AGS Magazine July 2023

TURBIDITY RISKS FROM PILING

Is further assessment and mitigation required following the increasing drive from regulators and water companies to assess risks?

July 2023

OPENING CORELINER

How the industry takes various approaches to splitting coreliner

GEOTECHNICA 2023 PREVIEW

An overview of next week's conference line-up at the Warwickshire Event Centre

Findings on regulatory challenges for regeneration

SiLC DoWCoP INDUSTRY SURVEY

Chair’s Foreword

Welcome to the July issue of the AGS Magazine, the first edition published since I became Chair in May.

In this edition, learn about the assessment and mitigation of turbidity risks from piling. As the article states - the Environment Agency has recently commissioned CL:AIRE to update the EA’s 2001 guidance. Both our Contaminated Land and Geotechnical Working Groups are involved in updating the guidance.

Also in this edition, read about a study that was undertaken to assess and raise awareness of the feasibility of field based techniques for determining TPH concentrations in soil and read guidance from the Safety Working Group on the opening of core and dynamic sampler liners.

We also feature a number of live and virtual events including the AGS Eurocode Webinar in September and our Ground Risk Conference in November 2023. If you have

suggestions for other events we are always pleased to hear from you.

Finally, why not consider entering our photographic competition. Winning photos will be used to update the AGS stands which are used at events and conferences and across our marketing materials. I look forward to seeing the entries.

We are always on the lookout for additional, informative content for the magazine, so if you have a case study or technical article that you think the wider geotechnical and geoenvironmental public would find beneficial, please do get in touch.

We would be interested in your feedback on the magazine and our future plans. Please contact ags@ags.org.uk if you have any comments.

ABOUT THE AGS

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS) is a not-for-profit trade association established to improve the profile and quality of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering. The membership comprises UK organisations and individuals having a common interest in the business of ground investigation, geotechnics, geoenvironmental engineering, engineering geology, geochemistry, hydrogeology, and other related disciplines.

EDITORIAL BOARD

Vivien Dent, AGS Chair

Sally Hudson, Coffey Geotechnics

Caroline Kratz, Forum Court Associates (FCA)

Katie Kennedy, FCA

Julian Lovell, Equipe Group

Calum Spires, Equipe Group

David Entwisle, BGS

Chris Vincett, Retired

Lauren Hunt, Arcadis

Adam Latimer, Ian Farmer Associates

Dimitris Xirouchakis, Structural Soils

Emma Anderson, HaskoningDHV UK

Daniele Fornelli, Geotechnical Observations

EDITORIAL STORY

If you have a news story or event which you’d like to tell our editorial team about, please contact the AGS on 020 8658 8212 or ags@ags.org.uk. Please note that articles should act as opinion pieces and not directly advertise a company. The AGS is under no obligation to feature articles or events received.

CONTACT US

AGS

Forum Court, Office 2FF, Saphir House, 5 Jubilee Way, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8GD

 ags@ags.org.uk

 020 8658 8212

 Association of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Specialists

Vivien Dent AGS Chair

 @agsgeotech

www.ags.org.uk

FEATURE

PAGE 26

COVER STORY

PAGE 18 

Assessment and Mitigation of Turbidity

Risks from Piling

Guidance on the opening of core and dynamic sampler liner

Liz Withington and Adam Latimer provide a comprehensive overview of the current practice of splitting coreliner and suggestions on how and where improvements can be made to make it safer for all involved.

GEOTECHNICA 2023: CONFERENCE LINE-UP CONFIRMED

PAGE 8 

A preview of next week's conference and exhibition.

AGS WEBINAR - SECOND GENERATION EUROCODE EN 1997

PAGE 17 

Details on the latest webinar from the AGS.

ANALYSIS OF FIELD-BASED ANALYTICAL TECHNOLOGIES

PAGE 26 

For determination of petroleum hydrocarbons in soils.

MORE INSIDE

PAGE 4 

News in Short: Incl. upcoming AGS Events

PAGE 32 

SiLC DoWCoP industry survey

PAGE 42 

Upcoming Events & Courses

NEC publishes new X29 Option clause to address climate change

NEC (New Engineering Contracts) has recently published Secondary Option clause X29 (Climate Change) that can be used across its suite of NEC4 contracts. The Secondary Option introduces a framework for managing and measuring climate change performance in contracts to support reducing the impact of the works on climate change where achievable and where not an undue risk. It was published in final form on the 26th of July 2022. Key features include:

• the provision for Climate Change Requirements (CCR) that will form part of the contract’s Scope against which the consultant / contractor would propose

AGS Publication Updates

a Climate Change Plan showing how it intends to meet the requirements the option of using a Performance Table, which can be set up to incentivise consultants / contractors to meet climate change targets, or otherwise, simply, to measure and record performance

• A mechanism to allow contractors / consultants to propose ways to improve the impact of the works / services on climate change (Contractor’s / Consultant’s Proposals).

An important takeaway is that the Secondary Option is a framework. It is not a solution in itself. It requires skill and competency to draft an effective X29 regime. There is further guidance on the use of X29 on the NEC website.

Article provided by Antonio Rotolo, Regional Counsel, AECOM Europe

The top three AGS publications in last month:

1. AGS Guidance on Waste Classification for Soils – A Practitioners Guide

2. AGS Guidance on the Description of Anthropogenic Materials – A Practitioners’ Guide

3. AGS Guide to Ground Investigation Reports

Recent AGS publications available on the AGS website:

• Manual Handling Guidance

AGS Guide to Planning Data Management for a Programme of Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring

• Respiratory Protective Equipment Guidance

• Guidance on CDM 2015 for the Geotechnical Industry

To download the publications for free; click here.

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

The AGS is holding a new photography competition for 2023!

We’re on the lookout for your most creative images whichreflect 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 that 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 can enter. The deadline for entries has been extended to 25th August 2023.Entry into the competition is free.

The full image requirements and terms and conditions can be viewed on the AGS website.

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.

AGS Live and Virtual Events 2023

Second Generation Eurocode EN 1997: Where are We and Where are We Going?

Î Date: 20th September 2023

Î Fee: This webinar is free for AGS members. Non-members are required to pay a small fee of £30 (plus VAT).

Î Speakers: Chris Raison, Andrew Bond, Matthew Baldwin and Stuart Hardy

Î Sponsorship: Headline and Associate Sponsorship packages are available. Click HERE for full details or email ags@ags.org. uk to confirm your support.

Ground Risk Conference: Are you Managing Risks or Taking Risks? (live event)

Î Date: 22nd November 2023

Î Location: One Great George Street, London

Î Fee: £160 for AGS Members, £230 for nonmembers. A limited number of places are

available for students, local authority and EA places for £95. All prices exclude VAT. To express an interest in attending, email ags@ ags.org.uk

Î Speakers: Steve Wilson (Technical Director at The Environmental Protection Group) and Amy Juden (Associate at The Environmental Protection Group)

∙ Alex Lee (AGS Chair Elect and Principal at HKA)

∙ Katharine Barker (Associate Geotechnical Engineer at CampbellReith) and Matthew Penfold (Principal Geotechnical Engineer at Geotechnical & Environmental Associates).

Nicola Harries (Technical Director at CL:AIRE)

∙ The rest of the speakers will be announced in due course.

Î Sponsorship: A number of Emerald, Gold and Associate sponsorship packages are available. Click HERE for full details or email ags@ags.org.ukto confirm your support.

Breaking Ground Podcast: New Episode Now Live

Breaking Ground, a podcast collaboration between Ground Engineering Magazine and the Ground Forum, have released a new episode which is available for free listening:

Î Paul Nathanail, Carrie Rose & Ian Evans on Contaminated Land

Hosted by Steve Hadley, Breaking Ground covers a wide range of ground engineering related topics. Key themes include sustainability, design, commerce, diversity, health and safety, welfare, construction techniques, education, and industry challenges. Episodes also profile industry members' careers within the context of discussing industry issues, construction techniques and case studies.

Breaking Ground is available for free download on channels including Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.

For further information on the podcast or for podcast sponsorship opportunities please email gforum@ground-forum.org.uk.

SiLC Introduction Days

SiLC Introduction Days are open to all those who are considering applying to become a SiLC. They will provide an overview of the SiLC scheme, information on the assessment process and an opportunity to meet peers and discuss your application with SiLC Assessors. The examination now embraces the requirements of the NQMS, subject to success in the SiLC exam and at the professional interview becoming a SiLC will automatically result in becoming an SQP.

Delegates who attend the introduction will receive a £70 discount off their SiLC application fee.

SiLC Introduction Day dates:

4th July 2023

10th October 2023

If you cannot attend the specified dates (above) please email SiLC@SiLC.org.uk to be placed on a mailing list which will alert you when a future SiLC Introduction Day has been arranged. Your email will not be shared or used for anything other than for Introduction Day information.

