State of play

Figure 1 – Overview of the Engineering Geology Life Cycle and data collected throughout

As it stands the engineering geology life cycle (Figure 1) feels a bit disconnected, especially when it comes to passing data through each phase of the project. This leads to data being lost at each stage of the cycle and ultimately the project never benefiting from all the potential information available (Figure 2). This is somewhat understandable given the number of different parties involved in the collection, processing and interpretation of data and each party focused on different phases of the life cycle. However, this should not be used as an excuse. The lack of technological advancements across the construction industry has also left us lagging behind other sectors of the economy (Figure 3).

Figure 2 – Schematic of the current and potential journey of information through the different phases of a typical engineering geology project

Figure 3 – Productivity of the construction industry compared with services, manufacturing and the whole economy.

Source: Taken from McKinsey Global Institute (2017)

The creation of the AGS data format in 1991 was a significant step to improving data transfer in the ground engineering industry. However, there have been limited further strides forward since then and we are approaching the 30-year anniversary since its introduction. So, what is the solution?

Data at the centre

Figure 4 – The engineering life cycle with data at the centre

Firstly, we must put data at the centre of the engineering geology life cycle (Figure 4) and map out how data will move through the life cycle and the supply chain. By doing this we ensure data is transferred in the most efficient way possible. This must happen right at the start of the project.

The emergence of the Common Data Environment (CDE) facilitates this. The CDE is not new but its application is still limited to a select number of projects, despite the obvious benefits. For one, it provides a single source of truth that all parties can trust in. This is essential for large infrastructure projects such as HS2, Heathrow and Thames Tideway that have tens of thousands of documents across multiple disciplines.  A CDE combined with a clear workflow also encourages collaboration and early sharing of information allowing engineering geologists and designers to make more informed decisions earlier in the project life cycle. For this to work we must also ensure there is interoperability between software and a well-defined data taxonomy is agreed across the industry (i.e. an AGS approach across the whole life cycle).

Where can technology assist?

It is important that any new technology has a clear tangible benefit. This might be increasing the accuracy of analysis, providing new data, improving efficiency of a task, facilitating better communication between the supply chain or improving safety. By identifying this ‘added value’ at the start of the project and reviewing it throughout ensures that technology is not used just for the sake of using it – something that potentially risks undermining the technology that will assist.

Figure 5 – Snapshot of Leapfrog model of Thames Tideway East shaft created to help visualize how potential fractures intersect with the shaft

Technologies that are already showing ‘added value’ include:

1. Drones – Benefits include surveying large areas quickly, accessing places that are too dangerous for humans to access and ability to generate ‘intelligent’ 3D models of sites that open the door to ‘unlimited’ site visits;
2. 3D Ground Modelling – Allows better visualisation of ground related risks to help ground engineers make more informed decisions. It also acts as a powerful communication tool to communicate ground risks to clients and other stakeholders (Figure 5); and
3. Smart Infrastructure – Enables real-time asset data to be obtained that can assist design verification, early identification of potential problems and a predictive maintenance approach.

Artificial intelligence (AI) also has huge potential to assist the ground engineering industry. Yes, the ground is notoriously unpredictable making it difficult for AI to make reliable predictions on ground conditions or parameters. But based on historic data, AI could produce generative models that ground engineers could test and revise following targeted ground investigations.

Challenges

We should not shy away from the fact that embracing technology will bring its own challenges.

Four of the key challenges are:

1. Upskilling of the industry;
2. Validation of new software;
3. Industry standards; and
4. Industry culture.

Firstly, we must ensure that people are adequately trained in any new software tools and processes that are available (e.g. borehole logging using tablets). This is no easy task and ignites the debate as to whether the training responsibility lies with the industry or university. What is for sure though is that without the necessary skills to use and interpret the results from new technology we won’t be able to achieve nearly as much as we could. Geologists must also not forget their core skills of critical thinking and interpreting the subsurface.

Secondly, we must ensure new technology is robust and can be trusted. It is very easy to produce an all singing and dancing 3D model, but it must also make geological sense. Professor Fookes hinted at this in the First Glossop Lecture where he stated, “Technical innovation must stand the test of time in order to prove its worth”. We must also ensure that new processes and technology are also incorporated into existing industry standards or if required new standards developed.

