AGS Newsletter Issue 39 - October 2000

• Site Investigation in the UK - A summary of the requirements of piling contractors as end-users
• BENCHMARKING - What is it?
• Eurocode 7 - Parts 2 and 3, 'Design assisted by laboratory testing', and 'Design assisted by field testing', respectively
• Report on 15^th TC250/SC7 Meeting in Lisbon
• Environmental Damage - Who should pay?
• Keynetix
• Mobile Metrology Services

Site Investigation in the UK
A summary of the requirements of piling contractors as end-users

How do you match up?

The design and estimating department of a piling specialist will rely on the findings of perhaps ten or more different site investigation reports every day. The site investigation report is vital for design, pricing, assessment of risk, claim avoidance, and cost certainty. The site investigations seen vary in quality, detail and accuracy. An ideal report is recognised by the following qualities;

1. It has been carried out by a recognised 'expert' organisation of good repute, with traceable records and staff.
   

2. It has obviously been awarded the status appropriate to a vital element of the entire project and sufficient resources have been allocated to deep exploration as well as shallow pits.
   

3. There are plentiful laboratory and in-situ tests over the entire length of the boreholes.
   

4. If planning constraints have resulted in building relocation on the same site, thorough supplementary site investigation for the new area is available.
   

5. The scope of the SI was sufficiently flexible to adapt to initial findings. Boreholes should be deepened, moved or added when initial work poses 'questions' requiring answers. A site investigation should not simply comprise a ring-fenced amount of work.
   

6. The SI will give OD levels for the top of each borehole in every case. Failing this, there will be a detailed topographic survey drawing with the boreholes accurately marked.
   

7. The SI will relate borehole layouts to planning layouts, etc. so that the actual location of the proposed development can be seen relative to the borehole locations.
   

8. It will record groundwater levels and rates of flow as a matter of course.
   

9. The text of the SI report will comment on discrepancies between in-situ test results and descriptions. "Very dense SAND - SPT=4" is worthy of comment but surprisingly often ignored.
   

10. The ideal SI will penetrate lenses of weak rock in areas where these are known to be discontinuous, such as the Mudstones/ Limestones in basal London Clay.
    

11. The SI report will avoid giving design advice and recommendations for piling schemes, design parameters, etc. It is unfair to expect site investigation specialists to keep sufficiently abreast of every latest development in pile design engineering.
    

12. It will avoid over-reliance on quick undrained triaxial compression tests. The rates of strain are unrepresentative of those experienced in the pile/soil interactive system.
    

13. It will avoid over-reliance on SPT's in inappropriate circumstances, such as weak rocks or very stoney Boulder Clay.
    

14. The report will be well presented with driller's logs and descriptions typed out rather than left handwritten. There will be a clear key for all symbols and sensible use of uncluttered diagrams, etc. for borehole logs. There will be no random use of A3 sheets which seldom get copied correctly by a harassed main contractor trying to post 6 copies on a Friday afternoon!

These ideal reports do exist but by no means represent the typical standard of report we receive. We trust the above observations will serve to illustrate the requirements of one particular end-user.

By a Member of the Federation of Piling Technical Committee

 Editorial comment: It will also, of course, be in AGS format and transmitted electronically to avoid handwriting, rekeying and photocopies of any sort!

Go to top of page

BENCHMARKING - What is it?

The following are notes from a talk given to the AGS Committee by Martin Print from the Construction Best Practice Programme. It provides an outline of the procedure and good advice for anyone thinking of embarking on a benchmarking project.

What is it?

Benchmarking is about companies and organisations comparing their practices and performances in key activities. It involves answering two questions - who is better and why are they better? with the aim of using this information to make changes that will lead to real improvements in performance.

