Consultancy-Led Ground Investigation Contracting on Large - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Consultancy-Led Ground Investigation Contracting

• n Large Infrastructure Projects

Russel ell l Jordan RPS

Who Are RPS?

RPS is an international consultancy providing advice upon: The planning, development and management of the built and natural environment, its infrastructure and the earth’s natural resources

RPS AGS Data Usage

2000-2013 (using HoleBASE 3.1) ▪ Exploratory Hole Logging ▪ Environmental Data Collation ▪ AGS Data Provision (Selected Clients) 2013 Onwards (using HoleBASE SI) ▪ Environmental Data Screening ▪ Gas & Groundwater Data Capture ▪ Geological Cross Sections ▪ Geotechnical Data Management ▪ AGS Validation & Checking ▪ AGS Data Provision – All Clients

RPS & Large Infrastructure Projects

M4 Corridor around Newport High Speed Two (HS2) M8 / M73 / M74 DBFO

M8/M73/M74 DBFO

▪ Complex Geotechnics ▪ Structural Foundations ▪ New and existing watercourse crossings ▪ Dense historic mining features ▪ Award winning BIM implementation

M4 Corridor around Newport

RPS is the env nviron

• nment

mental l lead for a j joint nt ve vent nture scheme e focused sed on a n new 2 ew 23km km section ion of three-lane ne moto torway y includ udin ing: g: ▪ Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) ▪ 27 Potential Sites of Land Contamination ▪ Historic and Active Landfill Sites ▪ Docklands ▪ Gwent Levels (Marshlands) ▪ Designated Flood Zones ▪ River Crossings ▪ 4 Major Historical Ground Investigations along the Proposed Route in 1997, 2000, 2007, 2015

M4 Ground Investigations (RPS)

2015/16 ▪ 100 Boreholes ▪ 42 Trial Pits ▪ 22 CPT’s and 25 Pressuremeter Tests ▪ ~45,000 Environmental Test Results ▪ ~900 Geotechnical Tests ▪ Ongoing monthly surface water monitoring 2017 GI (High gh Risk k Areas) as) ▪ Area Adjacent to ‘PCB’ Cell ▪ Steelworks Slag Lagoons 2018 (subject to to scheme me go go-ahe ahead) d) ▪ 95 Boreholes ▪ 23 Trial Pits ▪ 12 CPT’s ▪ Additional works as required

HS2 Ground Investigation

Overall, HS2 has been the largest Ground d Inve nvesti tigati gation ever ver undertak aken in the UK

• £81 million

▪ Split into ~53 GI sites ▪ Lot 1 Contractors (>£500k each) ▪ Seven Lot 2 Contractors (<£500k each) First large scale Public Sector Project where AGS S 4.0.3 has been the stipulated data standard.

HS2 Ground Investigation – RPS

RPS was appointed in 2015 as one of seven companies on the Lot 2 framework (WP’s under £500k). We have been the most succes cessful sful of the L Lot 2 co cont ntra ractor tors, winning 13 of the 53 Work Packages bid worth ~£4 million lion In 2016/17 we concurrently ran three separate site operations involving 15-20 personnel on each site plus a permanent office based team of

• perational and data support

HS2 Project in Numbers

487 exploratory locations 4.3km km drilled 164 164 trial pits 19 19 highway cores 45 45 CPTS 920m of downhole geophysics 3,051 person days of GI sub-contractors and support services on site 4,975 Geotechnical Tests 2,436 person days of Professional Attendance on site (with a strong commitment to Health & Safety)

Framework Data Management Plan

Ensure e this is read ad and under ersto tood

• d by

by all staff f wo workin king on the projec ect

Data Flow Diagram

Project Manager Client Liaison ▪ Technical review of final data outputs Client Project Team GI Specialists ▪ CPT Plots ▪ GPR/Utility ▪ Downhole Geophysics ▪ Radiological Site Engineers & Technicians ▪ Handwritten Field Logs ▪ Engineer Daily Records ▪ Discontinuity Logs ▪ Photographs ▪ Gas & Groundwater Monitoring ▪ Topographic data

AGS Output AGS Digital File

Client Data Management Holebase Data Entry Data Manager ▪ Management of AGS Data from Site and Laboratories ▪ Data Checking & Validation ▪ Transfer of Electronic Lab Schedules in AGS Laboratories ▪ Schedules received ▪ Results Lead Logger (CGeol) ▪ Technical Review of data Site Manager ▪ Coordination of data entry ▪ Preliminary Data QC Site Support Staff ▪ Data input to HoleBASE (AGS)

RPS Client Subcontractor AGS Data Documentation Review/Feedback

Drilling Contractor ▪ Drillers Logs ▪ Installation Records ▪ In Situ Testing

So, What Was Different?