SiLC Introduction Day fees for 2023 are:

Private Sector: £199.50 + VAT Total: £239.40

Public Sector: £147 + VAT Total: £176.40

AGENDA

09:30 – 09:45

Welcome and Introductions

09:45 – 10:00 Introduction to SiLC and its importance in promoting standards, demonstrating competence, and supporting better regulation

10:00 – 10:40

The road to SiLC & SQP registration

10:40 – 10:50 Break

10:50 – 11:05

11:05 – 11:20

11:20 – 11:30

11:30 – 11:45

The Code of Practice

The NQMS and SQP

The exam. Examples of questions and answer guidelines

Questions raised by delegates

11:45 – 12:15 Break

12:15 – 13:00

Data assessment and lessons learnt from past exams (optional)

To book, please download the Introduction Day booking form from the SiLC website and send through to SiLC@SiLC.org.uk

Important dates for the next SiLC exam round

Visit the SiLC website or contact SiLC@SiLC.org.uk to find out more about applying to become a SiLC.

Becoming a SiLC/SQP | Specialist in Land Condition Register Ltd (SiLC)

Deadline for Applications: Friday 1st September 2023

Written test: Monday 11th September 2023 – Monday 9th October 2023

Marking: Monday 16th October 2023 – Monday 6th November 2023

Interviews: Monday 20th November 2023 – Monday 4th December 2023

Results : w/c Monday 8th January 2024

Geotechnica 2023: Conference Lineup Confirmed

Geotechnica 2023, the UK's premier Geotechnical Conference and Exhibition, is just around the corner, offering a golden opportunity for industry professionals to immerse themselves in a world of innovation and knowledge for all those in the geotechnical and geoenvironmental world. Held at the Warwickshire Event Centre, near Leamington Spa, this two-day event promises to be the biggest and best Geotechnica yet. In this exclusive preview, event organisers Equipe present an exciting glimpse into the exceptional sessions that await attendees at this groundbreaking conference.

Wednesday 5th July 2023:

From the Keynote address by Andrew

Bond, exploring "Fundamental changes to Design EC7 new generation," to the engaging presentations by experts such as Mike Spence, Lucy Ford, and Sean Leech on the revolutionary UK Geoenergy Observatories (UKGEOS), Geotechnica 2023 will deliver a wealth of insights. Following a presentation from Julian Lovell of Equipe, a panel session on effective procurement of ground investigation will see industry leaders Neil Parry, James Codd, and Dr. Philip Smith share valuable insights and engage in a lively Q&A session. Prof. Paul Nathanail's discussion on PFAS will then address critical environmental concerns. Moreover, Steve Forster's session on "Asbestos Risk – Are you keeping your staff safe?" and Steve Wilson's presentation on

"Vapour sampling" provide vital information for ensuring occupational safety and well-being.

Thursday 6th July 2023:

The second day of Geotechnica 2023 continues the trend of excellence, featuring presentations that showcase cutting-edge technologies and innovations in ground investigation. William Bond will enlighten the audience with his insights into "Sonic CPT," while Tim Clegg's talk on "New applications and technology in Instrumentation & Monitoring" offers a glimpse into the future of monitoring techniques. Finally, Dr Thamer Yacoub will guide attendees on "Making the best use of your data," empowering them to leverage data effectively for informed decision-making.

Conclusion:

Geotechnica 2023 is a not-to-be-missed event, offering young geo-professionals, as well as older more experienced professionals,

and operators / managers of drilling works, an invaluable opportunity to enhance their knowledge and expand their professional networks. With its exceptional lineup of speakers and the bustling product and service exhibition running alongside the conference, this is the perfect platform to stay updated on the latest advancements in the field. Register for FREE now at www.geotechnica.co.uk to secure your place and unlock the doors to unparalleled learning and growth.

The AGS will also be exhibiting at the event, so please do come and support the Association by visiting their stand and promoting the benefits of AGS membership to all attendees.

Doors open on 5th & 6th July at the Warwickshire Event Centre at 09:00 on Wednesday and 10:00 on Thursday, and it is the perfect opportunity to be part of shaping the future of geotechnical engineering.

The UK geotechnical industry’s premier event.

Whether you are a Client looking for assistance with your latest project, a Consultant looking to establish new working relationships, a Contractor in need of a platform to discuss your specialist services, or a Supplier with a new product to promote, Geotechnica is the place to achieve your goals.

Build business relationships, introduce new products, stay up-to-date with all of the latest industry developments. Communicate. Promote. Network. Learn.

BOOK

We’re pleased to announce that our next live event, Ground Risk Conference: Are you Managing Risks or Taking Risks? will be taking place in London on Wednesday 22nd November at The Institute of Civil Engineers, One Great George Street, London.

Geotechnical engineering and geoenvironmental specialists deal with risk daily from commencement of a project through to final delivery. Working with the ground brings with it inherent risks and it can be a fine line between managing or taking risk. Our understanding of the ground is continually evolving and keeping up to date is important.

This full day, CPD conference organised by the Association of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Specialists and brought to you by the Geotechnical and Contaminated Land Working Groups, will explore the management of risk across a variety of subjects, including updates to piling through layered ground guidance, underpinning and Cone Penetration Testing. We will also explore topics often not considered such as cognitive bias and changes in environmental legislation and policy.

Ground Risk Conference: Are you Managing Risks or Taking Risks? is aimed at attendees at any stage of their career, who are involved in development projects from concept and planning, through to implementation. Attendees will be provided with opportunities

for networking and will have the chance to question our expert speakers.

The speakers confirmed to date include Steve Wilson (Technical Director at The Environmental Protection Group), Amy Juden (Associate at The Environmental Protection Group), Alex Lee (AGS Chair Elect and Principal at HKA), Katharine Barker (Associate Geotechnical Engineer at CampbellReith) and Matthew Penfold (Principal Geotechnical Engineer at Geotechnical & Environmental Associates).

The conference will be chaired by Alex Dent (AGS Geotechnical Working Group Leader and Associate Director at WSP) and Geraint Williams (Associate at ALS Laboratories).

The event is currently sponsored by Eijkelkamp Fraste UK, Element, Groundsure, Huesker, Envirolab and In Situ Site Investigation.

PRESENTATIONS

Piling Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites

Steve Wilson, Technical Director at The Environmental Protection Group and Amy Juden, Associate at The Environmental Protection Group

The presentation will discuss the update of the Environment Agency guidance on piling in contaminated ground, which is currently in progress. It will discuss some of the key contents of the new guidance.

Bias in the Delivery of Geo-Environmental Assessments

Alex Lee, AGS Chair Elect and Principal at HKA

In performing geotechnical and environmental assessments, for example, when we develop and deliver our models and designs, then bias can and does on occasion arise. Such can bring both reputational damage and risks of litigation. Decision researchers1 have identified many biases in human judgment and decisionmaking. Most behavioral research addresses cognitive biases— faulty mental processes that lead judgments and decisions to violate commonly accepted normative principles. Equally important, but much less studied, are motivational biases, which include conscious or subconscious distortions of judgments and decisions because of self-interest, social pressures, or organizational context. In this presentation, the speaker will discuss several of the more common types of bias while making specific reference to examples from Geo-environmental investigations and assessments. He will also introduce how we may self-check and move towards debiasing our reports.

1 Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis, Gilberto Montibeller and Detlof von Winterfeldt, Risk Analysis, Vol. 35, No. 7, 2015

National Brownfield Forum Industry Census

Nicola Harries, Technical Director at CL:AIRE

Nicola will provide an overview of the recent National Brownfield Forum industry census that has been circulated across the brownfield sector. The census has asked a series of questions across different themes to try and gather a national understanding of the obstacles and barriers that face Brownfield land development in the UK.

SPONSORED BY

Photo Credit: Debbie Darling

TICKETS

Tickets for this event are priced at £160 for AGS Members and £230 for non-AGS Members. Prices exclude VAT. A limited number of student, local authority and Environmental Agency places are available for £95, ex VAT. For further details please email ags@ags.org.uk

SPONSORSHIP

We have a range of sponsorship opportunities available for both Members and non-Members of the Association who wish to have a presence during the event. Please see packages below:

EMERALD SPONSOR

(AGS Member Rate: £1,100/ Non-Member Rate: £1,350)

• Entry for three delegates into the event

• A designated area to exhibit company initiatives, research and software. This exhibition space can also showcase marketing materials, literature and banners

• Full page advert in AGS Magazine (worth £400, over 5,700 subscribers)**

• Company logo on the event PowerPoint presentation holding slide

• Company logo and overview on the event programme

• Company overview on the AGS website

• Company logo on promotional emails

• Two announcements of your company’s involvement on the AGS Twitter page (over 3,490 followers)

• Two announcements of your company’s involvement on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (over 7,290 followers)

• Company mention in pre and post-event articles in AGS Magazine

*Limited packages available

GOLD SPONSOR

(AGS Member Rate: £950 / Non-Member Rate: £1,250)

• Entry for two delegates into the event

• A designated area to exhibit company initiatives, research and software. This

exhibition space can also showcase marketing materials, literature and banners

Company logo on the event PowerPoint presentation holding slide

Company logo and overview on the event programme

Company overview on the AGS website

1/4 page advert in AGS magazine (worth £160, over 5,700 subscribers)

Company logo on promotional emails

Two announcements of your company’s involvement on the AGS Twitter page (over 3,490 followers)

Two announcements of your company’s involvement on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (over 7,290 followers)

Company mention in pre and post-event articles in AGS Magazine

*Limited packages available

ASSOCIATE SPONSOR

(AGS Member Rate: £550 Non-Member Rate: £700)

Entry for one delegate into the event Company directory in AGS magazine (worth £50, over 5,700 subscribers)

Company logo on event PowerPoint

Presentation holding slide

Company logo on the event programme

Company overview on the AGS website

Company logo on promotional emails

Announcement of your company’s involvement on the AGS Twitter page (over 3,490 followers)

Announcement of your company’s involvement on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (over 7,290 followers)

Company mention in pre and post-event articles in AGS Magazine

If you’d like to confirm your support, please contact Caroline Kratz or Angharad Lambourne-Wade on ags@ags.org.uk before Friday 27th October Please note that packages are limited and are offered on a first come, first served basis.