There are essentially three types:-

• internal (a comparison between different parts of one company)

• competitive (to compare similar organisations or business processes)

• generic (involving businesses from a number of industries)

Procedure

• mission statement (NB this must be aligned with corporate mission)

• identification of critical success factors (CSFs) (ie factors relevant to achieving mission)

• identification of measurables (benchmark subjects/ KPIs)

Definitions

• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): used as measure of critical success factors

• Benchmark: best performance achieved in practice (ie Best KPI - not an average)

• Benchmarking: continuous comparison of performance against others and using this to make improvements

Reasons for Failure of Benchmarking

• failure to identify critical success factors

• failure to use the information to improve performance

Construction Best Practice Programme

Objectives: to develop a simple set of KPIs which are :-

• be client focused

• results orientated

• show the range of industry performance

• permit individual organisations to see their performance relative to the whole

• give a way of measuring improvement

Initial data was collected from DETR, HSE, RICS, CCF, and Companies House. The resulting data sets permit individual companies to see where they lie relative to other companies (ie they give the percentage with better /worse results). They can also show how change in one (eg productivity) can result in change in other areas (eg safety).

Further information about the Construction Best Practice benchmarking initiative and the all construction KPIs can be obtained by telephoning 0845 605 55 56 (www.cbpp.org.uk)

The AGS is commencing a benchmarking programme to develop KPI's which will measure performance on ground investigation projects against the AGS Good Practice Guidelines and establish an industry norm against which improvements can be measured and issues identified. Further details about the programme will be in the next newsletter.

Go to top of page

Eurocode 7 - Parts 2 and 3, 'Design assisted by laboratory testing', and 'Design assisted by field testing', respectively

AGS readers may know that Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - Part 1 General Rules, which was published as an 'ENV' (or 'trial version') by BSI in 1997 as DD ENV1997-1 and is currently in the final stages of conversion into a full EN ('Euronorm'), is to be supplemented by Parts 2 and 3.

At the time of its inception it was appreciated that, to form a comprehensive set, a European geotechnical design code needed parts dealing with site investigation and testing. Working with limited resources, teams drafted documents covering the material it was felt that designers should have concerning the laboratory and field testing of the ground. The results of their work have recently been published by BSI as DD ENV1997-2: 2000 and DD ENV1997-3: 2000.

At the outset, it should be understood that these documents do not comprise full standard testing procedures and will not replace BS1377 and BS5930. They are written from the perspective of the design engineer, not the laboratory or field technician, and aim to assist him or her in deciding the requirements of test programmes, test specification, apparatus and the evaluation and presentation of test results. Only very recently, in a new CEN Technical Committee, work has commenced to produce full testing procedures for a limited selection of sampling methods and field tests. European laboratory test procedures do not seem likely to emerge in the near future.

Part - 2, Design assisted by laboratory testing covers the commonly-used geotechnical laboratory tests, selected on the basis of their importance in practice, their availability in commercial laboratories and the existence of national test procedures that could become widely accepted in Europe. Less commonly-used and more advanced tests which may be required for Geotechnical Category 3 problems (see ENV1997-1) are only mentioned in sections dealing with related tests. Testing for unsaturated soils is not covered; nor is the determination of parameters required for finite element calculations, such as Poisson's ratio, shear modulus and Young's modulus.

General topics covered include:

Sample preparation and quality; equipment and its calibration, evaluation and presentation of results, quality assurance and quality control.

The document discusses:

• tests for classification, identification and description;

• chemical testing of soils and groundwater;

• compressibility testing of soils

• strength index and strength testing of soils

• compaction testing of soils

• permeability testing of soils

• preparation of rock specimens for testing

• classification tests for rock

• swelling and strength tests for rock

Informative annexes provide more details of the various tests and include a bibliography of relevant papers and national standard test procedures.

Part - 3, Design assisted by field testing begins with a section on the planning of site investigation, distinguishing between desk studies and preliminary, design and control investigations. It makes reference to the reporting requirements of Part 1 and goes on to specify the requirements for a range of insitu tests including:

• Cone penetration and piezocone;

• pressuremeter

• SPT;

• Dynamic probing

• Weight sounding;

• Field vane;

• Flat dilatometer;

• Rock dilatometer;

• Plate loading;

There are short sections on soil and rock sampling and on groundwater measurements.

Informative annexes give further examples of design procedures and a bibliography.

The concept of a 'derived' value is introduced, where this is defined as a 'value of a geotechnical parameter obtained by theory, correlation or empiricism from test results'. Derived values form the basis for the selection in ENV1997-1 of characteristic values of ground properties.

