Accepted Manuscript

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology

and Hydrogeology

Engineering geological models, projects and geotechnical risk

F. J. Baynes, S. Parry & J. Novotný
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2020-080

To access the most recent version of this article, please click the DOI URL in the line above.

This article is part of the Ground models in engineering geology and hydrogeology collection
available at: https://www.lyellcollection.org/cc/Ground-models-in-engineering-geology-and-
hydrogeology

Received 21 April 2020

Revised 10 July 2020
Accepted 13 July 2020

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved. For
permissions: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/permissions. Publishing disclaimer:
www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics

When citing this article please include the DOI provided above.

Manuscript version: Accepted Manuscript

This is a PDF of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. The manuscript will undergo copyediting,
typesetting and correction before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Although reasonable efforts have been made to obtain all necessary permissions from third parties to include their
copyrighted content within this article, their full citation and copyright line may not be present in this Accepted Manuscript
version. Before using any content from this article, please refer to the Version of Record once published for full citation and
copyright details, as permissions may be required.

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Engineering geological models, projects and geotechnical risk

Authors
F. J. Baynes1*, S. Parry2 & J. Novotný3
1
Baynes Geologic Pty Ltd., “Pineview”, 138 Malmsbury Post Office Road, Malmsbury, VIC 3446, Australia
2
Parry Engineering Geological Services Ltd., South of Ivy Bank, Church Street, Brassington, Derbyshire
DE44HJ, UK
3
Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 3, 118 21 Praha 1, Czech Republic

*Corresponding Author (email: [email protected])

PT
EG Models and Geotechnical Risk
Abstract: Engineering Geological Models (EGMs) comprise both conceptual ideas and observational data. The
observational data is associated with aleatory uncertainty which can be reduced by acquiring more observations.

RI
The conceptual ideas are associated with epistemic uncertainty which can only be reduced if more knowledge is
incorporated into the model. The conceptual ideas are the core of any EGM and provide the framework for the
evaluation of the observational data. The most powerful capability of an EGM is the ability to anticipate what

SC
might be present at a project site and evaluate how the ground could adversely affect the project i.e. when
developed correctly, an EGM allows an evaluation of what is might reasonably be foreseen at a site by an
experienced contractor. This requires sophisticated conceptualization at an early stage in the project to anticipate

U
what might be in the ground. Consequently, EGMs are much more than visualizations, they should represent an
understanding of the geological conditions that are of engineering significance to the project, provide the
N
framework for assembling engineering geological knowledge, support good geotechnical engineering decisions
and allow an evaluation of potential geotechnical risks and possible project opportunities.
A
M

The successful implementation of civil, mining and hydrocarbon projects usually requires a series of critical
decisions in which both engineering knowledge and geological knowledge are involved. For example, the
optimization of the general arrangement of a hydro-electric development, the choice of footing type and
D

founding level for major structures, the design of stable slopes or underground excavations, the location of
suitable construction materials etc. In different parts of the world, for different types of projects and in various
TE

codes, standards and publications, this area of overlapping knowledge (Figure 1) is variously described as
engineering geology, geotechnical engineering or geological engineering and the disciplines of soil mechanics,
rock mechanics and hydrogeology interface with it. Practitioners involved in this area of knowledge have
different names, educational backgrounds and professional qualifications (Bock et al. 2004) and in parts of the
EP

world practice in this area is legally restricted (e.g. USA - ASBOG 2005; Hong Kong - Massey 2001).
Numerous attempts have been made to systematically delineate component parts of this area of knowledge and
allocate ownership to different professional groups (Morgenstern 2000; Knill 2003; Bock et al. 2004).
CC

Furthermore, when attempting to represent the often complex interactions of geology and engineering associated
with this area of knowledge, different approaches using terms such as geological model, engineering geological
model, ground model, ground profile, geotechnical model, ground reference conditions and geotechnical
baseline conditions are used by different groups in different parts of the world in different ways. As a result, the
A

extent to which pertinent geological knowledge has been incorporated into the associated engineering decisions
is not always clear.

Rather than attempting to differentiate or amalgamate the variety of approaches, this paper is simply concerned
with how best to make engineering decisions in which geological factors play a significant part, the use of what
are termed Engineering Geological Models to help make those decisions, and the importance of ensuring that
adequate geological knowledge has been incorporated into those decisions.
The idea of Engineering Geological Models is not new: they are simply a framework within which correct
engineering geological thinking can be achieved i.e. they are the most effective tool to evaluate the potential

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 impact the ground may have on an engineering project and vice versa. One of the earliest publications that
clearly documents this is the work of Záruba & Mencl (1954 in Czech, 1976 in English) which describes the
pragmatism required to successfully carry out a site investigation:

‘From all this information the engineering geologist tries to deduce an understanding of the geological
structure of the project area. At this point in the study his reasoning must be both inductive and
deductive. Should further investigation be economic and reasonable, it must be carefully planned and
for this purpose a preliminary work hypothesis must be developed. Since the information gathered …..
is usually not completely satisfactory, the first conception is more or less an assumption which may
prove to be true but may also be found to differ from actual conditions’

Fookes (1997) described the essence of the approach very clearly:

‘Models help you to know what to look for: when you find something that does not fit the model you

PT
check it out; if it is still out of place, you change the model. The power of the model is more in its
ability to anticipate conditions than to predict them precisely’

RI
This paper discusses the role of the Engineering Geological Model (EGM) in projects, what a practical EGM
consists of and how it can benefit a project, how to create an EGM and, most importantly, how you know when
you have developed an effective EGM.

