP on such sites.  Whilst it may be possible in specific cases to negotiate a solution with the EA to re-use soils under DoWCoP on such sites, in general terms, this apparent change in EA policy effectively removes the option for re-use of soils on such sites without implementing an Environmental Permit. This has implications on sustainability, costs, programme, and ultimately viability of development projects on landfill.

This situation prompted a letter from the Specialist in Land Condition Professional & Technical Panel, (SiLC PTP) to Department of  Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)/EA, The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHLGC) and Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (DBEIS). This requested:

EITHER: Amend the guidance within the DoWCoP, to include the re-use of site won materials from within historic landfills without the need for Environmental Permitting;

OR: Produce new guidance which streamlines the waste recovery and surrender process for the re-use of materials from within historic landfills.

Responses have been received from the EA and DEFRA which clearly indicate that the EA and DEFRA currently consider re-use of materials on landfill sites falls outside the scope of DoWCoP.  It is also noted that the EA is undertaking a review of DoWCoP as they now ‘have concerns that elements of the framework are not legally robust’. In terms of alternative approaches, the EA is producing internal guidance on permitting options to ensure consistency in EA opinion.

This current interpretation appears to represent a volte-face, given that the original application of DoWCoP was clearly intended to include materials contained in/derived from historical landfill sites, as evidenced by the published CL:AIRE case studies.

However, on the basis of recent correspondence, the AGS recommends that members advising clients with respect to redevelopment of land containing historical landfills take account of the current EA Regulatory opinion regarding DoWCoP to avoid the risk of involvement in material handling which could potentially be interpreted as being illegal waste activities.

Article provided by Jo Strange, Technical Director at CGL

Article

Sustainability in the Delivery of Brownfield Regeneration Webinar Series Summary

- by
Tags: Featured

On 17th May and 26th May 2022, the AGS Contaminated Land Working Group hosted their first webinar series entitled Sustainability in the Delivery of Brownfield Regeneration.

The first webinar was on the topic of Sustainable Remediation Solutions, which was chaired by Alex Lee (Technical Director, Environment, WSP) and featured three speakers; Jill Crawford (Senior Associate Solicitor in the Planning and Environment Team, Irwin Mitchell), Jon Davies (Director, RSK Biocensus / RSK Wilding) and Nicola Harries (Technical Director, CL:AIRE).

The second webinar looked at Sustainable Management of Soils, which was chaired by Ian Bishop (Managing Director, One Touch Data) and featured four speakers; Nicholas Willenbrock (Manager – Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice, CL:AIRE), Anna Willets (Partner, Gunnercooke LLP), Will Fardon (Technical Director, Chemtech Environmental) and Chris Swainston (Principal Environmental Consultant, Soils Limited)

205 delegates registered for the webinars, which looked at topics including; The Environment Act, BNG and ENG for Remediation Sites, the concept of Sustainable Management Practices, Sustainable Soils Management, Legal Responsibilities and the implications of getting it wrong, and standards and best practice related to sustainability.

If you missed this webinar series, the recordings is now live and can be purchased from £25 per webinar via the AGS website by clicking HERE or HERE.

Article

AGS Annual Conference 2022 – An inspiring event all round

- by
Tags: Featured

On the 6th July, we were delighted to hold the AGS Annual Conference 2022, on the first day of Geotechnica. Over 86 industry professionals from across the UK attended the Annual Conference and were welcomed to the Warwickshire Event Centre near Leamington Spa for a full day of networking and expert presentations.

The conference saw Dave Petley discuss landscapes and climate change, Steve Wilson explore good practice for risk assessment for coal mine gas emissions, and Dr Basil Ogunmakin speak on ground improvement.

An important presentation from Vicky Gutteridge from The Ollie Foundation reminded attendees of the importance of checking in on the mental health of yourself and your colleagues, with those in the construction sector particularly at risk.

We were also joined by Paul Roberts, who discussed UK initiatives to arrest the decline in students taking on Geoscience degrees, and Paul Eaves, who spoke through the application of ALARP principals to the management of Geotechnical assets.

It was an inspiring day all round and a great opportunity for people to get together, learn, and enjoy the exhibition space. We can’t wait to do it again next year!

If you missed the AGS Annual Conference 2022, you can download the speaker presentations here.

Article Data Management

AGS publish roadmap for AGSi

- by
Tags: Featured

AGSi is a transfer format for ground model and interpreted data, created and maintained by the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS). It was launched, as a beta version, in November 2020 with a further update issued in November 2021.  Documentation for AGSi can be found here.

AGS have now issued a roadmap for the future of AGSi. This identifies the processes and actions required to get AGSi ready for its first formal release (version 1.0), before going on to look at what needs to happen to achieve the ultimate goal of establishing the use of AGSi in our industry, for the benefit of the industry.

