Article Contaminated Land

A refresher on clean cover systems

- by
Tags: Featured

Image credit to Andrew Tranter, Principal Environmental Consultant at RSK

Clean cover systems are one of the most commonly applied remediation techniques deployed by developers within the UK.  They are used to reduce the risk of exposure to soils potentially harmful to health and or to reduce contaminant mobilisation by presenting a low permeability barrier to infiltration.  Consequently, they can provide both a viable and sustainable solution for mitigating risks. Yet over-familiarity is increasingly leading to poor implementation.  A refreshment and reminder on the existing guidance, the advantages, and disadvantages, as well as design considerations of cover systems, are consequently presented below.

A cover system is composed of a single or multiple layers of ‘clean’ materials which are placed above soils that are considered to be potentially harmful to a particular receptor, typically site users on a development site.  Their main purpose is usually to remove or reduce the pathway in the source-pathway-receptor conceptual model. However, one or more layers can, as already noted, have other uses, for instance,  concerning landfills, a cover or capping layer may also be used to limit surface water infiltration.

Technical guidance on the use of cover systems as a remedial technique was first included within CIRIA special publication 104, ‘Remediation Treatment for Contaminated Land Volume IV’ published in 1995, and CIRIA special publication SP124, ‘Barrier lines and cover systems for containment and control of contaminated land’ published in 1996.  However, the use of this technique for the restoration of landfills or mineral extraction sites predated any specific contaminated land guidance.  Both of these CIRIA guidance documents outlined some of the factors that should be considered when designing an engineered cover system, for example, the selection of appropriate materials to guard against the upward movement of contaminants through anthropogenic activities, burrowing animals, and capillary action.  However, there was no actual guidance given on the appropriate thickness of the cover layer to be required. This was left to the discretion of the designer , increasing the risk of an inconsistent approach between sites and geographies arising.

The British Research Establishment (BRE) subsequently published guidance document BRE465 in 2004. This sought to provide some consistency in the approach to designing cover systems.  The document divided cover systems into two distinct types; an engineered covered layer designed to completely break the pathway between the contaminated soils and receptor (as discussed in the CIRIA guidance), and a simple cover layer that reduces the exposure to a receptor.  The detail of this BRE guidance was, however, only to focus its content on simple cover system design.

A key question considered within this BRE guidance was to be the level of intermixing between soil layers that could be considered to arise within a domestic setting. The research was to state that disturbance from anthropogenic activities (digging) and intermixing due to natural processes, such as burrowing animals, earthworm activity, and plant roots, was unlikely to exceed 600mm.

Based on these findings, this guidance contained a method for calculating the thickness of the cover, which used 600mm to be the default mixing zone.   For a given contaminant of concern (COC), the BRE equation determined how much cover would be required to reduce the concentrations to a pre-determined target concentration/assessment criterion.  As a conservative approach, the equation considered that all mixing would occur uniformly across the whole of the mixing zone, but in reality, disturbance (impacted soils being brought to the surface) was likely to be localised.   Finally, the maximum depth of the cover was set at 600mm, but this could be altered if there was reasonable justification.

An Excel spreadsheet was provided with the BRE guidance and a simple check graph enabled the user to determine whether a simple cover system was appropriate.  If the concentration of the COC was too high, then this would be highlighted by the graph.  Advice against the deployment of a simple cover system was also made under conditions where:

  • Non-threshold contaminants (i.e. those that may pose a risk at any concentration, such as asbestos) were present,
  • other contaminant pathways were present, such as the inhalation of vapours/gas, direct contact with rising groundwater, etc.,
  • if there was a risk to groundwater and the need to reduce leachability,
  • where sloping ground was present i.e. where a consistent thickness of cover could not be maintained, and
  • where in areas deeper excavations were required for ponds, tree planting, fencing, etc.

BRE465 remains to be a commonly applied reference.  The NHBC published a technical extra (issue 8) in 2012 on the ‘verification of clean cover system-testing of subsoil and topsoil’.  This document has clearly stated that the topsoil should meet British Standard 3882:2007 and has provided details of how many plots on a residential development should be validated.  The current NHBC technical standards (2022) Chapter 10.2 (Drives, Paths and Landscapes) further positions that:

  • Works should be carried out following a formal remediation statement,
  • Topsoil and subsoil should be of a quality that does not pose a hazard to users,
  • Old foundations, concrete bases and similar obstructions should be removed from 450mm of finished ground level,
  • Appropriate action should be undertaken to restore the physical conditions and drainage characteristics of topsoil and subsoil that has been compacted during construction,
  • A minimum thickness of 100mm topsoil is required.

A key message is that even if the NHBC is not involved with a development, it is now considered as ‘ordinary care’, as their guidance is followed when designing and validating a cover system as a matter of normal practice.

Of further note then with familiarity, it has almost become standard to apply a 600mm clean cover system. Sometimes, but not always, this is underlain by a marker layer in private gardens.   The presence or absence of a marker layer should always be clearly and explicitly described in the remedial strategy. Such reasoning is too often absent or simply inferred.  Next in regards to 600mm this may indeed be adequate to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, however, there is again often little or no justification to the design.   Indeed this depth is based on the mixing zone from the BRE guidance, but the purpose of the guidance was not to set a definitive depth for a cover system.  Assessment criteria derived using the Environment Agency’s contaminated land exposure assessment (CLEA) model takes into account exposure to site users within the top 1 metre of soil. Also, if a landscaped area is planted with trees then the roots will extend beyond a metre depth.  The depth of the cover system should always be based on its specific setting.    In summary, the thickness of a cover layer should again always be clearly and implicitly described in the remedial strategy. Such reasoning is once again too often absent.