SC
The role of Engineering Geological Models
The report produced by IAEG Commission 25 (Parry et al. 2014) defined an EGM as “any approximation of the

U
geological conditions, at varying scales, created for the purpose of solving an engineering problem” and noted
that the development of EGMs provides a knowledge framework that can contribute to the solution of
N
geotechnical engineering problems and the management of geotechnical risks. Although it was not discussed in
the Commission 25 Report (ibid), EGMs can also be used to identify project opportunities. Thus the role of
A
EGMs is to facilitate appropriate engineering decisions which involve geological knowledge by providing an
understanding of:
M

• The type and distribution of the engineering geological units beneath and around a site;
• How these engineering geological units have been modified over time by processes such as
weathering, tectonics, anthropogenic influences etc.;
D

• The likely geotechnical properties associated with these engineering geological units, including the
effects of groundwater and gas;
TE

• The possible variations in terms of both distribution and properties of the engineering geological
units;
• The active (and dormant) geological processes that may be present at and around the site during both
construction and the lifetime of the structure; and
EP

• How the project will interact with the ground, both during and post construction.

The final point is important. Engineering Geological Models are not just geological models (Knill 2003), as they
CC

need to provide an understanding of the impact of the project on the ground, as well as the impact of the ground
on the project, during design, construction and over the lifetime of the project. Parry et al. (2014) noted that for
exactly the same geological setting, different engineering projects will require different questions to be asked,
different models to be developed and different types of investigations to be carried out. Furthermore, depending
A

on the type of project, certain ground characteristics may be more critical than others and some types of project,
by their very nature, will attract greater geotechnical risk from the same type of ground.
EGMs are characterized by geological knowledge selected for its engineering relevance to the project.
Consequently, models that do not contain geological knowledge or that contain irrelevant, incomplete or
incorrect geological and engineering knowledge will have significant limitations and can lead to sub-optimal
project delivery. A simple, real life example is provided in Figure 2. Parry et al. (2019) give additional examples
of problems resulting from a lack of suitable EGMs.

Sullivan (2010) noted that the subject of Engineering Geological Models is not well covered in the literature, is
rarely taught in universities and that a paucity of information exists about models, what they should depict or

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 contain and how they should be prepared. However, since 2010 a considerable amount of work has been
undertaken. An IAEG Commission report was published in 2014 (Parry et al. 2014) and dedicated sessions on
the topic were held at the IAEG congresses in 2014 (Turin) and 2018 (San Francisco). Separately, some notable
papers have been published including Sweeney (2017) who recommended that EGMs should be a fundamental
component of pipeline hazard assessments, Griffith (2016) who described engineering geomorphological input
into EGMs, and De Freitas et al. (2017) who stated that EGMs should be a core component of the site
investigation process. Various authors have also published books on the use of models in ground engineering
(Fookes et al. 2015, Fletcher 2016, Turner et al. in press). Ensuring that geological concepts are incorporated
into the models used to solve engineering problems is described in publications such as Zhong (2006), Novotny
(2014), Jack & Parry (2015), Shao et al. (2012), Pospisil et al. (2019) and Rose et al. (2018).

Despite the attention EGMs have received in recent years they remain either poorly defined or absent from some
important guidelines and specifications. For example, the relevant Eurocodes relating to geotechnical design

PT
(BS EN 1997-2:2007) divides the process into four stages: strategy for design; geotechnical investigations and
design; execution of works; and the exploitation (or use) of the structure (see Figure 3).

RI
As noted by Griffiths (2016), only during Stage 2 (Geotechnical Investigation) is a “geological model”
discussed and this model supports a ground investigation report but appears to be separated from the

SC
“geotechnical model” that is used for design. Admittedly the geotechnical investigations feed into the design
process, where the geotechnical parameters are evaluated, leading to the creation of a “geotechnical model”.
However, the document gives the impression that a “geological model” is only generated after the ground

U
investigation and is not used at any other time during the project. Furthermore, the derivation of appropriate
“characteristic values” should logically be dependent upon identifying which geological material parameters
N
will control the ground response and defining the boundaries of those geological materials i.e. to effectively
geotechnically characterise a site, it is necessary to understand the three dimensional distribution of geological
A
units. It is possible to entirely ignore the geology but this is likely to result in, at best, a reduced level of
understanding and, at worst, a significant misconception as to the nature and distribution of the engineering
M

characteristics of the site. It is therefore suggested that the process outlined in Eurocode 7 (BS EN 1997-2:2007)
is flawed because it separates the geological thinking from the engineering thinking, rather than integrating them
into one holistic problem solving process that is based on a seamless combination of geological and engineering
knowledge.
D

In contrast, Griffiths (2016) described the approach adopted in Hong Kong (GEO 2007) where interrelated
TE

models are generated and revised throughout the project life cycle from inception through to maintenance
(Figure 4).
EP

It is therefore suggested that if a project manager is aiming to make the most effective engineering decisions
based on all relevant geological information, then an Engineering Geological Model should be:
CC

 Generated at the start of the project;

 Reviewed and updated as additional data becomes available;
 Used to manage the area of knowledge where engineering and geology interact; and

A

Part of the project management system from inception and procurement through to operation and even
decommissioning.