▪ Requirement to provide AGS data during fieldwork, as

• pposed to just with the draft and factual reports

▪ Site engineers having to capture and record more data than they had previously ▪ Dedicating more resource to data input and validation than ever before ▪ Ensuring subcontractors (e.g. drillers) capture all of the data required ▪ Some laboratories receiving AGS4 schedules and providing data in AGS4 format for the first time ▪ Ensuring consistency of data records and presentation in different geographical regions and with a different team

• f engineers (with different client PM’s)

▪ Several phases of client review and QA

RPS Data Management

How we we effectiv ivel ely y deliv iver ered ed the data: ▪ Providing detailed HoleBASE training to all project and site staff with an overview of how and why this related to the delivery

• f AGS4 data for the project

▪ Configure data input profiles to include all required fields and provide direct access to HoleBASE SI from site via laptop PC’s ▪ Resourcing 6 personnel to data management and validation ▪ Weekly review of data to ensure no data is ‘lost on site’ ▪ Working with laboratories and subcontractors to deliver AGS4 data to the clients’ requirements ▪ Spread the testing across multiple laboratories to quality assure the data and reduce delivery times (don’t overload one lab) ▪ Working with Keynetix to resolve software/AGS issues with HoleBASE SI and create additional automated data validation checks ▪ Use Location Groups within HoleBASE SI to manage AGS provision ▪ Using HoleBASE SI for photo management and output

Digital Scheduling

▪ Excellent for data management and tracking test results ▪ Geotechnical test names differed between client and labs making the process of tracking testing difficult – no industry-standard list

• f definitions

▪ Schedules interpreted differently by the client and labs (e.g. Atterberg 1 and 4 point and shear strength with residual – 1 or 2 tests?) ▪ Difficult to split and track schedules across multiple labs (no AGS field for ‘lab’ until results reported) ▪ Restricted tests and replacement testing can create onerous data management – do you reissue the schedule or not? ▪ Scheduling of samples on separate schedules – not advisable ▪ Physical sample labels and AGS data not aligning ▪ Environmental lab testing ERES_CODE and ERES_NAME not aligning with AGS4 picklists ▪ Reporting of TIC’s in environmental results – LIMS needs to match AGS4 field deliverables (probability and retention time) ▪ ‘MC’ unit type (replacing with ‘U’ before import) ▪ Case-sensitive reporting of some units causes errors (e.g. degC/DegC and pH units/pH Units)

Lessons Learnt

▪ Personal preference of multiple engineers (both RPS and client)

• vercomplicating and elongating the review process of logs

▪ Reporting of poorly recovered materials – is it CLAY or MUDSTONE and can you apply a weathering grade? ▪ Labs not reporting data using AGS4 picklists and failing to include their name and certification in the data and reporting AGS and PDF to different DP accuracy (AGS data should match PDF report) ▪ Delay in data delivery and AGS issues being resolved when labs have subcontracted testing (why isn’t AGS data being provided as standard?) ▪ Some specialist labs unable to provide AGS data (entered manually by RPS) ▪ Fracture spacing MAX and AVG need a text value in certain circumstances ▪ Allowing for correction values in water depth readings (mbTOC or mbGL?) ▪ Client review process for AGS has developed over time and continually generated new comments that need to be resolved ▪ Some sites had no (or very poor) internet connectivity

AGS File Creation Process

Not a one-click process.

1. Export AGS4 file from HoleBASE SI (untick custom tables) 2. Import file into Microsoft Excel using KeyAGS4 3. Export file to AGS4 using KeyAGS4 (removes entirely blank fields) 4. Remove DICT table and DICT-related ABBR entries 5. Modify TRAN_STAT to match client list (cannot change in HoleBASE) 6. Check file using gINT AGS checker (as used by the client) 7. Remove all unused UNIT and TYPE fields listed by the checker 8. Fix occasional random errors generated during the Excel to AGS file creation 9. Generate a TXT file to demonstrate the file is error-free

Conclusions

RPS ▪ AGS data submissions for later work packages had fewer errors ▪ Ongoing refinement and presentation of log templates has resulted in their adoption as the RPS standard ▪ Junior staff have benefitted greatly from exposure to thorough data capture and validation ▪ Lessons learnt were retrospectively applied to the M4 project in terms of AGS data and presentation ▪ Subcontractors now providing higher quality data ▪ Digital scheduling is the way forward, but further refinement is required before RPS choose to adopt the process ▪ AGS4 now used as standard on some other RPS jobs ▪ The pain of getting things right in the early work packages had its rewards in the later work packages ▪ Client Feedback: “We have identified RPS as the ‘example to follow’ when it comes to AGS data management and would like to see where/how we can gain some lessons learnt which can be rolled out to other GI contractors” Data Management gement Team AGS ▪ Geotechnical AGS scheduling needs test definition consistency (to be maintained and managed by the labs?) ▪ Whilst HoleBASE SI can work with AGS 3.1 and AGS 4.0, the CNMT/ERES table is not interchangeable once a format is chosen

Thanks for your time

Russell Jordan Senior GIS Consultant (and AGS Data Manager) RPS russell.jordan@rpsgroup.com