SPONSORSHIP OPTIONS AGS WEBINAR

Since our first webinar in July 2020, our virtual events have been a huge success with over 7,800 delegates registering to attend. We frequently have attendees from across the globe including countries such as USA, Canada, Hong Kong, Australia, Italy and UAE to name but a few, and sponsorship provides a fantastic opportunity to put your company in front of a worldwide audience.

The AGS have both Headline and Associate sponsorship packages available for all webinars. Packages are limited, however bespoke packages can be developed with companies (subject to space) to suit all budgets.

HEADLINE SPONSOR - Price: £400 (members) or £640 (non-members)

*one packages available per webinar

Î Company website link or pop-up promotion to feature during the live webinar

Î Large logo on sponsor slide during the webinar

Î Company mention during webinar opening and closing address

Î Logo and overview in the event program

Î Company Q&A feature in AGS Magazine (5,800 subscribers)

Î Full page advert in AGS Magazine

Î Two complementary event registrations

Î Company logo and overview featured on the webinar registration page

Î Logo featured on promotional marketing emails

Î Company logo and overview on the AGS’ Twitter page (3,500 followers)

Î Company logo and overview on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (7,500 followers)

Î Company logo featured on replay email campaigns

Î Company inclusion in a follow up article in AGS Magazine (5,800 subscribers)

ASSOCIATE SPONSOR - Price: £150 (members) or £240 (non-members)

*10 packages available per webinar

Î Logo on sponsor slide during the webinar

Î Logo and overview in the event program

Î Company mention during webinar opening & closing address

Î Logo featured in promotional marketing emails

Î Company directory insert in AGS Magazine, worth £50 (5,800 subscribers)

Î One complementary webinar registration

Î Company logo and overview on the AGS’ Twitter page (3,500 followers)

Î Company logo and overview on the AGS’ LinkedIn page (7,500 followers)

Î Company mention in a follow up article in AGS Magazine (5,800 subscribers)

Î Company overview on the AGS website

Î Company logo featured on replay email campaigns

All prices exclude VAT.

If your company would like to sponsor any AGS webinars or if you’d like any further information on our events programme, please contact Caroline Kratz or Angharad Lambourne-Wade on ags@ags. org.uk.

Association of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Specialists

WHY BECOME AN AGS MEMBER?

Enhance your status in the industry. Make a statement about quality and good practice. Participate in the AGS Working Groups and help shape the industry and set the standards.

WHAT DO WE STAND FOR?

■ Good practice in geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering

■ Quality companies providing a quality service

■ Health and Safety

■ AGS Data Format

For further information on the AGS and details on how to become a member visit www.ags.org.uk

Established in 1988, the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists is a not-for-profit trade association which represents over 140 leading companies specialising in site investigation, geotechnics, geoenvironmental engineering, engineering geology, geochemistry, hydrogeology, and other related disciplines.

WHAT DO WE OFFER?

■ Guidance to good practice

■ Listing in the Directory of Members

■ AGS Magazine focused on ground engineering ‘hot topics’

■ Legal helpline

■ Chemical safety helpline

■ AGS Loss Prevention Guidance Document

■ Seminars, meetings, conferences and webinars

■ Collaboration with other bodies

■ Liaison with UKAS

■ Lobbying on matters important to the sector

■ Developing and maintaining the AGS Data Format

MEMBERS CAN CONTRIBUTE BY PRODUCING SUCH DOCUMENTS AS:

■ AGS good practice guidance

■ AGS publications

■ AGS safety guidance

■ AGS client guides

MEMBERS CAN PARTICIPATE IN AGS WORKING GROUPS:

■ Laboratories

■ Contaminated Land

■ Safety

■ Business Practice

■ Loss Prevention

■ Data Management

■ Executive Committee

■ Geotechnical

■ Instrumentation and Monitoring

NEWS, REPLAYS & UPCOMING EVENTS AGS WEBINAR

On 21st June 2023, the AGS held a webinar entitled Instrumentation and Monitoring: How Not to Get it Wrong which was chaired by Daniele Fornelli (AGS Instrumentation and Monitoring Working Group Leader and Associate Technical Director at Geotechnical Observations). Daniele also presented alongside Tim Clegg (Managing Director, Geosense).

The webinar was split into two parts. The first part looked at Instrumentation and Monitoring in Geotechnical Engineering: From Principles to Concept and provided an introduction to Instrumentation and Monitoring (I&M) for Geotechnical Engineering, and to the importance of field monitoring data reliability. The presentation also discussed the main features for the definition of an effective I&M

scope.

The second part of the webinar focused on Instrumentation and Monitoring in Geotechnical Engineering: The Importance of Details, highlighting I&M schemes, used to illustrate some of the challenges associated with the choice, the installation and the data acquisition procedures of typical monitoring instruments used in Geotechnical Engineering projects. Thank you to Geosense and Terra Insights for sponsoring the webinar.

If you missed the webinar, the recording is now live on the AGS website and can be purchased at £25 for AGS members and £30 for nonmembers (Ex. VAT).

SPONSORED BY

The AGS’ upcoming webinar entitled, Second Generation Eurocode EN 1997: Where are We and Where are We Going? will present an overview of the Second-Generation Eurocode EN 1997: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General Rules, Part 2: Ground Properties and Part 3: Geotechnical Structures.

Taking place on 20th September at 11am (approx. 2.5 hour duration), this virtual event will bring delegates up-to-date with the current development progress and will highlight some of the proposed changes and additions to the current published version of BS EN 1997-1 and 2.

The webinar will feature guest speakers Chris Raison (Raison Foster Associates), Stuart Hardy (Laing O Rourke), Andrew Bond (Geocentrix) and Matthew Baldwin (Independent Consultant), and will also provide opportunities for delegates to ask the speakers questions about how the Eurocodes will affect geotechnical design.

TICKETS

This webinar is free for AGS members. Nonmembers are required to pay a small fee of £30 (plus VAT).

To register click HERE.

PRESENTATIONS

Eurocode 1997 Part 2

Mathew Baldwin, Independent Consultant

The revision of Eurocode 1997, (known as Eurocode 7), has resulted in a three-part document. Part 2, which used to be titled ‘Ground Investigation and Testing’, has been completely revised and reordered.

The new document which is titled ‘Ground Properties’ considers those ground properties relevant to geotechnical design. As such ground

investigation is but one part of the processes of ground data gathering. Because the new document looks at all the on-site and off-site factors that might impact on design, it was sensible not to make this part of the standard all about ground investigation.

Prominence is given to developing a ground model for all designs and the development of this model along side the preparation of the Ground Investigation Report (GIR), is integral to the new document.

This presentation will highlight the changed content and layout of this part of the standard and will show its linkage to Parts 1 and 3 of EC7. Getting ready for the 2nd Generation Eurocodes Dr Andrew Bond, Director, Geocentrix

More than 10 years in development, the 2nd Generation Eurocodes are due to be published in the next couple of years, with Eurocode 7 undergoing major improvement and reorganization. This talk will summarize the key changes that will affect geotechnical professionals involved in ground investigation and foundation design and will give a clear timeline for the publication and implementations of the 2nd Generation codes. Overview of Part 3: Geotechnical Structures. What does this Cover and What is New?

Changes and Additions

Stuart Hardy, Technical Leader – Geotechnical at Laing O’Rourke

This presentation will discuss the most important changes that have been made to the Clauses that relate to the design of specific geotechnical structures in the second generations of the Eurocode. Importantly, the presentation will also cover things that have not changed, or not changed significantly from current UK practice.

Assessment and Mitigation of Turbidity Risks from Piling

In recent years geo-environmental practitioners have experienced an increasing drive from regulators and water companies to assess risks to groundwater abstractions from turbidity that can be created by piling. There is currently no authoritative UK guidance on how to assess this risk.

Piling operations present a number of potential risks to environmental receptors if not correctly managed. These can include vibration and ground movement hazards,

noise and creation of new pathways for contamination. Geo-environmental specialists are familiar with assessing risks from piling related to contamination, with reference to the Environment Agency’s 2001 guidance (EA, 2001), however, this does not cover turbidity. The Environment Agency has recently commissioned CL:AIRE to update the guidance and it is understood that the revised version will refer to turbidity, but that the release date is unlikely to be before the end of 2023. Planning consents for developments in sensitive areas such as the Source Protection Zone 1 (SPZ1) of a public water supply borehole often include conditions to assess and mitigate risks to the abstraction, and can specifically require turbidity to be assessed.

Article contributed by Tim Rolfe (Director, YES Environmental) and Craig Speed (Technical Director, Wardell Armstrong)

Photo Credit: Anna Prescott

Why is Turbidity Assessment Required?