Anticipation – the power of Engineering Geological Models

The most powerful capability of an Engineering Geological Model is the ability to anticipate what might be
present at a project site (Fookes 1997). An effective EGM that anticipates ground conditions should:

 Allow the rational design of the method of investigation in order to obtain the most useful and relevant
information regarding the geological and geotechnical conditions at the project site for use in the
design and construction of the project;
 Support the efficient implementation and supervision of the investigation, using the correct equipment
and people with the necessary skills;

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
  Provide a framework for ensuring engineering geological uncertainties are identified and evaluated and
support provisional engineering decisions at an early stage of the project;
 Allow the Project Manager to be satisfied that all pertinent geological factors have been properly
considered with respect to the project requirements;
 Allow the correct evaluation of the results of the investigation including the identification of the
engineering geological units present at the site, the derived geotechnical values and the subsequent
selection of characteristic geotechnical values for those units;
 Allow the identification of potential hazards and assessment of uncertainties and hence provide a tool
for the management of geotechnical risk;
 Allow an evaluation of “baseline conditions” that can be used by both parties to a contract as a
statement of the ground conditions that should reasonably be expected to be encountered (Davis 2017,
Gomes in press);

PT
 Allow the anticipation of potentially problematic ground conditions during construction and
consideration of appropriate mitigation works;
 Communicate often complex engineering geological issues and the potential hazard they might present

RI
to the project to non-geologists and ensure that the issues are understood by all involved; and
 Allow engineers with little or no geological knowledge to appreciate the significance of the geology.

Approaches to the generation of Engineering Geological Models

SC
The IAEG Commission 25 Report proposed that the development of Engineering Geological Models could be
divided into two different approaches, which produce two different types of models (Parry et al. 2014).

U
The conceptual approach is based on anticipating the characteristics of engineering geological units, their likely
geometry, distribution and relationships between each other and the project. This approach and the models that
N
are created are based on concepts formulated from geological knowledge and experience using existing
engineering and geological data relating to the project site and environs. The conceptual approach generates
A
hypothetical models, and such models potentially involve a relatively high degree of uncertainty which is
directly related to the type and amount of existing data, and the knowledge and experience of those involved.
M

The observational approach is based on understanding the observed and measured distribution of engineering
geological units and processes. These models are therefore based on data that relates to actual 3D space and/or
time and are thus constrained by surface or sub-surface observations. Importantly, they should verify or refine
D

the conceptual engineering geological model and test the contained hypotheses.
TE

However, it is suggested that whilst the two approaches are different (the first involves the act of
conceptualization and the second involves the act of assembling information acquired from the site
investigation, construction or operation) their use in the generation of EGMs is so profoundly interlinked that in
EP

reality they form two different, but essential and complimentary tools that must be combined at all stages of the
project to generate appropriate EGMs. Thus although in theory there are two different approaches that result in
two different types of models, in practice all Engineering Geological Models comprise conceptual ideas and
observational data. In the initial phases of a project the emphasis will be on developing conceptual ideas due to
CC

the limited observational data. As the project proceeds increasing amounts of observational data are added to the
model. The balance of conceptual ideas and observational data within a model will vary non-linearly depending
on the project type, the geotechnical complexity of the site and the stage of the project. However, throughout the
process, the conceptual ideas provide the framework for the placement and interpretation of the observational
A

data.
There should be a high degree of agreement between the evolving conceptual ideas and the observational data
when the site investigation is completed. For instance, one focus in the site investigation should be on obtaining
data that relates to potential geotechnical risks identified from conceptual knowledge but about which little or
nothing is known for the specific site. Further verification and refinement of the EGM; i.e. both the conceptual
ideas and the observational data, should take place as the project progresses. If observational data is
incorporated into a high quality conceptual framework, uncertainties in the EGM are significantly reduced. Note
that the derivation of an appropriate EGM is very dependent upon the knowledge and experience of those
involved in its generation.

Uncertainty within the Engineering Geological Model

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 By its very nature an EGM will include many uncertainties and these may be divided into two types (Bowden
2004, Lee 2016):

 Aleatory uncertainty, which is due to variability and randomness of the intrinsic properties of the
system; and
 Epistemic uncertainty, which is due to ignorance, a lack of knowledge or an incomplete understanding
of the system on the part of the observer.