It is likely that, after the current 'trial' ENV period, the two parts will be combined in the process of conversion to an EN.

Go to top of page

Report on 15^th TC250/SC7 Meeting in Lisbon

Monday 19^th June 2000

The committee responsible for the development of Eurocode 7 held its 15^th meeting in Lisbon in June. The UK delegation, representing the British Standards Institution, comprised Dr Brian Simpson of Arup Geotechnics and Dr Andrew Bond of Geocentrix. Mr Richard Driscoll of BRE was also present at the meeting, representing Project Team 1 (see below).

The main subject of discussion was the progress made by the Project Team appointed to convert Part 1 of the pre-standard Eurocode 7 (ENV1997-1, "General rules") into a fully fledged Euronorm (EN1997-1). The latest draft of the document came under heavy criticism from many delegates for its complexity and divergence from the pre-standard text. In anticipation of this response, the BSI delegation tabled a proposal for a radical rewrite of key elements of the draft, particularly those clauses dealing with application of partial factors in geotechnical calculations.

After lengthy discussion, an overwhelming majority of the delegates at the meeting voted to adopt the BSI proposal. The final version of Eurocode 7 will therefore present a single, unified formula for determining whether a limit state failure has occurred, with three ways of applying the formula to suit national preferences:

1. With safety factors applied to actions and material properties separately - as favoured by the UK and many other countries

2. With safety factors applied to effects of actions (e.g. bending moments) and resistances, simultaneously - as favoured by Germany

3. With safety factors applied to actions and resistances, simultaneously - as favoured by France

It was also agreed, in response to concerns raised by the Danish delegation, that changes in text between the pre-standard and draft versions of Eurocode 7 Part 1 would be reviewed, so that gratuitous changes could be eliminated.

The 16^th meeting of SC7 was scheduled for March 2001 in Italy.

Report prepared for FPS by Dr Andrew Bond of Geocentrix Ltd

Go to top of page

ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE - WHO SHOULD PAY?

In February 2000, the European Commission adopted a white paper on environmental liability dealing with who should pay to remedy damage to the environment caused by pollution. This issue has been under consideration for some time and in the interim, the UK (and other European Union member states) have introduced laws to deal with liability for clean up of contaminated land and controlled waters. These laws potentially have impact across a whole range of sectors.

An issue which has not really been considered to date at national level, however, is who should pay the bill when "nature" is damaged by an environmental incident. The introduction to the white paper questions whether the costs of rectifying damage to the environment should be paid by society at large (ie the tax payer) or by the polluter. This could have real ramifications for the geoenvironmental specialist.

"Environmental Liability"

In order to put this question into context, consideration must be given to the meaning of the phrase "environmental liability" which is used in the white paper on a number of occasions.

The paper states that "environmental liability aims at making the causer of environmental damage (the polluter) pay for remedying the damage that he has caused". The intention of the Commission, therefore, is that not only should a polluter be subject to sanctions if they do not comply with environmental legislation, but that they should also face the prospect of having to pay for restoration of the damage they have caused. This extends the concept of environmental liability beyond the usual understanding which is applied in the context of, for example, failing to comply with an environmental authorisation, or causing pollution by allowing a spill or leak of a hazardous substance to occur.

The white paper suggests that the "polluter pays" principle should be applied to damage to the environment by introducing a framework directive on environmental liability which would require individual member states to implement national legislation.

Key Features

The paper sets out a number of key elements which the Commission believes must be put into place:-

• The regime should not be retrospective and "past pollution" should be dealt with by member states. The paper suggests that funding mechanisms should be established to deal with matters such as damage to bio-diversity.

• The type of damage to be covered must be considered. The paper states that both "environmental damage" and "traditional damage" must be taken into account. "Environmental damage" covers contamination of sites (in a similar way to the UK's contaminated land regime) and damage to bio-diversity/eco-systems. "Traditional damage" takes into account more familiar and long established matters such as damage to human health and to property/goods.