Abstractors of groundwater are required by the Drinking Water Inspectorate to regularly test groundwater for turbidity. The turbidity results are used as a marker for risks from pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and E. coli, which the turbidity test does not differentiate from mineral particles. Therefore, if increased turbidity is detected the operator has to shut down the abstraction until mitigation has been implemented (Burris et al, 2020). This has significant implications for supply of water to local consumers and to the cost of water treatment. Additionally, increased turbidity can compromise the disinfection process, and where the abstracted water is treated using membrane filters then the filters can become fouled by the turbidity, resulting in replacement costs running to potentially millions of pounds. Operators of a site at which piling resulted in the shutdown of an abstraction could face significant financial and reputational liabilities.

The turbidity of water presented for disinfection must be less than 1.0 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU), and in areas where background turbidity is elevated then water companies may apply their own more stringent criteria, which can be as low as 0.2 NTU. These are lower than the UK Drinking Water Standard of 4 NTU when supplied at consumer’s taps (DWI, 2016). For context, the image below shows water with 20 to 800 NTU. The abstracted water target is clear to the naked eye and a turbidity sensor is required to detected turbidity < ~50 NTU.

The low target values that must be achieved by the abstractor, therefore, present significant challenge to the risk assessor.

A public water supply groundwater abstraction in Hertfordshire has been affected by persistent turbidity issues in the Chalk aquifer. Intrusive foundation works were undertaken concurrently on three development sites within SPZ1 of the abstraction. Specifically, continuous flight auger piling foundations into saturated Chalk occurred at two separate sites 80 m and 95 m from the abstraction. At another site less than 50 m from the abstraction, vibro ground improvement was applied to superficial deposits directly overlying saturated Chalk. Telemetred continuous turbidity monitoring was in place only for the piling foundations at 80 m the distance site and did not indicate a direct link with the turbidity issues. The other sites either had no monitoring or inadequate monitoring of turbidity, therefore, it was difficult to definitively confirm if either, or a combination, induced turbidity detected at the abstraction.

How to Assess Risks?

Review by others has not identified an authoritative methodology for quantifying risks (Burris et al, 2020), however, a qualitative approach can be employed. By development of a robust conceptual site model (CSM) similar to those used for contaminated land risk assessment, the potential risks can be qualitatively assessed. The principles of source, pathway and receptor creating a potential pollutant linkage are similar to those set out in the Environment Agency’s Land Contamination Risk Management guidance (EA, 2021). For the piling CSM the greatest

“ The abstracted water target is clear to the naked eye and a turbidity sensor is required to detected turbidity < ~50 NTU.

Case study – abstraction suspected to be impacted by foundation works

emphasis is on the pathways and the source. The development of a scale cross-section is strongly recommended to both inform the assessment and to communicate it to regulators.

Where qualitative assessment identifies potential risks, semiquantitative assessment can be undertaken to better understand risks and inform mitigation measures. In higher risk scenarios the CSM could be further developed with site-specific fracture details.

The primary source of turbidity during piling is mechanical action against the aquifer producing a microscopic rock ‘flour’ in suspension in groundwater, with different piling methods likely to result in different degrees of turbidity. Loss of cement fines before cement has cured is also a concern. The turbidity created will

also be a function of the strata in which the piles are installed. No studies were identified that quantify the turbidity created by piling. However, qualitative assessment can quickly identify methods that are likely to create more turbidity. Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) and other rotary methods are likely to generate turbidity, particularly when operating in rock or fine-grained strata, due to the mechanical action of the rotating parts abrading the rock or soil. For context, measurement of turbidity during drilling of 194 mm diameter boreholes in Chalk using a tri-cone rock roller reported turbidity in thousands of NTU (maximum of 4,240 NTU) while rotary cored boreholes generated up to 452 NTU (Burris et al, 2020), although it is uncertain whether either would be representative of piling turbidity. Conversely, driven piles are expected to produce less turbidity.

“ The primary source of turbidity during piling is mechanical action against the aquifer producing a microscopic rock ‘flour’...

Particle size of the aquifer will be important in determining extent of turbidity migration, with finer particles migrating further in an aquifer since they can be held in suspension at lower velocities and migrate through smaller pore sizes. Particle size will be largely a function of the geological strata. In a sandstone, particles formed should mainly be sand-sized since the bonds between grains will generally be weaker than the bonds within grains. Analysis of settled turbidity produced by tunnel boring machines in Chalk reported 80% of particles to be < 10.5 µm and 20% < 0.1 µm (Burris et al, 2020), which was attributed to the size of intact coccoliths in the Chalk (approximately 10 µm) and fragmentary material, respectively.

For turbidity to migrate beyond the source area then the groundwater velocity must be greater than the settlement velocity of the particles to keep particles in suspension. For

intergranular flow the porewater velocity is unlikely to exceed settlement velocity, whereas in fractured rock, such as in the upper part of structured Chalk, the groundwater fracture velocity can exceed settlement velocity (Burris et al, 2020). In SPZ1 the groundwater velocity and gradient can exceed those under natural conditions, with both increasing nearer to the abstraction.

The lateral and vertical location of the source relative to the receptor will also be important in determining the risk. Piles installed in saturated strata to a similar depth as the abstraction intake will be at greater risk than piles that are much shallower than the intake, and risks increase with lateral proximity to the abstraction.

The scale of the project will affect the source magnitude, with both the number and depth of piles, and the duration of piling affecting the

“ The scale of the project will affect the source magnitude, with both the number and depth of piles, and the duration of piling affecting the release rate of particles.

release rate of particles.

Other sources of turbidity include natural background of mineral particles in the aquifer, precipitation of solutes such as manganese and microbial contamination by bacteria and protozoa. The natural turbidity can also be affected by weather events such as intense rainfall and changes in groundwater level. Operation of the abstraction will also affect the turbidity of abstracted water. Stop/re-start cycles or changes in abstraction rate are major factors.

PATHWAYS

This is likely to be the most critical part of the turbidity assessment, since in most cases it will not be possible to change the receptor, and there will be other constraints on the choice of piling method such as ground strength, cost and contamination migration. For a pathway to be present then the source zone must be connected to the receptor by strata that have pore sizes greater than the particles produced and sufficiently high groundwater velocity. The focus on velocity is a significant variation from typical solute transport CSMs.

The most likely scenario for this are karstic features or well-connected fractures in rock, with Chalk aquifers being at particular risk. It has been shown that in fractured, structured Chalk, groundwater velocity in fractures can exceed 2 km/day indicating potential for rapid transport of turbidity from site to the abstraction.

Where piles do not penetrate the abstracted strata and are separated from it by a finegrained stratum such as clay then there is unlikely to be a complete pathway, provided

that the fine-grained material is intact beneath the entire piled zone and for sufficient distance down-hydraulic gradient to protect the underlying aquifer. Whilst there is no defined minimum thickness for such a stratum to prevent migration of turbidity, confidence that the stratum will be continuous and of suitable material will increase with increasing thickness. Where an assessment is reliant on such a protective stratum then it should be supported by the proven thickness on site as well as desk-study information including offsite boreholes where available and review of other references such as BGS memoirs.

Attenuation and removal of turbidity caused by suspended sediment will be mainly by settlement of particles due to low groundwater velocity. Other mechanisms are dispersion within the aquifer and dilution at the receptor.

RECEPTORS

In most cases the receptor will be a potable groundwater abstraction, which could be operated either for public supply or by a private operator. Groundwater fed surface waters may also be considered if in close proximity to the foundation works.

RISK ASSESSMENT

Once a potential pollutant linkage has been identified, then qualitative assessment can be undertaken using the approach for land quality (CIRIA, 2001). Where risks are classified as greater than Low then further assessment or mitigation will be required. Fate and transport models for dissolved phase contamination are not suitable for assessing turbidity migration, and review by others has not identified a

“ Whilst there is no defined minimum thickness for such a stratum to prevent migration of turbidity, confidence that the stratum will be continuous and of suitable material will increase with increasing thickness.

practicable method for modelling migration of particles in fracture flow systems (Burris et al, 2020), therefore, traditional quantitative risk assessment is not appropriate. Where quantitative methodologies have been proposed they are not known to have been recognised by regulators and the cost of collecting supporting data will be prohibitive for most sites. Semi-quantitative assessment based on dilution at the receptor may be appropriate.

A cost benefit exercise will usually be required to determine whether it is more cost effective to modify the foundation solution to reduce risks or to undertake other mitigation during piling.

MITIGATION Foundation Design/ Re-design

Where turbidity risks cannot be addressed by risk assessment then foundation design

changes may provide a lower cost, reduced timescales and more certain solution than other mitigation approaches. By altering the number, depth and diameter of piles it may be possible to terminate piles in strata overlying the aquifer and/or above the water table.

