Preliminary Ground Investigation Design for Colliers Knap
2000 words indicative
Moodle Submission – single document
You should develop a report, in response to the scenario outlined. Desk Study Preliminary Ground ModelConstruction Risk Register Your report should have 2 parts as below. You should complete this work individually. (i) Desk Study and Preliminary Ground Model (60 % of total) (ii) Construction Risk Register (40% of total) ————————————————————————————————————————— Scenario Energy Exchange (EE) is a local company that specialises in energy transfer installations for the renewable energy industry. We wish to develop a new transfer facility at the site currently occupied by Farncombe House Estate Buildings and wish to bring a duct which will contain electrical cable westwards to a location at or near the site currently known as Hill Farm from where it will enter a further network. At this stage, we are interested in establishing what constraints may be present at site along a chosen route between the two locations and the likely risks to construction and operation. The proposed construction The duct will be a 1.0 m diameter and could be lined with concrete panels or plastic-coated steel. It may contain others services within its lifetime. The duct requires a trench to be cut with minimum depth 2.5m and minimum width 2 m centred on the pipeline.As part of the construction, a corridor of ground will be cleared with a width 10 m centred on the pipeline. Installation will be by our specialist contractor who can lay the pipe at a rate of 25m per day under normal ground conditions. There is a small amount of flexibility with the final alignment, though we seek to use a pre-defined route if possible within the constraints of the ground conditions. The route must use terminals at Hill Farm and Farncombe House and the area approved for construction. If you consider that ground conditions may require special techniques or precautions for construction, you should also indicate this and consider any uncertainty in your route selection. We require the construction and operation to be sustainable and cause minimal damage to the natural or built environment to assist the application for planning permission. Preliminary Investigation You have been provided with geophysics and survey data inherited from a 3rd party, we cannot comment on its quality and require your advice. The geophysics data was captured using: Wenner resistivity Array (ABEM Terrameter).THE REPORT Reporting should be compatible with BS5930 . Your Report, in A4 page size, should begin with: A title page, with page border, clearly stating: the title of the report, the client, the organisation that has written the report. You should take on an identity with a suitable title (e.g. Smith Associates) but please chose a title that does not incorporate your name (for anonymity of marking). The title page should also bear the date of the report.A contents page that lists all the contents (chapters, sections etc.) and figures, with page numbers. The main body of the report should be word-processed in Calibri or Arial 11 point with single line spacing and fully justified; each page should have a page number and, in a header, the site name and your student number. Where references are appropriate (for instance to justify the methods/ interpretations you have made) they should conform to the APA standard. A list of cited references should be collected in a References section as an appendix. We would anticipate a professional report such as this should include 10- 20 references covering geology, environment and information relevant to your data collection and methods. ALL MAPS MUST HAVE APPROPRIATE ANNOTATION, SCALE, LOCATION INFORMATION AND LEGEND/KEY. The report should include 2 main sections as described below and as referred to in the marking scheme. i. Phase 1 Report. Desk Study and Preliminary Ground Model This part of your Report should provide a review of the data assembled from map, documentary and web based sources, and results from inspection of publicly available remote imagery. This may include preliminary review of available borehole. Part (i) of your Report should not exceed 10 (ten) pages, including all figures, tables and diagrams, (this excludes cover, title page and any associated appendices). If the number of pages exceeds this, only the first 10 will be marked. Part (i) should include a map that indicates likely extents of geomorphological/ terrain zones on a single page and at least one representative annotated cross section on a further single page. This section of your report should show evidence that you have considered the results of your findings in the context of the literature and that you have integrated the data provided as appropriate. This is an exercise in presenting relevant knowledge to the client not, necessarily presenting a list of datasets you have provided. NO DIRECT APPROACHES MUST BE MADE TO ANY POTENTIAL INFORMATION PROVIDER, BY EMAIL OR OTHERWISE. Where relevant information cannot be obtained from this Brief, the Portfolio/ other documents or from the www, you should simply note a possible source of information in your report. NO ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO VISIT THE SITE OUTSIDE OF THE ORGANISED FIELDWORK OR CONTACT ANY PERSONS OR ORGANISATIONS IN REGARD TO THE SITE. ii. Route Risk Register Part (ii) of your Report should not exceed 6 (six) pages, including all figures, tables and diagrams. If the number of pages exceeds this, only the first 6 will be marked. This section of the report should detail your rationale and approach to construction risk register and a risk register presented in tabular format, no more than 5 pages, this should describe: Potential or site risks to the construction or operation of the development identified from your work. This should include consideration of relevant ground conditions, hazards and contamination.Indicate the level of seriousness they pose to construction or operational future development of the site.Potential mitigation strategies.Guidance, with justification of any suggested changes to the route.
Figure 1. Indicative Site Location (outline of site in red,, preferred route in blue
Marking Criteria. Student ID…………………………………………..