• The paper does not envisage that the carrying out of any activity can lead to environmental liability. Rather, in respect of traditional damage and contamination of sites, the view is that an operator should face liability only for damage caused by the carrying out of a "dangerous activity". A list of such activities has not been prepared, but the paper suggests that they could be those matters currently regulated under environmental legislation such as where: discharge/emission limits are set for the release of substances into water or air; dangerous substances are controlled; there is an objective of preventing and controlling the risk of accidents and pollution; transport of dangerous substances is regulated; and in relation to waste management matters.

• The paper goes further than this for bio-diversity damage, where any activity causing significant damage can be caught. It is proposed, however, that liability for damage to bio-diversity will only bite where the damage occurs to a nature conservation site forming part of the Natura 2000 network, which national governments are obliged to establish by two European directives. There are hundreds of such sites throughout the UK, including the Mersey and Severn Estuary, Teesmouth and the Cleveland and Humber Coast.

• Where damage is caused by a "dangerous activity", the Commission's view is that liability should be strict, ie the fact that an act/omission caused damage is sufficient. Liability for damage caused by a non dangerous activity in a Natura 2000 site should, the Commission believes, be fault based.

• In respect of "environmental damage", the Commission's view is that the member state has primary responsibility for acting if the environment is being damaged or is threatened with damage. The limits on public resources are acknowledged and the paper states that certain public interest groups should have a right to act if the state does not act properly or at all. This right should, the paper suggests, extend to the ability to ask for an injunction and bring claims for reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred in taking urgent preventative action.

Impact

Although the white paper does not contain detailed provisions, it should be noted that the potential extension of liabilities (in particular in respect of bio-diversity) and the rights for public interest groups to take action would represent a major change to the current UK regime.

Comments received by the Commission as a result of the consultation exercise are currently being analysed. On behalf of consultants, views were expressed by the European Federation of Consultancy Associations. The regime would present the possibility of increased risk for contractors and consultants, but this may well be offset by the substantial opportunities likely to be generated.

Ailish Oxenforth, DLA Birmingham (0121 262 5686)

Go to top of page

KEYNETIX

The formation is announced of Keynetix Ltd, a company jointly set up by data management software developers Key Systems Geotechnical Ltd and network-GIS specialists KeyGIS Ltd.

In its role to develop, market and distribute web-based GIS to the civil engineering, land, and environmental management industries.

The company will also market and distribute Autodesk Map Guide and digital map products by Ordnance Survey. The Company is a licensed partner of Ordnance Survey and an Autodesk Systems Centre

Keynetix Ltd, Moons Park, Redditch B98 9PA
Tel: +44 (0) 1527 68888; Fax: +44 (0) 1527 62880

e-mail: keynetix@key-systems.com

(PS: Have you visited the public access GIS service www.boreholes.com?

This enables site investigators to view the investigation history of a particular geographical area, showing where the actual boreholes are located, how deep they are, and who to approach for further information. Major contributors of public boreholes are the BGS with all 850,000 UK borehole locations on the site.

Public display of locations will be a free service in perpetuity, but periodic charges will be levied to some users (details on the site or contact Mike Rothery at the address above).

Go to top of page

Mobile Metrology Services

IMMS (International Mobile Metrology Services) is an old form of company in a new guise. For many years laboratories and engineering organisations have had to send their equipment for calibration away to calibration houses many miles from their own location. The problems this creates are many fold, not the least of which is the possibility of damage during shipping; even the best of carriers can make mistakes. In addition to this if the equipment is in constant demand then a second, also calibrated piece is normally required as a back-up.

IMMS have attempted to solve many of these problems by offering a service to clients that calibrates the majority of items on site. By constructing a very comprehensive calibration laboratory in the back of a large truck they are able to cater for most of their customers' calibration requirements. Where they cannot calibrate directly they will ship the clients' equipment in their own vehicles to a laboratory that can, and return them, often the same day.

The service is simple, easy to arrange and from most clients' point of view very cost effective. By arranging three or four visits a year it is now possible for a laboratory or engineering company to completely dispense with both in-house calibration requirements and the problems of shipping delicate instrumentation.

For more information call;

Pat Limacher on 0208 527 9967 or fax to 01603 746003

Go to top of page