Monitoring

If the foundation solution cannot be changed to reduce risks then the most common mitigation measure is to undertake groundwater monitoring for turbidity during piling. Monitoring adjacent to the piled area allows any turbidity increase to be detected at the earliest opportunity. Monitoring can also exclude the site as a source if turbidity at the abstraction increases from another cause. Baseline and post-completion monitoring will also be required. Sentinel monitoring boreholes must be suitably located down-hydraulic

Photo Credit: In-situ Ltd: Down-hole sonde for measuring turbidity and other parameters, telemetry compatible

“ Where turbidity risks cannot be addressed by risk assessment then foundation design changes may provide a lower cost, reduced timescales and more certain solution than other mitigation approaches.

gradient of the piled area, installed to similar depth as the pile bases and fitted with a filter pack representative of the aquifer material. An upgradient borehole is required to assess changes in groundwater flow direction and changes in background turbidity from natural causes such as heavy rainfall. The frequency and duration of each monitoring period will be site specific and should be agreed with the stakeholders at the earliest opportunity.

The site monitoring data should be complemented with turbidity data from the receptor borehole to show any seasonal trends or other events that affect turbidity. These data can also be used to inform the design of the monitoring programme, which will also

need to consider lag-times and potential cumulative effects.

Where piles are installed in lower permeability strata then monitoring at the end of each day may be sufficient, whereas for piles installed in fractured rock with a short travel time to the receptor then real-time monitoring with telemetry and automatic alarms may be required. Real-time monitoring also offers the option to reduce piling rate to reduce turbidity.

For larger projects consideration can be given to scheduling piling to commence near a monitoring well so that worst-case data can be collected at the earliest opportunity.

Turbidity targets will be site-specific and will

need to be agreed with stakeholders. The targets are often a defined increase relative to baseline conditions. When setting targets it is important to recognise the detection limits of the proposed monitoring instruments to ensure that the target can be detected.

Other Mitigation

Alternatives to monitoring that have been implemented including funding or indemnification for the abstractor to undertake additional treatment of abstracted water before disinfection, or abstracting turbid groundwater adjacent to the source and treating it before discharge to ground. However, these are likely to be prohibitively costly and time consuming

to agree with other stakeholders and implement, even if agreement can be reached.

Conclusions

Assessment of turbidity risks from piling can be undertaken by qualitative assessment of source-pathway-receptor linkages based on a robust understanding of ground conditions. In many cases this will be sufficient to demonstrate that risk is acceptable without further works. Where the qualitative assessment identifies potentially unacceptable risks then the risk can be controlled by implementation of mitigation measures.

The authors thank Philip Burris for providing technical review.

References

Burris et al, 2020. Tunnelling, Chalk and turbidity: conceptual model of risk to groundwater public water supplies. P. Burris, C. D. Speed, A. E. Saich, S. Hughes, S. Cole and M. Banks. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

CIRIA, 2001. CIRIA Report C552 ‘Contaminated Land Risk Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice’. CIRIA 2001.

DWI, 2016. The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2016, Schedule 1. The Drinking Water Inspectorate. 2016.

EA, 2001. Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected by contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention. Report NC/99/73. Environment Agency, May 2001.

EA, 2021. Land contamination risk management. Published online 8th October 2020, updated 19th April 2021.

UK WIR, 2012. Turbidity in Groundwater Understanding Cause, Effect and Mitigation Measures. Report 12/DW/1/4/5. UK Water Industry Research. 2012.

Article contributed by Markus Hjort1, Eleni Vaiopoulou1, Richard Gill1,3, Pablo Campo4, Célia Lourenço4, Chris Walton4 , Tamazon Cowley4, and Frederic Coulon4

1 Concawe (Scientific Division of European Fuels Manufacturers Association), Brussels, Belgium

2 ExxonMobil (Esso Petroleum Company Limited), Avonmouth Fuels Terminal, St. Andrews Road, Avonmouth, Bristol, BS11 9BN, United Kingdom

3 Shell Global Solutions International B.V., Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR, The Hague, Netherlands

4 Cranfield University, School of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield, MK43

0AL, UK

Petroleum hydrocarbons are common soil contaminants that pose a risk to human and environmental health.

Different analytical methods are used to determine their presence in soil, including non-specific screening techniques and labbased fingerprint techniques. While the latter provides high accuracy, they can be timeconsuming and expensive.

Over the past decade, the emergence of various field analytical techniques, such as test kits and portable handheld devices, have enabled real-time petroleum hydrocarbons detection and measurement on-site, which

A comprehensive comparison of field-based analytical technologies for both qualitative and quantitative determination of petroleum hydrocarbons in soils

has the potential to drastically reduce cost and time of analysis compared with traditional technologies and without sacrificing ‘Quality Management’ objectives. However, their performance for different soil types, contamination levels, and fuel types, as well as their ability to speciate and quantify different hydrocarbon groups for risk assessment, and their suitability for remediation monitoring and validation, have not been fully studied. It is also important to understand the type and quality of data that will be generated by field analytical technologies and interpretation of the data generated should be carefully evaluated before conclusions are drawn. Depending on which

analytical technology is used, it is possible to achieve qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative results. In some cases, the accuracy of field analytical technology is approaching that achievable previously only from laboratory analysis. Yet, laboratory analysis may still be required to attain legally recognised measurements.

The main goal of this study was, therefore, to assess and raise awareness about the feasibility of using field-based techniques for determining TPH concentrations in soil, and whether they can replace lab processing. The study reviewed various techniques, ranging

Legend key Table 1: Qual: Qualitative; Semi-Quant: Semi Quantitative Quant: Quantitative; VOC: Volatiles Organic Compounds - include a range of seleted low molecular weight aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons up to EC12; BTEX: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and the three xylene isomers: a variant on VOC analysis which specifically targets BTEX; SVOC: Semi-volatiles Organic Compounds including aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons in the range of C12-C40; PAH: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: a variant of SVOC analysis targeted to the aromatic hydrocarbons group. This is usually the 16 PAHs listed in the US Environmental Protection Agency.; N.A. Not applicable.

Target analytes: Both aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons of the group; Greater response towards aliphatic hydrocarbons. Greater response towards aromatic hydrocarbons. Covering only selected compounds ranges within the hydrocarbons group (e.g. spectroscopy only VOC between EC10-EC12; gas chromatography covering selected SVOC up to EC21)

Operator skill: Low ; Moderate High;

Sampling processing time: immediate (few sec); intermediate (within few minutes); long (several minutes);

Relative cost: relatively low; relatively moderate; relatively high

Table 1: Summary of the criteria for selecting field analytical techniques for the analysis of petroleum hydrocarbon in soil

from high-end gas chromatographs and handheld infrared spectrometers to low-end oil pans and chemical kits. To ease comparison, the field analytical kits and devices were classified according to detection methods, target analytes detected and data quality levels (qualitative, semiquantitative and quantitative) (Table 1, left). The basic principle along with the advantages and limitations of each field analytical technique, quality control requirements, operator skill level, and analysis cost are summarised and the synthesis can be accessed for free on the Concawe website at https://www.concawe.eu/wp-content/ uploads/Rpt_21-3.pdf.

In general, the field analytical technologies for detecting petroleum hydrocarbons in soil are highly developed and well established. In terms of risk assessment, only GC-MS can accurately differentiate between aliphatic and aromatic petroleum fractions. However, this technique involves soil sample extraction and demands a high level of expertise, which may not be suitable for all projects. On the other hand, colorimetric, immunoassay, and turbidimetry test kits are cost-effective and rapid options for monitoring the reduction of petroleum hydrocarbons over time and guiding remediation strategies, but they lack specificity and do not provide information

“ On the other hand, colorimetric, immunoassay, and turbidimetry test kits are cost-effective and rapid options for monitoring the reduction of petroleum hydrocarbons over time and guiding remediation strategies...

on individual analytes. Field spectrometry technologies offer real-time measurement of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil with minimal sample handling but require soil drying and cannot discriminate between aliphatic and aromatic fractions. Fluorescence technologies are used for in-situ site investigation with high spatial resolution but provide relative data and require skilled personnel. Both spectrometry and fluorescence systems can be useful in adaptive sampling designs to detect and predict contamination levels during the Phase 2 Investigation.

It is important to note that no single field analytical technology can quantify the entire range of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil, and therefore a combination of technologies may be necessary for greater accuracy in prediction.

A representative subset of seven field-based technologies was then selected and tested with impacted soil samples, which were compared to results from accredited laboratory analysis

[Table 2]. The subset included 3 portable solvent-based technologies (one portable GCMS (FT1), one portable nondispersive infrared (NDIR) spectrophotometer (FT2), one portable ultraviolet fluorescence (UVF) spectrometer (FT3)), and 4 handheld solvent free technologies (one handheld visible and nearinfrared reflectance (vis-NIR) spectrometer (FT4), two handheld Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers (FT5 and 6), and one handheld photoionization detector (PID; FT7)). Three soils (sandy loam, silty clay loam, and clay loam) were spiked with gasoline or diesel fuel on weight/weight basis to achieve 100, 1000 and 10,000 mg/kg spike levels.

All samples were analysed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Gasoline Range organic (GRO) and Diesel Range organic (DRO) and speciated hydrocarbon compounds when the chosen technology allowed to do so. Gasoline spiked soils were not analysed with FTIR and vis-NIR spectroscopy as the use of methanol as preservative interferes with the analysis.