Overall,  the advantages of specifying a clean cover system are that it can negate the requirement for the removal of a contamination source; is generally straightforward for a groundworker to implement, and is widely accepted by a Local Authority.  The disadvantages are that to often to little consideration is given to the appropriate design of cover systems. Furthermore; where ground levels cannot be raised, the soils is excavated and removed to accommodate the cover system. The removed soil can either be disposed of off site or reused in accordance with a Materials Management Plan (MMP). Other risk assessment or remedial measures may be able to reduce the quantity of soil requiring replacement and /or disposal. Indeed, the need on occasion of some cover systems can be avoided if a detailed risk assessment is carried out.

In conclusion, the use of a cover system can be a very reasonable and cost-effective remedial solution to use, as long as they are documented, designed then implemented with thought and critical thinking.  However, the technique is so widely used that with over-familiarity it is perhaps sometimes abused.  It may be that as consultants contractors and developers we should take the opportunity to reflect and remind ourselves that we must ensure that a consistent and critical approach is applied. Lastly, let’s never forget to validate!

The National Contaminated Land Officers Group (NCLOG) cover systems subgroup are currently working on a new guidance document, so please keep a look out.

Table 1. Cover systems at a glance

What is a cover system?
Cover systems fall into two categories: firstly, a simple cover layer is typically composed of  one or two layers (topsoil/subsoil) of ‘clean’ material that reduces the exposure to potentially harmful substance(s) in the strata it is placed over.

Secondly, an engineered cover system comprises one or multiple layers which prevent contact within the underlying soils.  Each layer may be designed for a specific purpose such as reducing infiltration, capillary break, no-dig later, etc.
Design considerations (examples)
1)     Purpose of the cover system (simple or engineered)
2)     Topography of the site
3)     Landscaping details
4)     Suitability of the cover soils
5)     Drainage/groundwater
6)     Depth of cover
7)     Sustainability (removal of soils for off-site disposal)

Article provided by Andrew Tranter, Principal Environmental Consultant at RSK

Article

AGS Photography Competition 2023 – photos for AGS stands and extended deadline

- by
Tags: Featured

The AGS is holding a new photography competition for 2023!

We’re on the lookout for your most creative images which are reflective of the geotechnical and geoenvironmental industry.

The winning photos may be used to update the AGS stands, which are used at events and conferences, and across our marketing materials.

If you’re a budding photographer or have a great engineering image which you’d like to enter, then we’d like to see it!

Entry into the competition is free and the winner of the competition will win a food hamper basket from luxury retailer, Fortnum and Mason, worth over £75. Three runners up will each win a bottle of Champagne.

There are no restrictions on the photography equipment used, so feel free to use a phone, computer, tablet or a traditional hand-held camera to capture your image as long as the below criteria are met.

All entries will be reviewed by select members of the AGS, who will decide on a shortlist and a potential winner. Full details will be announced in the November issue.

IMAGE REQUIREMENTS

The AGS are looking for high resolution JPEG images (300 DPI / over 1MB image file size) of a geotechnical and geoenvironmental nature. Images can include project imagery, laboratory testing, collaborative working and more. Photographs featuring any on-site operatives should showcase health and safety procedures in place, if appropriate. Images should be no smaller than 4200 x 3400 pixels.

HOW TO ENTER
• Please email your image with;

  • A short description of what it showcases and where it was taken (up to 50 words)
  • Image credit information (if applicable)
  • Your full name
  • Company name
  • Postal address

to ags@ags.org.uk with the subject ‘AGS Magazine: Photography Competition 2023’ in the email.

  • There is no limit to the number of images you enter.
  • The deadline for entries has been extended to 25th August 2023.
  • Entry into the competition is free.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
• Applicants must be aged 18 or over.
• All images must be high resolution and 300 DPI (dots per inch) / over 1MB image file size.
• Applicants must be based in the UK.
• The photographer must have full copyright of all entered images and appropriate permissions from all involved parties, for all images submitted.
• All images entered may be reproduced by the AGS and used in future AGS event and marketing literature without prior notice. This may include usage across the AGS’ social media channels, inclusion in the AGS Magazine, event programmes and on the AGS website. Please note that all images used will be credited.

 

 

Article Sustainability

COP27 and a ‘Way Forward’

- by
Tags: Featured

Between 6-20 November 2022, the COP27 (‘27th Conference of Parties’) conference was held in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. This built on discussions and decisions made at the COP26 conference in Glasgow in 2021.

You may ask why is this relevant to the AGS?  Simply put, the effects of global warming and climate change affect everyone and every business sector. The UK Government set a clear mandate for the UK to achieve zero carbon emissions by 2050, and for this to be achieved,  all businesses need to be aware of Government policy and start the process of baselining and carbon control/ reduction. The direction of Government policy is likely to be highly influenced by the outcomes and agreements made at the COP conferences.

A summary of the headlines from COP27 is listed below. Relevant items to the geo-industry are the ‘Early Warning System’, ‘Clean technology’ and ‘Adaptation’.

  • Loss and damage fund– Governments agreed to establish new funding arrangements, as well as a dedicated fund, to assist developing countries in responding to loss and damage.
  • Brazil is back– Brazil’s president (the elect) Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva announced that “Brazil is back”. He said: “There is no climate security for the world without a protected Amazon. We will spare no efforts to have zero deforestation and the degradation of our biomes by 2030.”
  • Emission commitments– The US also announced plans to cut methane emissions, leading to an 87% reduction by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. Mexico has upped its commitment to cut carbon emissions from 22% to 35% by 2030.
  • Indonesia Just Energy Transition Partnership–The partnership will mobilise $20bn over the next three to five years to accelerate a just energy transition.
  • Early Warning System– An action plan for the Early Warning for All initiative was launched at COP27, which will be able to give early warnings against increasingly extreme and dangerous weather to everyone on the planet within five years.
  • Clean technology– Governments representing over half of global GDP set out a 12-month action plan to help make clean technologies cheaper and more accessible everywhere, as part of the ‘Breakthrough Agenda’.
  • More focus on adaptation – New pledges, totalling more than $230m, were made to an Adaptation Fund at COP27. The Global Shield Financing Facility was launched to provide funding to countries suffering climate disasters.
  • Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership launched– This will hold annual meetings with government representatives on progress to halt forest loss and land degradation by 2030

