AGS Ground Risk: why take the chance? Ground Risk – Where do I start? Dr Jacqueline Skipper Senior Partner, Senior Geologist Geotechnical Consulting Group
AGS Ground Risk: why take the chance? Ground Risk – Where do I start? Dr Jacqueline Skipper Senior Partner, Senior Geologist Geotechnical Consulting Group
Ground Risk: why take the chance? A lessons learnt conference
• Where does ground risk begin in engineering projects? • “In the ground, obviously!” – but does it?
We live on a planet that is
• Tectonically active • Gravity • Water • Atmosphere and
weather
We live on a planet that has
• Plate tectonics • Gravity • Water • Atmosphere and
weather
We live on a planet that has
• Plate tectonics • Gravity • Water • Atmosphere and
weather
We live on a planet that has
• Plate tectonics • Gravity • Water • Atmosphere and
weather and climates
We live on a planet that has
• Plate tectonics • Gravity • Water • Atmosphere and
weather • Humans and what we
do to the planet –
This means that the ground is VARIABLE
• If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be here today • But it is, so we have a primary risk that the ground will vary
Example - sediments Variable sediments can be • confusing • weaker • stronger • less or more cemented • often less stable • more permeable/porous and • at different levels,
– to what was expected (from the information available/provided)
Ground risk based on depositional environment
Fairly low ground
risk
Medium ground
risk
Fairly low ground
risk
Medium to high ground
risk
High ground
risk
Sediments deposited in these areas are likely to be:
Variable sediments • Have a wider range of properties,
and perversely, are:
• More difficult to recover
• More difficult to obtain data for
• More difficult to correlate
• More challenging to design for/construct in
• Thereby increase project ground RISK
Also, these secondary mechanisms increase complexity, often superimposing on one another
1. Environments of deposition 2. Post depositional changes (chemical, biological,
physical weathering) 3. Tectonic changes e.g. faulting, uplift, 4. Quaternary big changes e.g. T↓↑, SL ↓↑
erosion, slope failures 5. Anthropocene effects e.g. mining, construction,
contamination
Ground risk is very expensive. Why do we need to keep having to say this?
• Failing to anticipate ground conditions is a major factor in construction problems Fookes 1997
• 50% of project delays caused by adverse ground conditions Chapman & Marcetteau 2004
• Ground risk = 50% reduction in return on client’s equity Chapman 2006
• 80-85% of (European) building failures are related to ground problems Brandl, 2004
And, even with best EC7 practice
• Even with best borehole spacings/depths, recovery represents 0.008% of the ground
• This is for 100% recovery, rotary boreholes • This % drops with
– wider spacings (e.g. linear infrastructure 0.003%) – other drilling techniques – variable ground conditions/poor recovery
• GIs are frequently not a 100% accurate representation – even in the precise locations in which they are carried out
Despite this, thorough ground investigations are a good idea!
• GIs can significantly reduce ground risk uncertainty • But only 0.2% to 0.5% construction costs are spent on GI! • Why is this?
What blocks our understanding of ground variability and risks?
And is therefore invisible
Here’s a couple of examples of preconceptions…
Most of the ground is
The geology
The Engineer* thinks
Shiny challenging thing, pays our wages!
Perplexing challenging geology to build things on/through.. “It’s all London Clay anyway”
* Very smart engineers who understand geology in detail are also available
The Geologist thinks
Thing being built. Who cares what it is, it pays wages?
Wow! Opportunity to study the geology!
What else affects perception?
Different contract forms + different preconceptions
The Experienced Client thinks
“Shiny thing make money, but maybe a GBR would serve us best?”
“We’ve been stung before by these ground conditions, let’s make sure we get a good ground investigation”
The less experienced Client perhaps thinks
Shiny building make money!
• Don’t understand the ground- pass the risk to the contractor.
• We don’t have time for an extensive GI
• Savings can be made on the ground investigation!
What if the contractor carries the risk?