The most difficult challenge of all, is the cultural transformation of the industry. Currently the value of data is not well enough understood, particularly among clients. As it is the clients who hold the purse strings, it is them who can lead the transformation. But it is equally the job of designers and contractors to share success stories and highlight the benefits that technology and effective information management can bring. This is particularly important if benefits are not realised until further down the asset life cycle. It is also crucial that the whole supply chain is singing off the same hymn sheet.

Where do we go from here?

Whether it is providing additional tools to better equip the ground engineer or creating cost savings for the client, the benefits of embracing  new technologies and effective information management are clear. What we must do is to be better at sharing these benefits and success stories, particularly with clients.

Yes, there will be challenges along the way, particularly winning the hearts and minds of everyone in the industry but these are worth overcoming. We must remember that new technologies should make the life of an engineering geologist easier, not harder and allow us to focus on what we do best – critical thinking and interpreting the ground. It is important that these core skills are not sacrificed as these are things that technology cannot replace.

Article provided by Jonny Neville, Information Manager & Engineering Geologist at Mott MacDonald

Acknowledgements

• Costain, Vinci, Bachy (CVB) JV for allowing the inclusion of a snapshot of a Thames Tideway East shaft Leapfrog model.

Further reading

BIM model-based design delivery: Tideway East, England, UK. In Schooling, J. and Soga, K. (ed) Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Smart Infrastructure and Construction, ICE Publishing, 170(3), 50-58.

Bolton, A., Butler, L., Dabson, I., Enzer, M., Evans, M., Fenemore, T., Harradence, F., et al. (2018). Gemini Principles. (CDBB_REP_006)https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.32260.

Gakis, A., Cabrero, P., Entwisle, D. and Kessler, H. 3D geological model of the completed Farringdon underground railway station. In: Black, M, Dodge, C and Lawrence, U. (ed) Crossrail Project: Infrastructure design and construction, ICE Publishing, London, 632pp.

Network Rail. 2018. Earthworks Technical Strategy, 67pp.

McKinsey Global Institute. Reininventing Construction: A Route to Higher Productivity. February 2017.

Schwab, K. and Davis, N. Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum. 289pp.

Farmer, M. 2016. The Farmer Review of the UK Construction Labour Model.

Construction Leadership Council (CLC). 76pp.

 

Full Name: Eur Ing Jim Cook BSc, MSc, C Eng, C Geol, FICE, FGS

Job Title: Director

Company: Geotechnical Services Bureau Ltd

I am a both a chartered civil engineer and a chartered geologist and have worked in the geotechnical industry for over forty years both as a specialist contractor and a geotechnical consultant. I am experienced in most of the facets of geotechnical engineering including site investigation, foundation construction and geotechnical design for many different types of structures and buildings. I have substantial overseas experience particularly the Gulf States, West and East Africa, India, Sri Lanka and Hong Kong. In recent years, I have been involved in major geotechnical design and construction assignments in USA and the Caribbean.

What or who inspired you to join the geotechnical industry?

I was initially indentured as a civil engineer with a local authority in London and undertook part time education at Westminster College. After a couple of years, I joined a major civil engineering contractor, Costain, and was immediately seconded to their geotechnical company, Foundation Engineering Ltd, who undertook most forms of geotechnical engineering including site investigation, foundation construction and geotechnical design. It was with this company that I was trained in all aspects of geotechnical construction and foundation design.

What inspired me into geotechnics initially  was the lifestyle of a young engineer travelling all over the UK and working on different sites. My recollection of a structural engineering lecturer stating that “he could design a concrete and steel structure to perform as required as both had man-made  stiffnesses but a geotechnical engineer who has to deal with the ground which has no guaranteed stiffness or behaviour has major issues”. This wetted my appetite for the challenges of ground engineering.

As a young geotechnical engineer I was given responsibility to manage teams of drillers, grouters, anchorers and pilers on site and learn the “how to do” of the geotechnical contracting industry. It is from these experiences that I owe my wealth of foundation construction knowledge.

I was fortunate to work with and be guided by some of the “leading lights” in the ground engineering industry such as John Jennings, Stanley Serota and in particular Roy Wakeling.