In a round up by Sarah Mukherjee, CEO of IEMA, who attended the COP27, she commented on COP27;

  • “Without the skills, without the training, and without education, there will be no green economy. These skills are not just for the office workers and the latte-drinking classes, but they are for technicians, for engineers, for people who are doing first and secondary jobs within the economy and are absolutely vital if we are to get where we need to go.”
  • $100 B per year required from developed countries for meaningful mitigation actions
  • The 1.5oC limit on rising global temperatures is still achievable …just

Therefore, it appears that provided the population is educated, trained and enabled to support a ‘green economy’, which will also require adaptation and use of clean technology, the target limit on global warming is still ‘just about’ possible, but the happenings during the decade to 2030 will be crucial. Everyone and every business can be part of achieving current targets.

The AGS is looking at creating a sustainability working group which will act across all the existing working groups to coordinate ideas, tools,  innovations and guidance to support the AGS members and the geo-industry in navigating the route to carbon net zero and support minimising climate change.

Article provided by Jo Strange, Technical Director, CGL

Article Laboratories

Coal Tar: Analysis and Detection

- by
Tags: Featured

The analysis of and detection of coal tar has seen a significant increase in the last few years. This is linked, primarily, with an increased focus on thorough waste classification and some long running nationwide initiatives such as the Streetworks Project. It encompasses all the regional water companies and activities in line with the Regulatory Position Statement RPS211 relating to the excavated waste from utilities installation and repair, the withdrawal of which was delayed until April 2023 due to the scale of works underway and still requiring of completion.

One of the challenges facing laboratories is the lack of standardization in the specification of requirements from the clients and also the analysis itself. As an area not fully understood in terms of hazardous classification, it became beholden on the labs to put forward a range of approaches that would encapsulate the variety of client specifications while also providing what was hoped would be sufficient levels of detail to allow for the onward use of data for a range of purposes.

A recent review through the AGS Laboratories Working Group revealed a range of techniques, some common themes and a potentially confusing landscape for the industry to navigate in order to secure a fit for purpose and cost effective solution.

The two primary sources of information which influence the testing requirements, other than the labs individual clients are the EA WM3 (1st Edition v1.2) Technical Guidance and the ADEPT Guide to Managing Reclaimed Asphalt (Version 2019 revision 1).

From section 3.2 of WM3, we have the following based on the knowledge that coal tar is present:

  • Coal tar levels over 0.1% result in a hazardous classification to HP7,
  • The total must be inclusive of all compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) concentration alone is not sufficient,
  • If the concentration of Benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) is less than 0.005% of the coal tar then HP7 does not apply.

Looking specifically to Asphalt waste already classified  under 17 03 01* or 17 03 02 (bituminous mixtures that do/don’t contain coal tar respectively) then we also have to consider:

  • If B(a)P is greater or equal to 50mg/kg in the Black top alone then the amount of coal tar should be considered to be sufficient (0.1%or more) to be considered hazardous and coded 17 03 01*.

The ADEPT guidance provides more specific focus on the managing of reclaimed asphalt and provides information in to the classification of waste. It reiterates and references WM3 and the 0.1% threshold for coal tar and also the use of the 50mg/kg level for measuring B(a)P should the total coal tar concentration not be available for measurement.

What the ADEPT guidance then gives, is a clear and defined protocol for sampling, sample preparation, sample volumes and data review with also indication of analytical requirements and basic principles.

The document gives details and refences to specific British Standards for the sampling and preparation of road plannings and road cores (BS 932 and BS 12697), and then recommends the following testing;

  • PAH analysis in the laboratory by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS) for the USEPA16 suite of PAHs, though only B(a)P may be necessary. It is worth noting here that labs will test for the full suite in a single process so requesting B(a)P only will usually give no cost or speed benefit. Should further characterisation for landfill disposal be required then the USEPA17 suite inclusive of coronene should be used,
  • Screening methods such as PAK marker sprays or Acrylic White sprays can be used but validated by the use of frequent ‘full’ analysis,
  • Specifies the use of Monohydric Phenol (Phenol Index) testing, with a potential requirement to speciate the individual compounds (Phenol, Cresols and Xylenols) should the levels be sufficiently high.

In terms of data review the 3 potential outcomes are

1.Classed as Inert for the purposes of the Quality Protocol for Aggregates from Inert Waste if:

a. The guidance of sample numbers has been observed,
b. All the B(Aa)P results are below 25mg/kg,
c. There are ≥3 results.

2. Classed as Hazardous and treated accordingly is:

a. All the B(a)P results are above 50mg/kg

Note: If there are limited results and close to the threshold then further investigation is      required

3. Full statistical analysis required to make assessment if:

a. Some or all results are above 25mg/kg and below 50mg/kg

The incorporation of the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing for characterization and landfill disposal is a good example of where labs adapt to meet the broader requirements of the customer. From the recent AGS LWG study, we can see a number of consistent elements:

    • Quantification of PAH compounds including B(a)P,
    • ‘Total’ extractable material/coal tar, usually by Dichloromethane (DCM) extraction and quantification either gravimetrically or by GCMS
    • ‘Forensic’ identification of coal tar

There is little to no consistency as to the how, but the principles all involve the selective identification of 1 or more marker compounds (Benzothiophene was common but arrange of other phenols, heterocyclics and aromatics were used) by GCMS

And then also often included in the suite we can see:

  • A range of more traditional TPH tests, from a straightforward C10 – C40 extractable Hydrocarbons to a more thorough TPHCWG range from C5-C44 including Aliphatic and Aromatic breakdown,
  • A Chromatographic interpretation of the hydrocarbon source
    • Usually taken from the TPH analysis, done either as a general identification against a library of standard chromatograms to identify exactly what fuel source is present, presumably should it not be Coal Tar. A specific determination of whether the hydrocarbon source can be identified as either diesel or weathered diesel. While neither of these are specifically relevant to Coal Tar, as part of the Classification process within WM3 when considering hydrocarbon contamination then should coal tar not be the issue, varying caveats can be applied to the hazardous threshold should the contamination be of a specific type and the laboratory identification of diesel as a source is one the most prevalently used.
  • Phenolics
    • Either as a simple Monohydric Phenol (compounds containing one hydroxyl group) of a speciated output using HPLC or GCMS to identify specifically the Phenol, Cresol and Xylenol content amongst a range of other phenolic compounds.

The running of additional testing may seem extraneous based on the specific context of your project at that stage, but consideration of any subsequent stages may give rise to a more comprehensive suite. The relative costs of laboratory testing compared to the associated site costs in holding/transporting/disposing of waste materials are low, so a comprehensive approach may present a more cost effective solution.

It is also worth revisiting the question you are trying to answer, as the specific identification of coal tar may be of secondary importance to the quantified PAH, specifically the B(a)P results, in terms of onward management.

As with any project involving lab work, the overarching recommendation would always be to consult with your lab at the outset and throughout to discuss options and define a project specific set of requirements rather than looking for a default or ‘standard’ solution, especially in an area like waste and waste classification where standard solutions are a thing we can still only imagine.

References:

  • Guidance on the classification and assessment of waste (1st Edition v1.2.GB) Technical Guidance WM3 (October 2021)
  • ADEPT Guide to Managing Reclaimed Asphalt Version 2019 Revision 1 (August 2019)

Article provided by Will Fardon (Technical Director, Chemtech Environmental Limited) on behalf of the AGS Laboratories Working Group

Article Geotechnical Sustainability

Net Zero – The Use of Timber Piles

- by
Tags: Featured

Introduction

As the construction industry works towards a ‘Net Carbon Zero’ future, we are asked to take a hard look at current practices to find areas where the carbon cost associated with our built environment can be reduced. The cement industry is widely recognised as being one of the main producers of carbon dioxide emissions, accounting for around 7% of global emissions. Low carbon and carbon neutral concrete products are already entering the market, but the use of timber as an alternative to concrete piles provides an opportunity to use a sustainable foundation material. This brief article considers the benefits, limitations and suitability of using timber piles in the UK.

In 2009 a technical paper by Reynolds and Bates was published in Ground Engineering magazine, titled “The Potential for Timber Piling in the UK”. It explored the current global locations and circumstances in which timber piles are used and discussed the potential for UK locations with comparable ground conditions where their use could be considered. The article states that timber piles are currently widely used in the Netherlands, the United States, New Zealand, Canada and Australia, and concludes that timber piles are “an entirely viable, low cost and sustainable alternative to steel and concrete, with the potential to be used for many projects”. A notable example of timber pile use given in the article is the Cargo Terminal at John F. Kennedy Airport in the USA. BRE Digest 479 (Timber Piles and Foundations) cites a number of historic examples where timber piles have been used, including Old London Bridge in the UK, the Royal Palace in Amsterdam and the Pont Notredame bridge in Paris.

Timber Pile Characteristics

A timber pile is essentially the trunk of a tree, stripped of branches and bark. They are currently used in the UK in maritime construction, such as groynes, piers, jetties and for sea defences, where timber is favoured due to its ease of handling in overwater environments, its ability to absorb impacts and low cost.

Since timber is a renewable material it has a significantly lower carbon cost associated with its production and use than its concrete and steel counterparts. The monetary costs to produce and transport timber piles are lower than those of concrete and steel (as described in Reynolds and Bates, 2009). The placement of timber in the ground is a form of carbon sequestration, which plays an important part in ensuring the overall Net Zero compliance of a project.

One of the main drawbacks to using timber is that it is biodegradable. Decay occurs fastest when the timber is exposed to the air, which allows fungal decay and rot to occur. As such, a typical life span for timber placed in an unsaturated environment is c. 25 years.

Timber placed below groundwater level, in a saturated, anoxic environment, will decay at a much slower rate and can have a design life of up to 100 years depending on the timber species used. The piles can be chemically treated to provide additional resistance to biodegradation, however, the chemicals used may have the potential to introduce contamination into the ground.

To minimise degradation, the top of the pile that extends above the water table (i.e. not in saturated ground) is typically formed of concrete. This can be a pre-cast concrete section connected to the timber or can comprise a concrete pile cap spanning several timber piles. Pre-boring the pile locations and setting the timber pile in concrete or grout can also be used to slow degradation, however this will increase the amount of concrete used and the arisings that require disposal.

Although timber, as a pile, will have a lower compressive strength compared to concrete or steel piles, it is often the case that the bearing capacity of the pile is governed by the properties of the surrounding soil rather than the strength of the pile itself. On this basis the use of timber piles may be equally suitable to that of concrete in certain settings.

Pile length is another design consideration that may impact the suitability of using timber piles. As timber piles are typically difficult to splice, the maximum pile length is restricted by the height to which the tree can grow, which is also dependant on the species. Conversely, timber piles can easily be cut down to size as needed and the off cuts are biodegradable.

Pile Construction and Suitable Locations

Installation of timber piles is predominantly carried out using driven techniques. The success of this technique will depend on the ground conditions, since the presence of dense layers, hard bands or variable strata could result in the refusal of the piles at unplanned depths. Driving through harder bands may be achieved with the inclusion of a driving shoe at the toe of the pile, therefore a good understanding of the ground conditions present is key to ensuring the successful installation of timber piles.