Table 2: Overview of the field and reference technologies evaluated for petroleum hydrocarbons determination in soil

It has also been reported that non-preserved samples contaminated with gasoline are subject to volatilisation losses that occur during the analytical process, which result in poor performance for such technique. The intra and inter spikes consistency were evaluated by determining (1) precision from triplicates expressed as the percentage of relative standard deviation (%RSD) and (2) bias, which is the difference expressed as a percentage between the mean of the replicate measurements and the spiked theoretical concentration level. Similarly, performance comparison of the field technologies against a benchtop GC-MS technology was carried out by determining the difference (%) between the mean measurements determined by the benchtop GC-MS and the field technologies evaluated. Additionally, performance characteristics of the GC-MS were determined by analysing the certified reference material RTC-SQC026 in triplicate.

All solvent-based field technologies performed well for TPH determination in different soil types, while solvent-free non-invasive technologies showed higher variability and lower accuracy. Infrared technologies are influenced by soil characteristics, particularly for low-level spikes (<1000 mg/kg) and certain soil types. The portable GC-MS performed well and closely to the benchtop GC-MS. While the headspace analysis of the portable GC-MS was easy to use and allowed to save time compared to the benchtop GC-MS, extra analysis time was required for the soil extraction and analysis due to manual injection. The non-destructive and solvent free FourierTransform IR (FTIR) and visible and nearinfrared reflectance IR (vis-NIR) spectroscopic

technologies performed well with diesel and were demonstrated to be versatile, fast, and easy to use methods, but the accuracy was lower than for other technologies when total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) levels were <1000 mg kg-1. The procedures for soil calibration and validation may further limit the FTIR and vis-NIR applicability for diverse soil type and fuel type. In comparison, the nondispersive IR (NDIR) and UVF spectroscopy technologies showed better performance, typically ±15% precision and ±30% bias for quantifying TPH in soil, which meet regulatory requirements. The UVF technology also provided additional quantitative information into hydrocarbons groups which can inform swiftly remediation monitoring and validation. Analysis of soil-gas samples by photoionization detector (PID) showed that PID underestimated concentrations compared to both portable and benchtop GC-MS which was expected as PID only provides an indirect and approximate indication of concentration of volatile compounds (VOC) in soil. Nevertheless, the PID remains a valuable instrument for site risk screening of soil-gas vapours considering its low cost and ease to use. Complete report is freely available on Concawe website at https:// www.concawe.eu/wp-content/uploads/ Rpt.22-12.pdf

The authors are grateful to all members of the Concawe Soil and Groundwater Taskforce (STF-33) which include a wide team of collaborators and advisors across Europe for their useful discussions and contribution during the study progress and revision of the reports.

“ Analysis of soil-gas samples by photoionization detector (PID) showed that PID underestimated concentrations compared to both portable and benchtop GC-MS which was expected...

Findings of SiLC DoWCoP industry survey: Regulatory challenges for regeneration of historical landfills and reuse of stockpiles and mineral waste

Article contributed by Clive Williams (Senior Associate Contaminated Land, Mott MacDonald), Louise Beale (Technical Director, SLR Consulting), Sarah Owen (Senior Associate, Waterman), Sarah Bullock (Associate Director, Atkins) and Catherine Copping (Technical Director, Stantec)

Given on-going interest and concerns about regulatory constraints to the regeneration of former landfill sites, Specialist in Land Condition (SiLC) has been examining recent regulatory approaches and use of the CL:AIRE Definition of Waste Code of Practice (DoWCoP) in England and Wales.

SiLC held a webinar in June 2022 entitled ‘Regeneration of historical landfill sites –views from multistakeholder perspectives’. This included looking at the history and development of the DoWCoP and the key decisions that underpinned this; presentation of case studies which illustrated how DoWCoP could effectively be used for regeneration

of historical landfills while securing environmental betterment and protection of health; and case studies that clearly showed significant concerns with undertaking land regeneration under the permitting regime. Alongside this webinar, SiLC undertook an online survey in August and September 2022 requesting views on the use (and misuse) of the DoWCoP and experiences of the difference between project and programme delivery via DoWCoP and waste recovery permitting. There was a large response to this with some 212 responses received from the consulting, contracting and regulatory brownfield development community. The key take-away messages included a strong desire to maintain the DoWCoP as a robust and effective tool to manage brownfield development (including historical landfills) but also highlighted some issues. For example, the survey responses referred to inappropriate use of the DoWCoP for dealing with mineral wastes, such as colliery spoil.

The DoWCoP was published in 2008 and is currently in its 2nd edition, with a 3rd

Historic landfills

Old stockpiles

Mineral waste or colliery spoil 39% (82 respondents) 65% (137 respondents) 24% (50 respondents)

edition keenly awaited for some time. On 12th July 2021 the Environment Agency (EA) confirmed to SiLC that “Our DoW CoP and Land Contamination leads are in the final stages of drafting internal guidance around these matters as we are aware of the industry's interest. The guidance will make it clear to our staff the appropriate permitting options for these activities and ensure we maintain consistency in our opinion. We will share this with you once it has been issued and welcome any further comments.” SiLC wrote to DEFRA and the EA on 21st April 2023 again requesting a review of EA guidance Downloads | Specialist in Land Condition Register Ltd (SiLC)

The current scope of the DoWCoP covers the reuse of soil, rock, dredged material, made ground and aggregates derived from construction and demolition waste as well as stockpiles containing these materials on the site of origin. The 2nd edition expanded the scope of the DoWCoP to include transferring natural soils and rock directly from a donor site to a development. It is however important to note that the DoWCoP specifically excludes application to soil contaminated with invasive weeds, infrastructure (pipes, tanks), construction wastes such as plasterboard, glass and wood, and mining wastes. Whilst not specifically excluding historical landfills from the DoWCoP, it is becoming increasingly the case that the Environment Agency will not support the use of the DoWCoP for any development work on such a site regardless

of its licensing/ permitting history and date of deposition.

The figures in Table 1 demonstrate a lack of understanding and confusion within the industry of what the DoWCoP covers and points towards confusion within the regulatory bodies who must confirm no objections (or no response within 21 days) to the reuse of materials in advance of a declaration being made. One Local Authority respondent reported “we often have to respond to EA/QP issues (i.e. sites being subject to DoWCoP when planning conditions for site investigation have not been satisfied let alone agreed a Remediation Method Statement”.

Over the last three years half the respondents reported being told by the EA they could no longer use DoWCoP for projects they would previously have done so (Graph 1, overleaf) with the main reason being cited as development of historical landfills. One respondent indicated that personal discussions with EA Area Officers has clearly shown that Area Officers are also frustrated. They can often see environmental benefits and gains from a proposal that they are told is no longer in line with EA national thinking on the use of DoWCoP. One QP responded “It is not always going to be acceptable to reuse material from a historical landfill, or a stockpile, these are site specific decisions and often, will not be straight forward. Rather than a blanket, include or don't include in DoWCoP, each case should be considered in terms of its Conceptual

Percentage of respondents who have used DoWCoP for material reuse on:

“ The figures in Table 1 demonstrate a lack of understanding and confusion within the industry of what the DoWCoP covers and points towards confusion within the regulatory bodies...

Site Model.”

While the position for historical landfills is understood not to have yet been formalised the following footer is now appearing on some emails from the EA permitting team “The Environment Agency considers that any material which consists of current or historically landfilled waste remains waste on excavation and therefore cannot be used under DoWCoP. Excavated landfilled waste materials require appropriate waste controls such as an environmental permit for storage, treatment and deposit.” Whilst this position is now being circulated, there is limited steer or guidance on specifics such as what constitutes a current or historically landfilled waste, which could again be subject to interpretation. In addition, consultants have recently reported changes in position within the EA on how sites are to be regulated mid-way through projects.

30% of respondents had obtained an environmental permit to permanently deposit waste on land as a recovery activity (also referred to as deposit for recovery or DfR for short) in the previous 18 months. The time required to obtain the permit varied with 8% (five) of permits issued in six months or less,

average was between 18 months to 2 years, with some reported as five years. Two refusals were reported after 3 years of consultations.

Major benefits of using the DoWCoP compared to a DfR permit are considered to be the reduced time and costs taken to prepare the Material Management Plan and submit the declaration. Where DoWCoP has not been used to support development our survey respondents reported significant cost increases, project delays and worryingly a trend towards the requirement to landfill material offsite and importing virgin aggregates to make up levels (Graph 2). Almost 1 in 5 projects were abandoned because the increased costs and delays to programme. 80% of respondents consider the exclusion of landfills, mining wastes and stockpiles from DoWCoP would hinder brownfield development. Some commonly expressed views were that their exclusion seems arbitrary and would hinder sustainable materials management for no economic, social or environmental benefit. Respondents also acknowledged that there needs to be effective regulatory oversight, particularly with landfilled wastes. Excluding landfills is considered counterproductive to the drive

“ Almost 1 in 5 projects were abandoned because the increased costs and delays to programme.

for sustainability and adoption of circular economy principles, leading to superfluous use of virgin materials, which result in the additional use of earth’s resources, increased carbon expenditure from additional transport of materials, impact on the utilisation of key landfill space. Regeneration of landfill sites can have considerable positive impact on the social value of an area and short term potential negative impacts during redevelopment need to be managed.