Aleatory uncertainty within the EGM consists of the known and expected variations of data such as the depth to
a boundary interpreted from a geophysical survey or the distributions of measurements of uniaxial compressive
strength of a geological material. However, it also includes, for example, some of the uncertainty attached to
predictions of future rainfall or seismicity from records of past events. Aleatory uncertainty is one type of
“known-unknown” (McMahon 1985) and is associated with the observational components of the EGM. It can

PT
be expressed numerically and may be assessed statistically for incorporation into engineering decisions
(Whitman 1984, McMahon 1985, Aswar & Ullagaddi 2017, Rocha et al. 2018).
Epistemic uncertainty within the EGM reflects the level of understanding of the engineering geological

RI
conditions in and around the project site and so is a direct function of the degree to which the conceptual
component of the model has been developed.

SC
Epistemic uncertainty resulting from complete ignorance is an example of an “unknown - unknown” (McMahon
1985) and is typified by the many projects where there is simply no understanding amongst the project team that
a geological feature or condition of engineering significance exists, because no evidence of it had been acquired

U
during the site investigations. Contractual claims for compensation for unforeseen ground conditions based on
arguments that the conditions encountered could not have been reasonably foreseen in the circumstances
specific to the project (Fookes 1997) are presented by the claimants effectively as being “unknown -
N
unknowns”.
A
Epistemic uncertainty within the EGM more often takes the form of “known - unknowns” (McMahon 1985) e.g.
not having sufficient data to be able to characterize a geological feature or condition that is known or suspected
M

to exist, or knowing that a karst system exists but it being impractical to investigate the entire detail of the
system.

Epistemic uncertainty is primarily associated with the conceptual components of the model and is difficult in a
D

practical sense to represent statistically. The uncertainty is abstract, in that it relates to whether or not the set of
concepts that have been identified are the most reasonable set of concepts, i.e. any evaluation of the uncertainty
TE

is dependent upon knowledge and experience (Bond et al. 2007). Epistemic uncertainty has traditionally been
represented in an interpretative site investigation report by providing a discussion of the alternative and favoured
interpretation of significant features, and by the use of line work with solid, dashed and dashed plus question
EP

marks on maps and sections. Where visualizations alone are used to present the EGM, the representation of the
uncertainty is more difficult and the use of a validation report to document the uncertainty within the
visualization is gaining favour (Jardine and Nelis in press). Epistemic uncertainty can also be explored by using
CC

expert judgement, review panels and evidence based uncertainty analysis to evaluate the likelihood that a
geological feature exists, coupled with judgements regarding the consequence of its existence, to assess the
associated risks (Bowden 2004, Baynes 2010, Lee 2016).
Aleatory uncertainty within an EGM can be reduced by acquiring more observations, if the initial data is
A

insufficient. However any additional investigations will only provide progressively diminishing, incremental
reductions in uncertainty, due to the intrinsic variability of the data characterizing the system.

Epistemic uncertainty can be reduced if more knowledge is incorporated into the EGM by more effectively
anticipating what might be on the site, even when there is no direct evidence for the existence of the feature(s).
This involves sophisticated conceptualization at an early stage in the project and can produce “light bulb
moments” when the possible presence of profoundly important geological conditions are recognized. This
results in a step change improvement in the understanding of the engineering significance of the geological
conditions at the site and can be best achieved by involving more experienced engineers and geologists in the
project team rather than collecting more subsurface investigation data. This is a cost effective strategy if the
likely fees for involving several experienced engineers and geologists are compared with at best, the costs of
procuring an additional phase of subsurface investigations or, at worst, the failure of the project. In this context

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Bond (2015) observes that additional geological studies often tend to focus on reducing errors in measurements
when the risks associated with many of these errors are relatively small compared with the risks associated with
incorrect or unreasonable assumptions and simplifications in “interpretational space”. In other words, if the
conceptual framework is incorrect or inadequate it can introduce serious errors into the EGM which can often
have consequences that ricochet throughout the project, including failure and litigation.

The importance of Conceptualization as the first step

Whilst a desk study is fundamental in evaluating what is already known about a site, the data has to be
interpreted and extrapolated to generate a meaningful conceptual framework. This process of conceptualization
will be dependent upon the engineering geological knowledge and experience of the individuals involved in the
project, especially the knowledge and experience derived from past cases of EGM generation on similar
projects. If the project is large and complex and/or the site is geotechnically complex, a large and multi-skilled

PT
team will be required to generate effective EGMs. Problematic EGMs may be inadvertently generated where
knowledge and experience is lacking. In such cases it is highly probable that some critical aspects of design
and/or construction in certain ground condition have not been identified in the conceptual framework and
therefore are not subsequently addressed by the investigation and design and are never incorporated into the

RI
developing EGM.

In essence, the conceptual approach is based on developing an understanding of how the ground conditions at a

SC
site were initially formed and how they subsequently evolved i.e. the approach considers the geological history
of the site and identifies the key periods when geological factors interacted to create conditions with the
potential to be of engineering significance to the project. As such, it is the holistic understanding of the

U
engineering implications of each key period of the “history” and the interactions between those key periods that
is central to the EGM, as the sum of knowledge is considerably more powerful than its individual parts.
N
Understanding the geological history allows the identification of potential problematic ground conditions that
may exist at a site prior to observations being made, but also allows the identification of opportunities to
A
improve the project engineering that can be pursued. It is particularly important that an effective conceptual
framework is developed at the initial project phases, as this is when the greatest flexibility exists with respect to
M

project changes to minimize risk and maximize opportunities.