Ground conditions most amenable to the installation of driven timber piles comprise soft deposits such as soft clay or peat, over a denser material such as gravel or rock, with a high water table. Reynolds and Bates identify such ground conditions to exist in numerous estuarine and river valley locations around the UK, including the Severn estuary, the Fens in east Anglia and the marshes of Dartmouth.

The seasonal variation of groundwater levels at a site needs to be well understood if the development is to consider using timber piles, as the degradation, and consequently the design life, of a timber pile is primarily governed by whether the ground is saturated or not. This places a greater importance on groundwater monitoring and modelling to understand the existing groundwater regime as well as the impact that climate change will have on groundwater levels through the design life of a project. Understanding the groundwater regime of a site is already a key part of geotechnical design, and a requirement of Eurocodes. As such, any additional data gathering at ground investigation stage of a project may not extend significantly beyond the typical geotechnical needs of a project.

Conclusion

Ground conditions exist in the UK that may be amenable to the use of timber piles. As with any geotechnical design, the collection of relevant information at ground investigation stage is crucial, but wouldn’t necessarily require any particular measures beyond what would be expected in order to satisfy current standards. The use of timber for on-shore piling is not an impossible or unreasonable solution to reducing the carbon cost of construction and may, in due course, be driven by necessity to address the climate crisis.

References
1. https://www.geplus.co.uk/technical-paper/technical-paper-the-potential-for-timber-piling-in-the-uk-01-01-2009/

Article provided by Katharine Barker, Associate, Campbell Reith

 

Article

Inside Seequent

- by
Tags: Featured

Name: Phil Child

Job title: Senior Consultant, Ground Information Management

Company name: Seequent, The Bentley Subsurface Company

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

Seequent has long been established in providing software solutions to geoscientists, serving mining, energy, environmental and civil industries.  After joining the Bentley Systems family in 2021, the infrastructure elements have recently been bolstered.  We now talk more of ‘subsurface’ to emphasize the commonality between engineers and geoscientists as this better reflects the people we serve.

Where is Seequent located?

Seequent is headquartered in Christchurch, New Zealand with offices across Europe, the Americas, Australasia, and Africa.

How many people does the company employ?

650

How long have you worked at Seequent?

Bentley’s Ground Information Team joined Seequent when it became The Bentley Subsurface Company; given the nature of what we do, working more closely with other teams focused on subsurface modelling and analysis made a lot of sense for us. So officially I’ve been with Seequent for less than a year, but if you trace back to the original company before various organisational changes I actually joined Key Systems Geotechnical almost twenty years ago.

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

Many years ago, I began working for my dad, a geotechnical consultant.  At the time I was a long-haired, English graduate and only intended to stay for a stopgap.  That stopgap turned into six and a half years, and it was there that I gained access to the HoleBASE software.  I then worked within construction alongside the IT department as a document management specialist.  From there, I joined Key Systems Geotechnical as an Applications Manager.  Since then, I’ve held various roles but have always been client facing.  This suits me well as it has been the interaction between the person and the software which has always fascinated me the most.  Perhaps unsurprisingly I’m particularly fond of training and public speaking, that English degree proving to be useful after all!  On the way I also picked up an Environmental Studies degree and studied Law for a while.  At some point I’d like to finish the latter of those but first I need a find a year I can dedicate to study.

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

As a member of the professional services team, my role involves providing consultative assistance to organisations who are implementing our software.  This typically involves providing coaching assistance, contact meetings and other supporting activities.  In some cases, this includes the development of components such as templates, import mappings or other bespoke resources.  Alongside this, we often support the activities of other departments in the team, such as sales, support, or development.  Additionally, I might put time into other activities which are more specific to my individual role.  For example, I like to evolve our training resources whenever the opportunity allows.  Also, I currently sit on the Data Management and Instrumentation and Monitoring AGS working groups and engage in supporting activities (currently, that seems involve a lot of proof reading!).

What are the company’s core values?

We believe that a better understanding of the Earth creates a better world for all, because when everyone can see the full picture, they can make better decisions that benefit people and the planet. We stand for enabling sustainability for both people and the planet, building community within geoscience and locally, and progressing science by driving innovation and ideas.

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

There are many but something I believe Seequent should be proud of is the culture it has created.  Despite being a sizable organisation, it takes time to celebrate its successes.  This might be the success of colleagues but equally extends to those of our clients.  This serves as a useful reminder that we are all involved in important and useful work, whether we are true ground specialists or providers of services.

How important is sustainability within the company?

Sustainability is key with a focus for considering the ‘handprint’ as well as the ‘footprint’ we can have.  That is, we consider not only our own impact but the impact of others; how we can develop our software and services to aid others to deliver more sustainable offerings.

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

As with many companies, colleagues are encouraged to engage in STEM activities at a variety of levels, so you could argue this supports pre-under graduates!  Of course, there are the typical internships, induction courses and mentoring schemes one might expect.  However, there are also specific individuals within our organisation whose role is to engage with universities and foster those relationships.  This provides the students of today with access to the tools and skills that they will be using in the workplace tomorrow.  Further, I believe this can be especially important for geotechnical engineering as I have encountered some students who were otherwise unaware of the existence of this industry!

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

Although remote working has long been the norm for some of us, COVID-19 has normalised this.  This has the added benefit of helping everyone be more focused on the face-to-face meetings, perhaps seeing them more as opportunities than we did three years ago.  In conjunction with this, there is a greater openness to consider and discuss issues of wellbeing.  For example, we have a growing number of mental health first aiders.

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

I feel the AGS provides a vital role to what is a relatively small industry.  What strikes me time again is that ground investigation in the UK is rather like a family – everyone knows everyone else and is very passionate about what they do.  The AGS provides a metaphorical gathering for this family.  It gathers those of similar interest in a non-partisan way to serve and seek the best both for and in our working lives.