• ‘We assumed favourable ground conditions to price cheaply and win the work’
• ‘We don’t want to pay for more GI – the client has done a basic Factual Report’
• ‘We can always claim unforeseen ground conditions’
Can this lead to the perfect geotechnical storm? Cheapest ground investigation tender, short deadline Negligible Desk Study (‘what was the exam question?’) Inappropriate investigative methods Poor recovery Unrepresentative sampling Poor logging conditions! Poor descriptions Poor sample care
→ Unrepresentative lab test results • Unsuitable design for ground conditions • Construction problems due to ground conditions • Cost to client – overruns, lawyers etc £££
Sadly
• It is often not until things go wrong that the risk bearer is prepared to get an appropriate GI
Ground data loss = increased ground risk
????
Designer
?????
Contractor Logger
??
Lawyer
!!!!!
Driller
?
Lab
???
And ground risk in the contract comes first
Contract
Unforeseen ground - a landmark case …
“Every experienced contractor knows that ground investigations can only be 100% accurate in the precise locations in which they are carried out. It is for an experienced contractor to fill in the gaps and take an informed decision as to what the likely conditions would be overall”. Mr Justice Coulson, Van Oord UK Limited and SICIM Roadbridge Limited v Allseas UK Limited [2015]
In other words
• If you carry the risk, • You can’t plead ignorance • You must do additional GI if the original was not appropriate
for the probable variability of the ground • Keep up with the current state of knowledge!
Faulting bringing Lambeth Group to near surface position, UCLH Cancer Centre
Two examples of already complex ground (Lambeth Group+ London Clay) related to faulting in London
What happened?
• Faulting only discovered coincidentally • Minor pile failures managed between designer and contractor • Historical data showed previous adjacent site adversely
affected by faulting + sand channels - open bored piles affected • Short paper in Ground Engineering to publicise • Other sites in the area are also affected but lessons have been
learnt
The site is within a zone of unusual ground conditions with complex faulting of London Clay and sand channels within the Lambeth Group
Strike-slip structural ground model.
Explains complex faulted areas of
ground in localised areas
A’ 10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Met
res O
D
A PBH13
PBH3
PBH5
PBH9
PBH10 PBH14
PBH4
PBH6
A3ii
A2
A3ii
A2
A3ii
A3i
A2
A3ii
A2
A3ii
A2 A3ii
A2 A3i
A3ii
A3i A2
A3ii
A2
A3i
A3ii
A3i
A2
Site with a ‘silt filled hollow’ and a river across the site
What happened?
• Many previous phases of GI, desk studies • ‘Lost Rivers’ and ‘Silt Pocket’ raised suspicions – faulting? • Reassessment of GIs found evidence of faults • Communication with client and designers about potential risks
led to improved GI • GI – weakened ground, faulting ++ • Discovery of a number of issues for piling
A’ 10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Met
res O
D
A PBH13
PBH3
PBH5
PBH9
PBH10 PBH14
PBH4
PBH6
A3ii
A2
A3ii
A2
A3ii
A3i
A2
A3ii
A2
A3ii
A2 A3ii
A2 A3i
A3ii
A3i A2
A3ii
A2
A3i
A3ii
A3i
A2
Complex faulting, silt hollow related to faulting
MOVE structural geological modelling © R. Ghail, Imperial College.
Failure to recognise how others see the ground can itself constitute a risk
• If we don’t understand professional differences, information or advice can be misunderstood or ignored
• Conversely, trying too hard to please (e.g. a client) can cause us to lose trust in our own professional judgement.
What lessons can be learnt? • Relevant competence is essential from the beginning of a project to address ground
risk • Be wary of developers/clients and be aware of who controls risk • Give clients direct and honest, recorded advice, being aware of differing priorities • Do not adopt GI reports without question – do additional GI if necessary • Be wary of how design responsibility slides down the contract chain • Ensure time resources are adequate • Clarify roles and responsibilities • Trust your own professional opinion and STOP when necessary • Communicate, publish – pass on the ground knowledge!