If isolated observational data is fitted together without a holistic understanding of what they might represent a
model can be generated but it could potentially be nonsense and, probably worse, it could be plausible but
D

incorrect and therefore misleading (Figure 5).

TE

Members of the engineering profession are reasonably familiar with the use of models generated from
observational data but are probably less familiar with the uncertainty associated with developing a geological
EP

interpretation of observational data, which is not explicit, and which can only be documented within the
underlying conceptual framework. In geology, conceptual models allow both the development and the
evaluation of the correctness of any model developed using observational data. The importance of this is
illustrated when interpreting between boreholes, i.e. what is the reasoning behind drawing a line connecting two
CC

observations in boreholes on a section and what are the associated uncertainties? If this interpretation is not
related to an underlying conceptual framework it is just “joining the dots” and an apparently logical but
geologically unrealistic interpretation may be generated (Figure 6).
A

Salvany et al. (2004) provide an example of the consequences of developing an incorrect conceptual framework
and a simplistic EGM primarily from ground investigation observational data. A groundwater barrier in the
Agrio River, Spain was designed to reduce groundwater contamination following the failure of the Aznalcollar
tailings dam. The initial investigation consisted of surface mapping and geophysics followed by boreholes, with
the data being used to generate a “simple geological model” based on the interpretation of three river terraces
(Figure 7a). Based on this model, the majority of the pollution was assumed to be confined to the terrace of
Holocene age (T0, Figure 7a), and the barrier was located where the paleo-channel associated with this is
shallowest and narrowest.

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 However, during construction it was found that the structure and stratigraphy of the alluvial deposits were more
complex than expected with two deposits of sandy gravel being separated by a 1-3m thick clayey silt. Similar
material had been observed in outcrop but was considered to be isolated lenses as it was not recorded in the
boreholes (apparently being misinterpreted as the underlying marl bedrock). The initial model failed to identify
the presence of a deeper older paleo-channel (T2 Figure 7b) which was a potential flowpath for contaminants.
This occurred despite the fact that paleo-channels in this setting are common due to incision followed by vertical
accretion of fluvial sediments associated with the fluctuating climatic conditions during the glacial episodes of
the Pleistocene. The original design of the barrier would have left untreated a wide zone of groundwater flow.

Further examples of problems due to a lack of an appropriate conceptual framework are discussed in Parry et al.
(2019).

PT
Conceptualization is the articulation of a deeper understanding of the possible geological influences on a
project. The approach allows the potential engineering geological conditions at a site to be assessed, evaluates
what variations may be present and what conditions, if present, could have an engineering significance to the

RI
project, based on knowledge and experience of similar geological settings, materials or processes and similar
project types or levels of project complexity, i.e. conceptualization anticipates what might be in the ground and
thus supports an evaluation of potential geotechnical risks and possible project opportunities.

SC
Baildon – an example of Conceptualization
The process of conceptualization in the development of an EGM is illustrated with an example developed for

U
MSc teaching purposes. It considers a site at Baildon in Yorkshire, UK. Using a geological map, a pair of aerial
photographs, and the project outline (hypothetically a 1m diameter pipeline traversing the site from NE to SW),
N
the thought processes associated with the development of a conceptual framework are illustrated by referring to
a variety of published conceptual models that may be associated with the possible ground conditions at the site,
A
as an analogy of knowledge and experience.
M

The site is located on a south facing slope above the River Aire. The geological map (Figure 8) indicates that the
site is underlain by Carboniferous Lower Coal Measures comprising sandstones interbedded with mudstones,
siltstones, marine bands and thin beds of coal. Bedding dips gently to the southwest and minor faults are
recorded to the east of the site. A glacial deposit of till is mapped on the lower slope and a large area of surface
D

instability is also indicated.

TE

The stratigraphy is documented in the legend that accompanies the geological map (Figure 9) and shows that
that there are a number of named coal seams and the Notes accompanying the Map Sheet (British Geological
EP

Survey 2000) indicates that they are thick enough to have been mined in the past.
CC

A cross section through the site (Figure 10), which is included on the same geological map, shows that the site is
underlain by the mineable coal seams. Faulting associated with the Variscan Orogeny is also shown on the cross
section.
A

As the geological map indicates that there are coal seams on the site, the likely association of coal seams with an
underlying “seat earth” is relevant. This is a geological concept based on the knowledge that coals are usually
developed as part of a cycle of sediments (Selley 1985) which often include seat earths below the coal. Seat
earths are the ancient clay rich soils in which the vegetation that ultimately formed the coal grew; as part of this
cycle of sediments, the coal and associated seat earths are usually underlain by thick sandstone sequences, see
Figure 11.

These concepts have geotechnical significance because the seat earths are often high plasticity fissured clays due
to their depositional environment, mode of formation and periodic desiccation. Any tectonic deformations of the

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Coal Measure strata can also result in flexural slip inter-bed shearing or tectonic strains concentrated in weaker
layers such as the seat earths (Price & Cosgrove 1990). As a consequence of all of these geological influences, it
is likely that the seat earth clays will be close to, or even at their residual angle of shearing resistance (Figure
12).