There is a significant view from respondents that the DoWCoP should be extended to cover development of landfills and materials from former mining activities including old stockpiles (Graph 3). The existing permitting regime has few advocates within the industry with some calls for a simpler (quicker) standard rules waste recovery permit.

There were also calls to modify the definition of waste to exclude materials for which there is a defined use. The review of legislation since Brexit offers an opportunity to rethink how waste is classified and material is reused within the UK in accordance with circular economy, sustainable development and net zero principles.

Conclusions

There is an increasing trend from the EA to require an environmental permit (deposit for

recovery) to manage the reuse of material on development sites (historic, current landfills, stockpiles, possible mining extractive waste etc). The EA does not have capacity within the permitting system to accommodate this increase. Permit decision times of greater than 6 months will not work in the construction sector. An increasing number of permits need to be bespoke because material for reuse and/ or the environmental setting does not fit the standard rule permits available.

The DoWCoP has proved its worth to the brownfield development industry since its publication in 2008. It offers a simple costeffective and crucially timely approach to managing the reuse of materials in construction. It also provides a pragmatic approach to the sustainable reuse of materials supporting the drive for circular economy, zero waste and enhancing social value all of which are key concerns in relation to brownfield regeneration. The constraint to regeneration posed by the need to use the permitting regime is at odds with government drivers including brownfield first, recovery from Covid, levelling up and build back better. However, use of the DoWCoP has been inappropriate at times and as an industry we need to tighten up our understanding and application of it to regeneration.

GUIDANCE ON THE OPENING OF CORE AND DYNAMIC SAMPLER LINER

Article contributed by Liz Withington (Principal Engineering Geologist, CC Ground Investigations) and Adam Latimer (Director, Ian Farmer Associates).

For engineering geologists in the UK ground investigation industry, the opening of core and dynamic sampler liners to enable the logging of recovered material is a standard and often daily procedure. This operation is frequently carried out onsite, under field conditions, using a variety of tools including knives to complete

the task effectively.

Statistics on accidents involving knives within the geotechnical and environmental sector aren’t readily available, however, relevant information is accessible from the UK plastics industry. Reviewing four separate plastics manufactures with online published information our research indicated;

1. A plastic film manufacturer identified that hand knife injuries contributed to over 50% of their total accidents.

2. A polyethene manufacturer indicated that over 50% of their accidents were hand

Photo Credit: Equipe Group

injuries.

3. A plastic components manufacturer appointed a new safety manager who noticed that hand knife injuries accounted for a significant percentage of the company’s total injuries.

4. A pipe extrusion company noted that their largest category of injuries were cuts, and of these 75% were caused by knives.

Within the ground investigation industry there are many anecdotal incidents where operatives and logging engineers have caused serious harm to themselves whilst using knives, and

it is more than likely that injuries involving the use of knives is more common than those instances that are reported.

The aim of this article is to explore the methods available to the engineer in the field and provide guidance on the safe cutting of core and dynamic sampler liners.

The use of knifes and other cutting devices is covered by The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 1998), which requires work equipment to be suitable and safe for the task it is being used for.

The only focused advice from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is How to reduce hand knife injuries. HSE PPIS12(rev1) May 2000. However, this is not specific to the construction industry but provides practical advice to anybody involved in managing the risks of using hand knives as part of their work.

As with all risks associated with work activities, a risk assessment is required to identify the risk and put into place suitable and sufficient control measures to reduce the risk. When considering risk controls for core and dynamic sampler liner cutting it is important to select the most effective control measure, this is achieved by considering the hierarchy of controls.

As highlighted by the graphic, the most effective risk controls are elimination, substitution and engineering controls, weaknesses within administrative controls and personal protective equipment are created through the reliance on humans to follow rules. Where this reliance can be removed, more effective controls have a positive impact on reducing harm.

Considering, the hierarchy of controls application to core and dynamic sampler liner cutting mitigation, the following could be considered:

Elimination: alternatives to core liner could be identified that eliminate the use of knifes or the need to cut liners. Consideration should be given to different techniques that may eliminate the need to cut core liners or in fact not use core liners at all.

Substitution: can be applied to the core liner itself, identify alternative types of liners that are easier to cut and reduce the effort used to cut the liner improving knife control and reducing the risk of cutting. The volume of core liners produced can also potentially be reduced, through the reduction of intrusive locations, the use of other investigative methods (e.g. CPTs) or substituting some of the field work for computer modelling utilising AI based technologies.

Engineering Controls: provide significant options to reduce cutting associated with core liners, from specifying safety knifes with self-retracting or hidden blades or by the introduction of purpose-built core liner cutters, jigs for powered tools or other mechanical options.

Administrative Controls: in relation to fixed blades bans within site rules and procedures or

alternative equipment detailed within method statements. These controls have weaknesses surrounding implementation, as they need greater levels of supervision and trust of the operatives and fixed blade knifes have a habit of finding their way onto site.

Personal Protective Equipment: is universally used on every project and sometimes overused, throwing PPE at a problem without taking the time to understand the holistically to begin with. Cut resistant gloves, gauntlets and other protective items have been significantly improved in recent years, providing good dexterity as well as high cut resistance.

Through the research required to write this article, consulting with people across the industry and those outside of it, methods of core and dynamic sampler liner cutting which significantly lower the risk of cuts to hands have been identified. These are not risk free, but in practice significantly reduce the risk of significant hand injuries when compared to the use of fixed blade knifes which should not be used for core and dynamic sampler liner cutting.

Core Line Cutting Rig

In a purpose-built logging shed core liners can be cut using a bench and cutting rig arrangement where liners are put within a rigid frame and the liners mechanically cut either by a hooked blade arrangement in a safety jig or vibratory cutter (noting that the introduction of vibrating tooling introduces vibration, noise and dust risks which need to be controlled).

In either case the cutting is carried out without the need for the technicians/geologist fingers to be anywhere near the cutting edge, reducing the risk of injury. However, with what is available on the market today, this type of set up is almost certainly prohibitive in terms of suitability of the site environment when working in the field.

height for the operator to ensure ergonomic working practices, reducing the risk of musculoskeletal injuries. This can be achieved in the field by using trestles or the open tailgate of a truck. Rechargeable battery units should be preferred to eliminate introducing the additional risk of trailing cables and electric shock.

“ In either case the cutting is carried out without the need for the technicians/geologist fingers to be anywhere near the cutting edge, reducing the risk of injury.

Using Oscillating Blades

and Smalls Grinders will introduce additional hazards that must be controlled through the introduction of suitable and sufficient controls, these include: manual handling, flying debris and dust, noise, vibration and the potential damage to the core/sample itself through overcutting.

Safety Cutters

Oscillating Blades and Smalls Grinders

The use of oscillating blades (preferred due to safer handling) and small grinders is a technique that can be beneficially used where the cores and liner can be placed in a rigid structure (such as a core box), and at a suitable

There are a number of different safety cutters available to the industry which are capable of cutting core and dynamic sampler liner. These types of cutters prevent the small surface area of the blade coming into contact with the fingers.

Unfortunately, this type of cutter is often the source of great frustration when they fail to work either due to user error or their lack of suitability for the task in hand, particularly when they were too wide to get between the core and the core liner. It is well documented that when such frustrations occur it is human nature to bypass the agreed procedures and revert to fixed blade knifes and inaccurate statements made that ‘all safety cutters will not work’.

Due to these very real risks, the selection and testing of safety cutters is imperative to ensure that the tools are fit for purpose, task and the environment which they are used in.

Safety Knives

There are a number of different safety knifes available in the marketplace. These type of knifes have an automatically retracting blade when pressure is released from the blade. These will then require resetting before the blade is re-exposed.

As safety knifes work using the same manual techniques as a fixed blade knife, their use, provided the correct knife has been selected for the task, is more widely accepted by those

within the industry and they do not require controls to be introduced.

When using retractable safety knifes, if they are poorly maintained, they are susceptible to being damaged by rust and the mechanism being clogged by debris, eventually preventing it from working effectively. This, together with other maintenance and user information should be documented into administrative controls to support their effectiveness.

As with any task, training and health and safety risk assessments should be provided on how to open core liners and other samples safely, regardless to which of the above techniques are employed. This training should cover the core cutting methodology, how to replace blades on retractable knives, regular cleaning and maintenance of cutting tools.

When considering the task itself it is important to place the liner in a fixed sturdy location such as a core box or other configuration that holds the liner firmly in place, place the knife perpendicular to the core, facing away from the body at a 45o angle and ideally use two hands, pull the knife allowing slow controlled cuts,

“ As with any task, training should be provided on how to open core liners and other samples safely, regardless to which of the above techniques are employed.

be given to the strength and dexterity of the person cutting the liner. Additionally, certain types of core liner can be prone to shattering and splintering when cut. The operator shall remain vigilant at all times when cutting liners in case they are fragile and the cutting methodology reassessed.

Other basic controls when handling knifes should be applied, even when using safety knifes, these consist of but are not limited to;

Not handing a knife to a work colleague. Instead, lay it on a flat surface for them to pick up.

Keep the thumb of the hand using the cutter away from the blade, and your other hand far enough away to avoid laceration.

• Knife blades should be kept sharp and knives maintained and checked before use.

• Any damaged or knives or blades should be disposed of in a safe manner.

• Ensure there is good lighting available where the task is being undertaken.

