TransPennine Route Upgrade –

Value Engineering through

Geotechnical Data management

Callum Irving (TSP)

Paul Chaplin (Central Alliance)

What Could Possibly Go Wrong ?

Ground Investigation ConstructionDesign

Great Western Railway

Modernisation

Add company logo here

• 650+ (+ ???) Locations

• 5000+ samples

• 13000+ Laboratory tests Scheduled

• 74000+ Results

• Not to mention In-Situ Tests and Site Observations not included

• 16,000+ elements of the GWRM data on Project Wise in pdf/excel/word/email

• 200+ Holes lost ~£300,000 of information

After Quality Control Measures Introduced

• 440 Holes with reliable data

• GI Planned reduced (Damage Mitigation cost reduction)

• GI programme recovered (Expertise in Geology)

• Design Information available in “real time”

TRUe Project Overview

ABS 75

CP 5

DP 34

RC 11

SCP 296

TP 4

WLS 40

CSW 63

WLS + RC 13

WLS + DP 38

Total 579 locations (to

date)

No. of Shifts: Approx 150

Programme: 18 Apr – 12 Nov 2017

Cost: Approx 800k

Communication is Key• Pre-startup Meetings – Building the Relationship from the outset

• Single Point of Contact from the Investigation Supervisor and

Contractor

• Formulation and Delivery of Data Management Plan – a two-way

street

• Both Contractor and Investigation Supervisor (IS)/Data

Manager(DM) understanding the end goal to be achieved

• Clarity of what is expected of the Contractor by the IS

• Queries / Issues arise – pick up that phone

Data Management Plan (DMP)

Data Life Cycle

GI

Proposed

Access

Planning Site LaboratoryGround

InformationDesign

ConstructionVerificationLessons

LearnedStorage

Project

Feasibility

3rd Party

(BGS)

Project

Scope

Defining the Level of Detail (LOD)

Design Process Construction and Verification

Add company logo here

TSP

VMS Alliance

Central Alliance

LABSSITE

Network Rail

Investigation Supervisor

Data Manager

(DM)

Site Engineer (SE)

SE

DM

DM Role Quality Assurance and Quality Control of the data deliverables and check of suitability for design in line with UK BIM strategy

GI contractor. Contracted to gather, collect and provide data to the client in line with client remit. NOT TO APPROVE OR ASSESS FIT FOR PURPOSE

Principal Contractor + Principal Designer

CLIENT

Samples

GI Data Assurance Report

GI Reports + Progress

GI SPEC

DMP

COCSchedules

COCSchedulesDatabase transfers

Investigation Supervisor (IS)

Add company logo here

IS Expertise: • Engineering Geology

• Engineering

Geomorphology

• Hydrogeology

• Ground Investigation

o Procurement

o Planning

o Techniques

• Ground risk

• Design Knowledge

TSP Designer Representative

• Knowledge of design process

• Checking data is suitable for

design

• Ensuring that all data from

site is reported to the

designer

• Ensuring that data is retained

and passed on

How can IS

assist Site

Engineer?- Expected geology at

site

- Predicted ground

risks

- Applicability of

technique/plant

- Site access & egress

- Effects on wider

project

Implementing

changes to GI

scope from

wider GRIP

3(OS) project

Quality

control of

information

from site

TSP Data Manager

SITE CA TSP

TSP

Proposed

Locations CA

LAB

AGS COC and

Schedules Only

Closing The Loops

• Using the tools/fields available within HBSI for headline info

• Both Chains of Custody and Schedules issued in AGS Format

• Chains of Custody and Physical Sample Batches registered against Schedules

• Schedules not crossing Chains of Custody – try to maintain a 1:1 relationship

• Status of Schedule defined at outset – at any transfer point both the IS and the Contractor knows what should be

contained in their dataset

• Using the Remarks field for additional / pertinent information

• Central Alliance using the LBST tables to keep track of the Geotechnical Testing

What have been the hurdles, and

continue to be?• Non-standard approach to Testing Suites / Test Naming

across the industry / regional offices of same company

• Implementation of the AGS Guidance by Consultants /

Investigation Supervisors – hard and fast, or flexible?

• Slow speed of change within the AGS Standard – has

to be able to react quickly to industry needs

• Under appreciation of what the format can provide and

how fast it can be provided

• Limited understanding / implementation within the

industry of the use of LBST/LBSG groups

• Tools to Schedule Tests exactly as AGS guidance

incomplete

• Requirement of custom tools for automated data

validation – particularly in relation to Environmental

Testing

But in our Favour…..

• Software Providers that are wanting to push the envelope

• Investigation Supervisors making clear the Level of Detail required for their

specification to be met

• Lab Managers (Environmental and Geotechnical) that are keen to improve

data quality to create as complete a dataset as is possible

• Contractors who understand that a complete, quality assured dataset

enables the Investigation Supervisor to start making design decisions while

the GI is still being undertaken.

• A Data Format committee willing to listen to the people who are promoting

it’s use and most enthusiastic about it’s many benefits

When the dust settles….

• What have we learned?

• Post completion analysis – What worked / what didn’t?

• Liaising with Lab Managers, Software Vendors – to

improve best practice

• Identify bottlenecks / breakdowns

• Reviewing the actual use of the end data product