The seat earths also often form an aquiclude above the thick sandstone units which form an aquifer connecting
to higher ground and this can result in significant pore pressures at the base of the coal (see Figure13).

There are likely to be considerable variations within this system including the likely facies variations and
potential lateral variation within the Lower Coal Measures strata, so the model will vary laterally and vertically

PT
i.e. there is considerable uncertainty as to what strata underlie any particular location. However, the combination
of seat earths, confined aquifers and sloping ground may produce landslides involving planar failures parallel to
bedding developed along weak, sheared seat earths with a low residual angle of shearing resistance which may

RI
be subject to artesian pore pressures developed in the underlying sandstones.

The area has also been glaciated and therefore the effects of glaciation and periglacial processes may also be

SC
present, including induced shearing in some of the geological units (see Figure 14).

The possible anthropogenic effects of coal extraction (Figure 15) may also be present in the form of both
shallow and deep workings.
U
N
A
The various concepts developed from consideration of the site appear to be supported by observations from the
aerial photography, which shows evidence of both coal workings and slope instability (Figure 16).
M

Using the published conceptual models, the geological map, the aerial photographs and the location of the
D

proposed pipeline corridor, combined with knowledge and experience of similar materials, processes, settings
and projects, an EGM that connects the project to the site can be developed, initially by identifying the
geological factors associated with the site that could have implications for the project engineering (Table 1).
TE

In order to summarize and clearly communicate the geological factors that are important to the project
EP

engineering, creating some form of visualization that illustrates the 3D relationships and focusses on the factors
that are significant for the proposed pipeline is probably the most effective approach (Figure 17).
CC

Baildon – developing a Risk Register from the EGM

An evaluation of the issues identified in the EGM can then be documented as an initial risk register (Clayton
A

2001) that includes all potential significant engineering geological issues identified by the conceptual
framework. These include: worked coal strata, weak horizons (seat earths, relict shear surfaces), pre-existing
landslides, aggressive groundwater etc. The presence of faulting, toxic or explosive gasses, spontaneous
combustion of coal seams etc. are not included because they are judged not to be significant to this particular
project, although they would still form part of the overall risk register.

Each significant issue identified from the conceptual framework is considered a potential hazard to the project.
By forming a simple qualitative judgement of the likelihood that the hazard will impact the project and
combining that with a judgement of the consequences if the hazard does impact the project, an initial qualitative
risk to project matrix can be developed (Table 2).

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 The nature of the identified hazards and the qualitatively assessed levels of risk can also be illustrated using
colour coding based on a simple “traffic light system” (Figure 18) to document the assessed risks for ease of
communication. Note that Table 2 is an initial hazard identification and risk register and it should be
continuously amended as further information is collected and a fuller appreciation of the nature and importance
of the project risks develops.

At the conceptual stage, it may be possible to identify some initial mitigation measures, depending on the
geotechnical issues and the project requirements. However, a full assessment of the hazards and possible
mitigation measures is usually only possible following the site investigation. Nevertheless, the power of
conceptualization is that an initial risk register can be generated at the beginning of the project which, despite
the uncertainties involved, allows an early consideration of the type and scale of geotechnical risks the project

PT
might face.
Table 1, Table 2 and Figures 17 and 18 all comprise components of the EGM for the Baildon site that have been
developed from a desk study alone. The EGM assists in the identification of potential hazards and assesses the

RI
risks to the proposed project from those hazards, which can then be used to prioritize targets and define the
scope for the site investigation.

SC
A Generic Site Investigation Methodology driven by Conceptualization

U
Planning and implementing a successful site investigation for a major project is such a critical task that a
suggested generic methodology using an EGM based on a conceptual framework is outlined in Figure 19 and
N
detailed below.
A
STEP 1 Assemble team
M

The first step is to assemble the correct team to carry out the investigation and commence the development of
the EGM (Fookes 1997, Bridges 2019). The composition of the team will depend on the likely complexity of
both the project and the ground. This could range from an individual with the necessary geological and
D

engineering knowledge for a small project to a multi-disciplinary group of engineers, geologists and other
scientists for a major project. The work should be carried out by people with the necessary competencies to
TE

evaluate the geological history (including anthropogenic impacts) of the project area and identify which
geological conditions, if present, could have an engineering significance to the project. This requires individuals
with a thorough understanding of geological science and a sound grasp of engineering principles and practice.
EP

STEP 2 Desk study

All information relating to the ground and the project is collected as a “desk study” which, increasingly, are
CC

becoming internet based (Dostalik et al. in print). However, an internet-based search does not replace the need
for physical searches as significant amounts of historical data remain in analogue form. An excellent checklist
for a desk study is provided by Shilston et al. (2012) and reproduced in Table 3.
A