With regards to academics, I clearly remember meeting Professor A W Bishop to find out how the Bishop Sand Sampler worked. Professor P Fookes also inadvertently raised my keen interest in geology. Professor Noel Simons of Surrey University was my key mentor who helped to further develop and enhance my geotechnical design expertise to match that of geotechnical construction, this is how I became an all-round geotechnical engineer.

What does a typical day entail?

A typical day nowadays starts with reviewing overnight emails and dealing with one or some of the following matters which may require desk studies, site visits and collaborative meetings.

• Litigation type matters. Sometimes these can between a specialist contractor and a main contractor or an owner and contractor but all involve some aspect of ground engineering.
• Design and Peer reviews for other consulting engineers or contractors.
• Optioneering reviews to develop the best foundation solution at concept stage and taking this through to construction.
• Training of young civil engineers, particularly in the areas of geotechnical and geological risk.
• Undertaking “pro-bono” work for RoGEP, AGS or Ground Forum.

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

I am particularly proud of returning to my “roots” in London, I was involved in the Thames Barrier as a young geotechnical engineer some 40 years ago and since then have worked as a geotechnical engineer in over 30 countries on many significant projects. But I was extremely pleased to lead the Buro Happold ground engineering team that worked on the Lower Lea Valley proposal for the UK Olympic bid which then won and became the 2012 London Olympics.

In addition, I was involved at a senior level on the Arsenal Stadium, London Olympic Stadium, the refurbishment of The Cutty Sark and Emirates Cable Car which crosses the River Thames at the O2. These all posed tricky geotechnical issues which required some form of innovation. I consider that I have put something positive back into my “roots”.

Overseas I am quite proud of the basement structure which was about 18m deep with a footprint of approximately 22,500 square meters which was designed and constructed for Harvard University in Boston USA. This was arguably the largest single basement structure to be constructed on the East Coast of the USA. The ground conditions comprised Boston Blue Clay over gravel then rock close to the Charles River which, presented major challenges that were met by using European sophisticated ground investigation techniques and high quality laboratory testing provided by Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?

The challenges of today are quite modest compared to managing a multi-million pound geotechnical consultancy or geotechnical contracting company both of which I have been fortunate to manage. The challenges were and probably still are getting young people interested into geotechnical engineering, finding well educated graduates and training them to become innovative ground engineers.

What AGS Working Group(s) are you a Member of and what are your current focuses?

I am a member of the Senate and focus on membership issues.

I have been a long serving Treasurer and also Chairman of the AGS and was instrumental in the conception of the AGS and have over 20 years of active participation.

What do you enjoy most about being an AGS Member?

I suppose what I enjoy is the comradery which its membership provides and more so the fact that the ethos is all about raising the profile and standards in ground engineering in the UK.

What do you find beneficial about being an AGS Member?

The benefits are not only the wealth of publications that are produced which are extremely informative, and also provide sound risk advice. There is also inputting into a collaborative view on where the industry is going.

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

The AGS is now probably the major voice of the ground engineering industry and punches above its weight with clients and local authorities. It provides regular support to those business institutions such as BSi, HSE and other government agencies.

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

I would like to see more collaborative efforts from industry, academics, institutions, local authorities and government departments. Some of these organisations are still somewhat disconnected. Ground Forum continues to develop the above linkages, and I wish them well in their endeavours.

There are still many so called “engineers” offering clients ground engineering services outside of their skill and experience base.

I would like to see all ground engineering practioners becoming RoGEP registered as this will raise them to a higher level of recognition and enhance the clients’ ability to select a competent and suitably experienced ground engineer for their project.

In response to comments from industry, the working group for BS8485 have updated and released the following which can now be ordered or downloaded from BSI. Please note that this is a technical reference, can be normative and the most current version should be that cited in reports.

BS 8485:2015+A1:2019 Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings describes how to characterise sites and prevent the entry of toxic, asphyxiating or explosive ground gases. This 2019 amendment changes and clarifies:

• The minimum gas protection points required for Buildings Type B, C and D on High and Very High gas hazard sites.
• The assignment of gas protection points for the structural barrier for basements.
• The criteria for membranes that can be assigned 2 gas protection points when used as a gas resistant membrane.
• The membrane thickness test method applicable to the guidance in the code of practice.

Other industry guidance exists but none provides the same clarity on remedial solution selection.

This standard also helps you comply with Building Regulations Approved Document C: Site preparation and resistance to contaminants and moisture.