What are Seequent’s future ambitions?

For those of us in the Ground Information Management team, we now sit alongside a broader group of software specialists who provide related but distinct products.  I think we can all look forward to a greater interaction between those products and specialities!

Article Laboratories

Instrument Supplier Issues

- by
Tags: Featured

From 2019 it has been a common topic of discussion amongst lab folk to bemoan the current situation with regard to the supply of analytical instruments and associated consumables. The combined impact of Brexit and COVID, compounded more recently by some alarming global politics and the impact upon, amongst other things, the cost of fuel, the availability of specific electronic components and the restrictions to international transport has meant that what started as an irritation is now having a significant impact upon laboratory productivity and cost to market.

In 2020, an issue was raised to the AGS Laboratory Working Group by one of its members regarding the difficulties in obtaining consumable parts for equipment used in geotechnical testing, a problem echoed by multiple parties – not only the availability of the parts, but also the quality of the parts as and when they could be sought. As a group we looked to collate examples of specific problems and then go back to the market to try and ascertain root cause and hopefully some solutions. Some examples of that list can be seen below:

  • CBR Moulds received without a base, collar and set of spanners rendering them useless,
  • Moulds have standard requirements with measured tolerances given which are being failed,
  • CBR rammers supplied with the top fixed so that it cannot be removed – so it isn’t then possible to check/confirm compliance with the standards,
  • New balance equipment failed calibration and had to be returned to supplier unused,
  • MCV machine new purchase not working on receipt, returned to the supplier,
  • Electrical equipment supplied without plugs,
  • Hand held compactors that fail the weight criteria,
  • 5-6 month lead times on delivery of analytical equipment compared to 2-3 month historical precedent,
  • Long lead times in delivery of routine consumables from outside UK,
  • Lack of available support and engineers for maintenance and prevention,
  • Sizeable price increases across almost all sectors.

Following discussion with suppliers held within the working group and by members as part of their everyday lives a range of reasons have been cited and even a couple of potential ways forward to help future proof some of these issues (and we didn’t include reversing Brexit as it feels a little outside the scope of AGS….)

I would be surprised if there was a company in the UK, if not the wider world that hasn’t been impacted in terms of staffing and practical logistics by COVID over the last 3 years. We all took significant measures to ensure safe working practices (home/remote working, shift patterns, altered procedures), financial stability (furlough) and customer retention (adapted working practices) and the impact of that was keenly felt. Right now, in the final quarter of 2022 the restrictions are largely reduced but there is still a considerable impact upon staff absence that is attributable to COVID.

But how about outside the UK? One recent conversation highlighted that changes to import/export protocols in China implemented as a direct result of COVID combined with shortages of electrical components were causing 2-3 month delays in the manufacturing process at the operational bases in the far east – for anyone who has had a car from Korea on order for the last year will testify this is not an industry specific problem!

A little closer to home, we are seeing issues with European suppliers struggling to navigate the amended trade and transit protocols post Brexit, with parts and equipment either taking significantly longer to receive, even if it is available. One supplier even refusing to house parts in the UK and when questioned citing difficulties around the ‘rules’ of Brexit and even less helpfully that “we voted for it”…

One of the biggest issues with the supply of manufactured parts is the now reliance on the world outside of UK and Europe, with both trade restrictions and cost implications meaning that UK suppliers can either no longer provide the elements themselves in a cost effective way, or can no longer use their legacy suppliers and are having to look further and wider to remain operational. Not necessarily an issue, but what this has brought with it, and is often a consequence of outsourcing on a budget, is that quality issues have been introduced.

A lot of the parts needed for geotechnical methodologies are very clearly specified and linked to a formal standard, and the acceptable tolerances are purposefully low. In multiple instances members have flagged (and see the bullet point list above) the receipt of such goods which are outside of spec ‘out of the box’ or come incomplete or in some other way unusable. One UK based supplier was able to join a Working Group meeting during 2021 to try and shed some light onto this new and re-occurring issue and as suggested above, pushed blame directly to the fact the traditional manufacturing sources had become unavailable and they were reliant on these new suppliers for whom the relevant standards to which we must comply were not applicable or certainly not a requirement. Solutions? Increase cost, at which point they could explore new or legacy suppliers but that cost would have to be accepted across the industry and out to the labs client base.

And unfortunately any conversation on cost at the current time can’t ignore the current economic status in the UK and abroad, energy crisis and spiraling costs for pretty much everything in our personal and professional lives. Geo-environmental testing has traditionally been a race to the bottom price wise, a 20 year trend that has to end with the risk to quality, both in terms of service but also in the supply of essential goods and consumables threatening to have a considerable impact upon the output.

But outside of price, if not tangentially related to it, is there anything else we can look at to try and ensure a sustainable quality standard? Two potential areas that have been discussed are:

  • Certification – as an industry we could approach major suppliers to adopt a form of certification, effectively providing some additional guarantees on the quality of items supplied and the now hidden supply chain. This would require considerable organization and buy in, plus no doubt increase in costs to ensure compliance plus a cost of arbitration but from a supplier perspective, it is common in other industries to hold and advertise compliance with formal certification as a way of distinguishing yourself from competition and pushing revenue generation
  • Clarity in the supply process – a push for clarity on behalf of suppliers and also responsibility of purchasers to clearly identify what is being sold, what is needed and to which formal standards it is accredited. A lot of equipment now is identified on the website of the supplier in line with which specific standards (ASTM, EN, ISO, BS, etc.) it complies and for which methodology it is applicable so a buyer can make informed decisions as to what they are ordering. A fairly straightforward ‘vote with your feet’ approach to those who don’t would put pressure on to ensure updates are made and we have a level playing field, and some accountability for supplying the right kit. Supply of equipment claiming compliance and clearly failing could then be taken up as breach of the Trade Descriptions Act, whereas products that promise nothing and under deliver are more difficult to challenge…

I think we are all aware that the world (politically and economically) is in a state of transition but we are several years into a period of history in which changes are forced upon us and the impact of many of these changes has been negative for our industry. Through AGS and the working groups we can support you and your business in helping apply pressure to the industry or market place and with a coordinated front may hopefully drive some positive change.