STEP 3 Evaluate the data – initial conceptualization

Conceptualization is the process whereby all of the available information is considered and an understanding is
developed of the likely ground conditions at the site, the possible variations in the ground conditions and what
their significance could be to the engineering. A fundamental strategy in developing this conceptual framework
is understanding the “total geological history” of the site (Fookes et al. 2000) based on the premise that the
engineering characteristics of the ground are the result of the total geological history of the project area. The
Australian Standard on Geotechnical site investigation (AS1726 2017) suggests focusing on the following
simple checklist:

• Setting

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 • Stratigraphy
• Structure
• Surface and subsurface processes

Setting: This should include consideration of both “big picture” information such as geographical location,
regional geology, tectonic setting and climate (past, present and future), and more site specific information such
as topography and vegetation.
Stratigraphy: This information is most commonly extracted from geological maps and associated memoirs
which are then interpreted in terms of engineering geological issues. Geological maps are a fundamental
building block of EGMs and indicate the rock types that are present at the site, their age and interrelationships.
This enables environments of formation to be evaluated which allows estimates of geological variability in
terms of rock types, extent, thickness and form. Information on age allows an evaluation of subsequent

PT
modification since formation in terms of tectonics and past processes.
Structure: This relates to the bounding surfaces which separate geological units, and their nature. Bounding
surfaces can take many forms including bedding planes, joints, faults, unconformities, igneous contacts etc.

RI
Each type of boundary is associated with different modifying geological conditions and results in distinct
geometry and geotechnical characteristics.

SC
Surface and sub-surface processes and levels of activity: In addition to the evaluation of “static” geology,
ongoing geological processes that might affect the site require identification and evaluation. These include such
diverse processes as landslides, floods, earthquakes, weathering, erosion, deposition, gas emissions, freeze/thaw,
etc. Wherever possible the associated process rates are evaluated quantitatively e.g. seismic hazard recurrence
intervals, erosion rates, etc. Anthropogenic influences also need to be understood.
U
N
Note that even in the earliest stages of conceptualization, an engineering geological model is being created, not
simply a geological model i.e., how the ground conditions formed, what variations may be present and what
A
conditions, if present, could have an engineering significance to the project.
M

STEP 4 Initial Hazard Identification

Using knowledge of the anticipated ground conditions and knowledge of the performance requirements imposed
by the project, a preliminary Hazard Identification can be created for the project or its components. For small
D

projects this can be done by an individual; for large projects this task is often carried out in risk workshops
which might be attended by a variety of experts with a range of skills, possibly including stakeholder
TE

representatives, and would be chaired by a facilitator. The Hazard Identification process results in a list of
discrete potential project issues where the geology could adversely impact the engineering and that will need
further consideration. The listing is normally very diverse and covers a wide range of geotechnical engineering
topics, for example:
EP

 Does the project require large amounts of concrete, i.e. is there a requirement for a dedicated quarry? Is
there any reason to suspect aggregate silica reaction?
CC

 Does the project require tunneling – what is the in-situ stress field? What are the groundwater systems?
 Does the project require excavations – could adversely oriented defects be encountered?
 For dam sites, what are the foundation conditions and what construction materials can be won? This
may dictate dam type.
A

 Will a linear project alignment encounter significant geological hazards? Should it be realigned?
 Are there floods or seismic hazards that need to be considered?
 Are there clay minerals present that could compromise construction material performance?
 Has any filling or excavation taken place at the site?
It is at this stage that the experience of the team must be capable of supporting a reasoned, considered evaluation
of all of the geotechnical hazards that the project might face, but it is certainly not in the interests of the project
to be alarmist about hazards for which there is absolutely no evidence.

STEP 5 Documentation of the emerging Engineering Geological Model

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 For small projects with relatively straightforward ground conditions a single EGM consisting of a geological
map, a section and some text might summarize the site conditions. However, large projects, or those with
potentially more complex ground conditions, might require a series of interrelated EGMs. For example, a
tunneling project might have maps and sections of the overall alignment that are supplemented by a whole range
of more detailed models that take into account different ages of faults at a site; the weathering profiles and
variability in geotechnical characteristics associated with them; models that allow an assessment of support
requirements or excavatability for the different units that are likely to be encountered; models that detail
important parts of the tunnel such as portals and intersections etc. The aim is to generate a series of EGMs that
provide an understanding of each of the discrete project issues, supported by sketches, maps and sections and
accompanying documentation.

The use of graphics is very effective for communicating engineering geological knowledge to non-geologists
(Goldsmith 2014). These graphics can also communicate what is known, what is conjecture and where

PT
significant uncertainties remain by simple techniques such as dashed lines and question marks. This technique
also supports the logical simplification of complex ground which then allows a meaningful numerical analysis.
At this stage successful documentation and communication of the emerging EGM(s) should be confirmed by

RI
seeking feedback from stakeholders.

STEP 6 Identify key geotechnical risks and uncertainties.