60 to 69% Very Good
50 to 59% Good
40 to 49% Acceptable
Desk Study and Preliminary Ground Model
Excellent, original critical analyses and evaluation of most or all-available sources including geological, geophysical and environmental data from the literature.Demonstrates that analyses is based on deep understanding of appropriate theory and methods.Maps and ground models, including basic terrain classification are well supported by the report, demonstrating that appropriate data and observation have been used and well integrated. Presentation is approaching professional report quality and follows brief throughout. Maps and sections are accurate, properly labelled, clear and matching. All sources cited using APA.
Very good critical analyses and evaluation of most or all-available sources as left. Indication of original thinking.Demonstrates that analyses is based on good depth of understanding of appropriate theory and methods.Maps and ground models, including basic terrain classification are well supported by the report, demonstrating that appropriate data and observation have been used and well integrated.Presentation is approaching professional report quality in places and follows brief throughout. Maps and sections are accurate, properly labelled, clear and matching. All sources cited using APA.
Good critical analyses and evaluation of most available sources as left. Some indication of original thinking.Demonstrates that analyses is based on a sound understanding of theory and, methods but perhaps with some errors.Maps and ground models including basic terrain classification are largely supported by the report, demonstrating some integration.Presentation is good in most areas, format largely follows the brief. Maps and sections are generally accurate, though some might be improperly labelled unclear or not matching other data. Most sources are appropriately cited using APA.
Acceptable analyses and evaluation of available sources as left. Might not demonstrate critical or original thinking.Demonstrates analyses based on a reasonable understanding of theory and methods but with errors.Maps and ground models are broadly supported by the report, demonstrating some integration.Presentation is satisfactory though there may be several grammatical or other errors. Maps and sections are generally accurate but may have several errors in labelling, formatting or clarity. APA referencing with errors.
Poor or incomplete analyses and evaluation of information. May not clearly demonstrate critical or original thinking.Demonstrates limited analyses but based on a reasonable knowledge and understanding of theory and methods but perhaps with significant errors.Maps and ground models might not be supported by the report or demonstrate that appropriate data and observation have been used and integrated.Presentation unsatisfactory, perhaps with many grammatical or other errors. Maps and sections may have important errors in labelling, formatting or clarity. Referencing not to APA.
Excellent register, a well-considered table clearly developed from the report and is specific to the site. Demonstrates original thinking. Risk methodology is clear and appropriate.Presentation as above.
Very good register, well-considered but perhaps lacks clarity in connection to the rest of the report. Risk methodology is clear and appropriate.Presentation as above.
Good register but perhaps lacks clarity or connection to the rest of the report. Risk methodology may not be clear or appropriate.Presentation as above.
Satisfactory register but perhaps lacks clarity or connection to the rest of the report. Risk methodology may not be clear or appropriate.Some errors in implementation of briefPresentation as above.
Risk register is present but may be poorly considered or lacking clarity or connection to the rest of the report. Risk methodology may not be clear or appropriate.May be significant errors in the implementation of briefPresentation as above.
Top Tips and Annual feedback
Look at the marking scheme!
Tell the client what they need to know: structure your report around them.
This is what they pay you for– resist the temptation to provide a list of the things you have done and read, the client will assume you have done as part of your professional competency.
Let us examine the sections and imagine what might get a good mark. The table below gives an idea of some of the sub-headings students tend to use compared to what a client might expect.
List of Things I’ve done
What the client wants to see (compiled and evaluated from all sources)
Engineering Geology and Geotechnics
Any other data
Historic and Current Landuse
Geological Cross Section
Geology from Site
Diagram to show how all relevant datasets have been compiledA properly scaled geological cross section (don’t exaggerate the scales) with the evidence used noted on it.Cross reference to earlier sections– make sure your model is evidence based.
Categorised, well-considered risks, with appropriate explanation of risk levels and mitigation strategy.Cross reference to earlier sections – make sure your advice is evidence based.
Geology and Geotechnical Data and Model Considerations?
What geotechnical data do you have from your desk study? How can you present this? Can you compare to geotechnical literature? How does the data compare to published information on the Jurassic?
Do you need to arrange things according to modern stratigraphy?
What is the useful stratigraphic level (unit, formation, group) to work at for the client at this SITE?
Think carefully, from your geological data, walkover data and any other information to tell your client what geology is underfoot at any location:
Where are the geological boundaries between the Birdlip Limestone, Whitby Mudstone, Dyrham Formation, and Marlstone Rock?
Did EVIDENCE from your observations support the findings of the literature review?
Did you identify any new units?
What methods have you used to interrogate the data?
Environmental Data and Model Considerations
Have you considered information available at the EA website and Edina?
What does it mean to me as a developer?
Does it match with your geological knowledge?
How much environmental data was improved by the walkover?
What evidence of previous land use was there –can it be arranged into discrete phases in the areas history?
Can you describe the key points from each phase?
How do any of these matter to me?
Have you considered where you will put everything on site?