• When done with a knife, store it edge-down or covered.

As with all cutting activities, they should be

severity of the injury.

The right kind of cut-resistant glove to purchase is the one that best protects the user from the hazards they face. Heavy duty gloves or gloves that are too large for the individual will affect the dexterity of the user and they may be tempted to remove the gloves, which exposing them to risk. Always ensure that when selecting gloves, cut resistant and dexterity are considered.

Summary

The cutting of core and dynamic sampling liner within the geotechnical industry will remain an important part of the normal operations of field based engineers. Knives are the most commonly used hand tool for this type of activity, however, they require proper selection, application, and training in use and storage. The improper use of cutting tools and knives can lead to significant hand injuries, however, using a simple risk assessed approach, the severity and likelihood of injuries sustained can be greatly reduced if not eliminated.

Training Courses

Equipe Training: Specialist Geotechnical Courses

Equipe Training's specialist geotechnical training courses are delivered both in person at our dedicated training facility just outside of Banbury, Oxfordshire, and also online via Zoom!

Available upcoming dates are provided below:

Î 12th July 2023 - Basic Foundation Design

Î 13th July 2023 - Earthworks Design and Construction

Î 3rd August 2023 - Professor David Norbury’s Soil Description Workshop

Î 23rd August 2023 - Professor David Norbury’s Rock Description Workshop

Î 5th October 2023 - Further Foundation Design

Î 18th October 2023 - Slope Stability Design (Online)

Places on these courses can be booked online here, or via contacting Equipe on +44 (0)1295 670990 or info@equipegroup.com

Equipe Training: Specialist Geotechnical Heath and Safety Courses

Equipe Training and their health and safety training partners RPA Safety Services and EB Safety Solutions are delighted to announce their collection of specialist health and safety courses for the geotechnical market have resumed being delivered in person, as well as being delivered online where required.

These courses are approved and certified by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) and meet the requirements of UK Health and Safety regulations for working on geotechnical and land drilling sites. Upcoming courses have limited numbers of places available in order to maintain social distancing within the classroom environment. Upcoming dates include:

Î 11th July 2023 - Safe Working on Geotechnical Sites

Î 20th July 2023 - IOSH Avoiding Danger from Underground Services

Î 5th – 7th September 2023 - IOSH Safe Supervision of Geotechnical Sites

Î 13th Sept' 2023 - Managing and working with Asbestos Risk in Ground Investigation (MARGI)

Places on these courses can be booked online here, or via contacting Equipe on +44 (0)1295 670990 or info@equipegroup.com

WITH WORLD CLASS GEOTECHNICAL TRAINING FROM EQUIP E

Health and Safety Courses

Delivered in partnership with RPA Safety Services

IOSH Safe Supervision of Geotechnical Sites (3 Days) - £495 + VAT

Learn in detail how to keep yourself and your on-site operatives safe in the field - industry SSSTS equivalent

IOSH Avoiding Danger from Underground Services - £175 + VAT

In accordance with the requirements and guidance set out within HSG47

Other Health and Safety Courses

Delivered in partnership with EB Safety Solutions & RPA Safety Services

MARGI - Managing & working with Asbestos Risk in Ground Investigation - £225 + VAT

Comprehensive guidance to deal with asbestos in a GI environment, including CAR 2012

Geotechnical Courses

Prof. David Norbury’s Soil Description Workshop - £295 + VAT

Providing a detailed approach to soil description practices and techniques

Prof. David Norbury’s Rock Description Workshop - £295 + VAT

Providing a detailed approach to rock description practices and techniques

Online Geotechnical Courses

Delivered in partnership with Plough Geotechnical

Basic Foundation Design - £250 + VAT

Shallow foundation overview for geotechnical practitioners and engineers

Further Foundation Design - £250 + VAT

Complex & deep pile foundations for geotechnical practitioners and engineers

Earthworks Design and Construction - £250 + VAT

A general overview of materials sourcing / selection for design & construction

Slope Stability Design - £250 + VAT

Comprehensive overview for geotechnical practitioners and engineers

SiLC Webinar – Maximising Natural Capital Benefits for Brownfield and Sustainable Development

Maximising Natural Capital Benefits for Brownfield and Sustainable Development is a webinar being held by SiLC on Wednesday 27th September 2023 from 11am – 1pm.

Can development only be a threat to soil quality and natural habitats? How do we reconcile the competing needs of nature versus man? Too long we have underestimated the value and importance that the natural environment contributes to our well-being.

By taking a ‘natural capital’ approach to decision making, development can maximise eco goods and services whereby we can get more from our land. From the simple concept of delivering the ‘right land use in the right place’ to the more complex considerations of achieving and maintaining biodiversity or environmental net gain post-development.

This CPD webinar will explore how government seeks to support the reframing of nature in terms of the value to people and the economy to create sustainable development. Attendees will hear, through case study examples, about how organisations are already implementing this approach and the resulting benefits achieved.

PRESENTATIONS

What is Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and how does it apply to brownfield and remediation sites?

Jon Davies, Nature Positive:

Recognising the potential biodiversity value of brownfield land

• The implications of site remediation and restoration for biodiversity and other environmental receptors

• Carbon off-setting, public green space, water protection and other natural capital benefits

• The brownfield balancing act – when to develop and when not to?

• Case studies for brownfield sites

TICKETS

Tickets cost £25 per attendee (excluding VAT). To register for the webinar, please click HERE

SPONSORSHIP

SiLC have Headline, Gold, and Silver sponsorship packages available for this webinar. Sponsorship packages start from just £200. For package details please click HERE or email silc@silc.org.uk.

How to become a Member of the AGS

AGS Members all share a commitment to quality in the geotechnical and geoenvironmental industry. This has become widely recognised by clients, governmental bodies and other associations that touch issues to do with the ground.

We welcome both companies and individuals who want to be recognised for their quality of practice to join our growing membership of over 130 Members. We shape our industry, continually improve practice and collaborate on issues that affect us all; from clients, all the way through to the people who use the land and the buildings we help develop.

To become a Member of the AGS, please visit http://www.ags.org.uk/about/become-a-member and submit your application online. Please note that all membership applications are reviewed by the Membership Committee 6 weeks in advance of each quarterly Executive meeting. The deadline for the next round of completed applications is 10th August 2023

AGS Chemical and Legal Helplines

All Members of the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are entitled to free chemical and contractual advice through the use of Loss Prevention Committee Members, Marquis & Lord and Beale & Co.

For advice on chemical safety and best practice, Marquis & Lord will provide 30 minutes of free advice to all AGS Members.

Additionally, if you’re an AGS Member and are looking for legal advice, please contact Beale & Co and quote ‘AGS Helpline’ where the first 15 minutes of legal advice will be free of charge.

CHEMICAL SAFETY HELPLINE

Marquis & Lord

Tel: +44 (0) 121 288 2386

www.marquisandlord.com

(Please quote ‘AGS Helpline’)

LEGAL HELPLINE

Beale & Co

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7469 0400

www.beale-law.com

Member Reporting Service for Industry Issues

If you have any queries regarding AGS Data Format, there is a discussion forum on the AGS Data Format website, where queries can be posted and answered by the Data Format team.

If a Member has any issues with regard to Safety, Contaminated Land, Geotechnical, Instrumentation & Monitoring or Laboratories which you think the industry should be aware of please email ags@ags.org.uk, we will then forward your email to the relevant AGS Working Group.

Disclaimer

All articles in the AGS Magazine are the opinions of the authors and are not intended to be a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor do they constitute legal or specialist advice. They are intended only to highlight current issues from date of publication that may be of interest. Neither the writer(s), nor the AGS, assumes any responsibility for any loss that may arise from accessing, or reliance on the material and all liability is disclaimed accordingly. Professional advice should be taken before applying the content of the articles to particular circumstances.

Advertising and Rates

An online advertising campaign within the AGS Magazine will help to build and increase industry awareness of your company’s profile, initiatives and offerings.

The AGS can help build a package to suit your needs and budget; whether it’s a series of adverts across multiple issues, a combination of event sponsorship and advertising, or a single advertorial.

How to Advertise in the AGS Magazine

The AGS Magazine is a free email publication that looks at a range of topical issues, insights and concerns, whilst publishing new guidance notes, working group activities and information on upcoming industry seminars.

With 6 issues each year, our subscribers include industry professionals such as practitioners, chartered specialists, senior decision makers and managing directors

To receive a media pack or to discuss advertising rates, please contact Caroline Kratz on 0208 658 8212 or email ags@ags.org.uk

Advert Sizes and Rates

 FULL PAGE

W: 210mm

H: 297mm

RATE: £400

 HALF PAGE

W: 210mm

H: 145mm RATE: £250

 QUARTER PAGE

W: 105mm

H: 145mm

RATE: £160

 DIRECTORY

Company name, address, contact number, email and one logo.

RATE: £50

Advertising Requirements

All adverts should be sent in a PDF, PNG, JPEG, TIFF, PSD (Photoshop) or EPS (Illustrator) format.

All advertising artwork must be supplied in 114 dpi resolution.

Artwork must be delivered to the AGS using the agreed artwork specification size listed left.

Artwork should be emailed to ags@ags.org. uk no later than 10 days prior to publication.