Article provided by Will Fardon (Technical Director, Chemtech Environmental Limited) on behalf of the AGS Laboratories Working Group

Article

The AGS Geotechnical Data Conference 2022 – Overview

- by
Tags: Featured

This year’s AGS Geotechnical Data Conference was a sold-out event with just under 150 attendees gathering at the Burlington Hotel in Birmingham.

Chaired by Jackie Bland (Principal Ground Investigation Data Manager at Structural Soils and AGS Data Management Working Group Leader), the conference saw delegates enjoy four sessions of presentations and Q&A’s throughout the day. Celebrations for the 30th anniversary of the AGS Data Format also took place, with balloons and cupcakes decorating the venue as delegates networked.

Beginning with the ‘What’s Happening Now’ session, Jackie Bland opened the conference with a presentation on AGS 4.1.1, before passing over to Neil Chadwick (Director, Digital Geotechnical) and Jérôme Chamfray (Chief Geo-digital Engineer, Jacobs) for a talk about the AGSi V1.0.0 launch. Dr Roger Chandler (Director, Geotechnical Information Management, Seequent) covered the OpenSource AGS Validator and the AGS 4 Python Library, Phil Wade (Managing Director, Datgel) updated on AGS 4.2 In Situ Testing, Tom Smith (Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Ørsted) spoke about using AGS data when transferring advanced geotechnical laboratory test data, and Neil Chadwick returned for a short update on AGS Piling to end the session.

Chaired by Craig Brown (Senior Data Manager, BAM Ritchies), session two comprised of a panel Q&A which saw the audience get involved with interactive polls relating to the use of data in their organisations. The panel included Vicky Corcoran (Principal Engineering Geologist, Atkins), Tom Smith, Mark Bevan (Associate Director (Data Management Team Leader), Structural Soils), Paul Chaplin (Data Manager – Ground & Water, WSP UK) and Jackie Bland. Delegates were able to live submit their questions to the Data Management Working Group, spurring discussions on the future of data and the Data Management Working Group’s next steps.

For session three, four speakers shared their thoughts on the future of data in their own organisations. The session was chaired by Simon Miles (Chief Geotechnical Engineer, Atkins) and began with Jonathan White’s (Geotechnical Engineer, Ørsted) presentation about using AGS data to build offshore wind farms. Callum Irving (Lead Geospatial Data and Standards Advisor, Cabinet Office – Geospatial Commission) spoke of the work taking place with the Geospatial Commission, Verity Wadesmith (Principal Geotechnical Engineer, Mott MacDonald) discussed how AGS data has been better used for national highways, and Pamela Rigby (Principal Geotechnical Engineer, United Utilities) finished the session with a presentation on the challenges relating to data from a client’s perspective.

Our final session ‘Pushing the Boundaries of Data’ was chaired by David Entwisle (Honorary Research Associate, British Geological Survey), and opened with Ian Williams (Director at GeoConsult and Ground Investigation) demonstrating how he works with AGS data in Mathematica Notebooks. Tony Daly (Managing Director, Amageo) touched on complicated tech and the future of open-source software, before Julian Lovell (Immediate Past AGS Chair and Managing Director at Equipe Group) delivered the final presentation with a discussion on the revisions in the new edition of the UK Specification for Ground Investigation.

It was a great event and a brilliant opportunity for everyone to gather and exchange ideas.

A big thank you to all of our speakers, and a special thanks to our sponsors and exhibitors: Jacobs, Seequent, SOCOTEC, BAM Ritchies, Geotechnical Engineering, Datgel, Geosense, SoilCloud, Wolfram, Landmark Geodata, Equipe, Terrasol, SUEZ and Groundsure.

Article

A Guide to Pressuremeter Testing: From Site to Design Webinar – Overview

- by
Tags: Featured

The AGS webinar on A Guide to Pressuremeter Testing: From Site to Design took place on 10th November 2022 and had over 950 delegates registered to attend.

This webinar included a presentation by Thomas Cragg (Director, Cambridge Insitu Ltd) and Yasmin Byrne (Senior Engineer, Cambridge Insitu Ltd) on ‘A guide to direct strain pressuremeters, from site survey to engineering parameters’, which provided an introduction to direct strain pressuremeters such as those manufactured and used by Cambridge Insitu, a summary of the different types of pressuremeter and how they are deployed in different situations. The talk also explained how testing is carried out and an outline of the theory in which the data analysis is based.

The second presentation was by Ross Thompson (Associate Director, WSP UK Ltd) on ‘Consultant’s view on pressuremeter testing in relation to foundation design’ which gave a brief overview of how various pressuremeter derived parameters have been used in design of foundations, in particular the design of foundations for high rise developments and covered how pressuremeter testing has been used to optimise foundation solutions and a comparison between other methods of testing.

The webinar was chaired by Alex Dent (Associate Director at WSP) and Emma Cronin (Senior Geotechnical Engineer at SOCOTEC UK).

Thank you to In Situ Site Investigation for sponsoring the webinar.

If you missed this webinar, the replay is now live and available for view on the AGS website for free. Click HERE to view the replay.

Article Instrumentation & Monitoring

The Impact of COVID-19 (Coronavirus) on Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring

- by
Tags: Featured

At the beginning of 2020, COVID-19 (Coronavirus) emerged as a global scale pandemic which has fundamentally affected how we live and work. In response to the growing scale of the virus, the United Kingdom announced a series of nationwide lockdowns starting in March 2020, requiring people to stay at home and for all non-essential work activities and travel to cease.