The roadmap identifies a steering group that has already been formed and the plan is for an early adopter user group to develop out of this. If you are interested in joining the steering group or getting involved as an early adopter, then please get in touch with us.

AGS is aware of other international initiatives relating to geotechnical data and models. In particular, AGS is an active participant in the OGC Geotech Interoperability Experiment project that was launched in early 2022.

The current intent, reflected on the roadmap, is for AGSi version 1.0 to be formally launched at the The Geotechnical Data Conference, hosted by AGS and to be held on 1 December 2022 at The Burlington Hotel in Birmingham.  Hope to see you there!

Article Business Practice Contaminated Land Data Management Executive Geotechnical Instrumentation & Monitoring Laboratories Loss Prevention Safety

UK Specification for Ground Investigation (third edition) – Now Available for Purchase

- by
Tags: Featured ICE publishing third edition UK Specification for Ground Investigation yellow book

We’re pleased to announce the launch of the third edition of the UK Specification for Ground Investigation – also known as ‘Yellow Book.’

This latest edition of Yellow Book has been revised by an industry working group led by the AGS, and provides best practice guidance for designing and executing good-quality ground investigations that will allow clients and land developers to manage the risks and help to reduce project time and costs.

Ground investigations are an essential part of the design process for any structure and land condition assessment. They are used to validate the ground model, assess ground risk, obtain geotechnical data for design and geoenvironmental data for the assessment of the risk to human health. Yellow Book will help to protect construction professionals and clients, from unexpected ground conditions during construction. Updates in this edition take account of changes to health, safety and environmental legislation, numerous new British Standards and industry guidance.

The UK Specification for Ground Investigation is essential for all ground practitioners involved in ground investigation, including geotechnical engineers, engineering geologists, environmental scientists, instrumentation and monitoring specialists, hydrogeologists and geophysicists, as well as specialists in other disciplines involved in specific investigations.

To purchase Yellow Book, click HERE

Want to know more about the new edition? Then join Julian Lovell, Mathew Baldwin and Stewart Jarvis, three of the main authors of the third edition, for a free webinar on 23rd June 2022 at 11am. The trio will set the context for the revision, explain the changes made and reasons behind them and provide details of how the new Specification document should be used and the major areas of change required by industry to conform to current good practice.

To register for the webinar, or to watch the replay (post-event) click HERE.

News

AGS Magazine: May 2022

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are pleased to announce the May 2022 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;
AGS Annual Conference @ Geotechnica 2022 – Page 4
AGS Geotechnical Data Conference – Page 9
AGS Loss Prevention Guidance Photography Competition – The Results – Page 12
AGS Webinar Updates: Brownfield Regeneration and Degree Apprenticeship in Geoscience – Page 16
Serviceability Limit State and Sustainable Shallow Foundations Design – Page 24
Driving at Work: A look at the guidelines – Page 30
BS8661 Geotextiles: Guidance for specification for basic separation and filtration functions – 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

AGS Loss Prevention Guidance Photography Competition – The Results

- by
Tags: Featured

In January 2022, the AGS launched their third photography competition, this time to source a suitable cover for the 2022 edition of the AGS Loss Prevention Guidance.

49 entries were submitted, each covering a range of topics across the geotechnical and geoenvironmental sector including site work, landscape imagery and machinery shots.

AGS Loss Prevention Working Group Leader, Hugh Mallett, along with five members of the Loss Prevention WG, Jo Strange, Peter Plumpton, Sam Bevins, Syd Pycroft and Chris Hoskins took on the challenging task to judge the images by scoring across five criteria;

  • Originality
  • Composition
  • Colour, Lighting, Exposure and Focus
  • Overall Impression, Impact and Visual Appeal
  • Suitability for Loss Prevention Guidance

Four images were shortlisted, and we’re pleased to announce that Kaya Dearnley of SOCOTEC 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 Hope Murray-Golas (Concept Engineering Consultants), Simon Ruddlesden (Ruddlesden Geotechnical) and Kevin Privett.

WINNING IMAGE 

Kaya Dearnley, SOCOTEC

Image description: A Comacchio 205 positioned on a beach groyne in Bournemouth. It was taken as the sun was beginning to set over the sea after a long day of drilling.

 

FIRST RUNNER UP

Hope Murray-Golas, Concept Engineering Consultants

Image description: Offshore wireline rotary drilling for a new airport scheme.

 

SECOND RUNNER UP

Simon Ruddlesden, Ruddlesden Geotechnical

 

THIRD RUNNER UP

Kevin Privett

Image description: On the former A625 road crossing Mam Tor landslip in Derbyshire.

 

The AGS would like to thank all those who took the time to enter the competition. The overall standard of entries was extremely high, and the judging panel found the task challenging in shortlisting the top four entries.