As a result of this national lockdown, almost all construction and investigation projects were forced to stop work until new safe systems of work could be agreed and implemented. As part of this, many construction related operatives were placed on furlough.

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS) formed the Instrumentation and Monitoring Working Group (I&MWG) in 2020, which has had to operate within the limitations of the COVID-19 safety measures from its inception, meeting almost exclusively via Microsoft Teams until recently. The group works to promote geotechnical, structural and environmental instrumentation and monitoring (I&M) to the geotechnical, geoenvironmental and wider engineering community. This report aims to highlight in brief the immediate and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Instrumentation and Monitoring projects within the United Kingdom.

Immediate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on I&M projects and ground investigation.

As with most construction related industries, the ground investigation and I&M industry ceased most non-essential activities upon the announcement of the national lockdown in March 2020. The only exception to this being where projects were classed as being of national importance, examples of this including works on key infrastructure such as utilities (water, power etc.), or where safety-critical works were being carried out. In these circumstances, site operatives were classified as “Key Workers” and therefore were able to work around the lockdown rules for work purposes only.

Following guidance issued by the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) and key industry stakeholders outlining new safe working procedures to carry out site operations, ground investigation and long-term monitoring projects were able to recommence on a larger scale by June/July 2020.

During the initial lockdown period, it was reported that most geotechnical/structural instrumentation and monitoring was largely unaffected by the pandemic lockdown measures, due mostly to monitoring technicians being able to “Lone Work” meaning that social distancing measures could be adhered to. Some individuals anecdotally remarked that monitoring became easier and more efficient due to the decreased levels of traffic on the roads as a result of the lockdown and “Working From Home” initiatives.

It was noted that there were some initial minor issues for existing long-term I&M projects regarding the delivery of monitoring data at the contractually pre-agreed frequencies/intervals, as a result of the disruption in the monitoring programmes caused by the lockdown measures. However, once the uncertainty of the initial lockdown period had passed and safe systems of work were in place allowing wide-scale construction related activities to recommence, it was noted that these issues were quickly resolved.

Sales of I&M equipment were noted to slow slightly in the first months of the national lockdown measures, however this was to be expected due to the temporary cessation of on-site activities and uncertainty surrounding the speed at which construction projects could recommence. Short term disruption to the supply of I&M equipment was also noted, caused by the initial lockdown measures interfering with the logistics network.

Long term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on I&M projects and ground investigation

In general it is apparent that there have not been any significant long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on I&M projects. Once construction and ground investigation activities could recommence, with the new safe systems of work in place, instrumentation and monitoring was able to continue mostly unaffected.

It was noted that there was some increased interest in the implementation of automated monitoring systems for larger I&M projects, however, it is unclear whether this could be directly attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was suggested by one leading I&M manufacturer/distributor that there was a general increase in interest towards automated monitoring prior to the pandemic, which suggests that the industry is naturally shifting towards more automation as the technology improves and becomes more readily available.

Some issues have been identified with the supply network for I&M equipment, notably the availability of parts/components in the UK. Whilst the component producers and global logistics network is still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, most manufacturers have anticipated this and preordered stock to ensure adequate supply. However, as other factors begin to influence the supply network (such as Brexit and other geo-political influences), availability and cost of I&M equipment could be affected in the future.

Conclusion

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on I&M were mostly isolated to the initial lockdown period between March – July 2020. Disruption was noted to ongoing I&M projects due to construction sites having to close. However, once safe systems of work were agreed by the CLC and key industry stakeholders, most I&M (and related activities) could recommence with only minor adjustments to PPE and social distancing.

There have not been any significant long-term impacts of the pandemic for I&M, however it is noted that there could be future challenges for the supply of I&M equipment whilst global manufacturing and logistics recover. However, it is noted that other geo-political challenges could also have an influence on the availability of components and equipment.

Article provided by Tom Birch (Senior Engineer, Geotechnics) on behalf of the AGS Instrumentation & Monitoring Working Group

Photo credit to Tom Birch (Geotechnics)

 

Article Loss Prevention

The Coal Authority and Mining Risk Assessment

- by
Tags: Featured

In October 2020 the AGS posted an article in the Newsletter describing concerns raised by a number of Members with respect to the Coal Authority (CA) and coal mining risk assessments (CMRAs), where the CA was;

  1. acting as a Statutory Consultee for planning applications (in relevant areas) and thus providing related guidance for developers and
  2. undertaking CMRAs on behalf of third parties as a commercial service.

Views of Members were sought, following which, discussions were held with the CA and a detailed account of the various concerns was sent.  The CA responded to this letter by referring to their ethical wall policy on the basis of which they considered the concerns of members to be unfounded.

In summary the CA state that Coal Mining Risk Assessments prepared by the CA are produced by an entirely different team to their planners, and that CMRAs prepared by the Coal Authority are treated in exactly the same way as those from any other provider and that Coal Authority Consultant’s Coal Mining Report (included in the CMRA), is charged at the same rate for both internal and external customers.

On behalf of Members, the AGS wrote again to the CA requesting specific evidence to support the various assertions made.  After a series of holding replies, the Coal Authority informed us that our letter had been escalated to a Stage 2 complaint and would be responded to in due course.  In August of this year the CA provided their response to this complaint.  Although the CA did not provide any supporting evidence, they did provide a firm assurance that their procedures [the Confidentiality (Ethical Wall) policy and guidelines] are being employed which ensures they act correctly and not in contravention of their status as a non-departmental public body.

The AGS Loss Prevention Working Group has agreed that it has now taken this matter as far as we can at this stage.  However, Members are advised that if in future they are involved in a situation where there is particular evidence that the CA is not complying with their stated policy and procedures described above, that evidence could be submitted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/. The AGS LPWG would be pleased to be copied in to any such correspondence or updated with the consequences and we would be happy provide any support / assistance that we can at that time.