SC
Any geological aspects of the site that can adversely affect the project are potential hazards. These hazards will
consist of potential geological and geomorphological conditions with an associated aleatory and epistemic
uncertainty and are a fundamental part of any EGM and can be documented as part of a risk register. As the

U
thinking progresses and the hazards are further characterized, it starts to become possible to consider what is the
likelihood of a hazard occurring and what are the consequences associated with each hazard. Risk can then be
N
expressed as the product of likelihood and consequence (Clayton, 2001):

For a particular Hazard: Risk = Likelihood x Consequences

A
Risk can be assessed qualitatively, often with matrices (e.g. Table 2) but also quantitatively for more
M

sophisticated risk assessments (e.g. Clayton ibid, AGS 2007, Lee 2016). As the EGM develops and knowledge
of the hazards improves, the risks can be more effectively managed and the entries in the risk register can be
modified to reflect the level of geotechnical risk management being exerted on the project.
D

Understanding and documenting geotechnical risk and uncertainty is a key function of any EGM and some
uncertainties may be geotechnical risks in themselves. Geotechnical risks may be differentiated as per Table 4.
TE

Note that the source of many of the geotechnical risks relate to an inadequate understanding of the ground i.e.
they reflect epistemic uncertainty resulting from an inadequate EGM rather than being a risk that is inherent
within the ground conditions, which is limited to the “Technical/Geological” types of geotechnical risks.
EP

At the early stages of a project when investigations are just starting, the types of issues/hazards that have been
identified will be largely “Technical/Geological”. As the project proceeds to the design stage the
“Technical/Analytical” and “Technical/Properties” risks will become more apparent. Contractual and Project
CC

Management risks can develop early on but will generally run through the entire project process increasing as
the project documentation is developed.
A

STEP 7 Plan and Execute Site Investigation.

The emerging, mainly conceptual EGM, together with the initial risk register, are used to plan the site
investigation to test the model and to investigate areas of uncertainty. The focus of the investigation should be
on the acquisition of information relating to the following key objectives:

 Confirmation of the understanding of the setting, stratigraphy, structure and surface processes in and
around the site accompanied by characterization and documentation of the engineering geological
conditions with surface and subsurface observations and laboratory testing;
 Specific characterization of any inherently hazardous ground conditions and processes that have been
clearly identified;

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
  Delineation and more generalized characterization of any potentially unforeseeable geological
conditions i.e. problematic geological conditions that are known to exist but are so complex that it is
impractical to investigate them in sufficient detail; and
 Diligent exploration for evidence of any problematic geological conditions that have been anticipated
during the conceptualization process but have not been observed, and therefore if encountered
unexpectedly during construction, could potentially be regarded as unforeseen ground conditions that
could form the basis for a claim.
For larger projects the site investigation is usually multi-staged, with the acquired observational data being
compared to the conceptual model to see which areas of uncertainty and which risks remain to be explored in
successive stages of the investigation.

STEP 8 Review of EGMs and risk registers

PT
At the completion of each stage of the site investigation a detailed review of the EGMs and associated risk
registers should be undertaken. This should ensure that all the information and observations are documented and
accounted for and, if necessary, the conceptual framework is amended to account for any apparent

RI
inconsistencies, hence the feedback loop on Figure 19.

If uncertainties remain that could pose potential risks to the project these should be addressed. Depending on the

SC
type and magnitude of the risk this may require additional site investigation or alternatively contingency
planning for increases in construction costs should the risk be encountered.

This review should operate continuously to ensure that the conceptual framework adopted is fit for purpose. The

U
following questions must continuously be asked: Are there observations that do not fit the conceptual model?
Does the model need to be revised? It is important to note that the conceptual and observation components of
N
the EGM develop iteratively over the life of the project.
A
When the conceptual and observational components of the engineering geological model are in agreement and
the remaining risks can be confidently managed, the project can proceed to design, construction and operation.
M

Achieving this agreement is a fundamental milestone that is essential to project quality control, the nature of
which is discussed below.

Engineering Geological Model and Project Quality Control

D

If the Engineering Geological Model for a project is inadequate then there will be a lack of understanding of
TE

how the ground will respond to the construction of the project and geological hazards may not have been
identified or may not have been adequately understood, consequently the risks cannot be effectively managed. It
is suggested that a classic example of this situation is the Vaiont disaster where, despite the involvement of
eminent practitioners, vast amounts of investigations and monitoring, and the proactive management of water
EP

levels in the reservoir, the ground did not behave in the way that was expected. At 10.39 pm on 9 October 1963
the sudden collapse of the mountain forming the left bank of the reservoir formed a landslide of about 260
million m3 which displaced the water in the reservoir and created an overtopping wave that killed around 2,000
CC

people (Semenza 2010).

It is suggested that, from a geotechnical perspective, to ensure that projects are delivered on time and within
budget and that the appropriate quality of engineering is achieved, it is essential to have an effective
A

Engineering Geological Model.

An effective Engineering Geological Model has been established when there is sufficient “compatibility” or
“harmony” between the evolving conceptual framework and the acquired observational data.
It is the conceptual framework that is used to measure this compatibility or harmony, as it embodies the
fundamentally correct engineering geological thinking that has been developed for the site. Of course there will
always be some discrepancies between the conceptual and observational components of the EGM, and the risks
associated with such discrepancies should be evaluated. Only when the risks are judged to be insignificant or
manageable should the project proceed to design, construction and operation. The central role that an effective
EGM has in controlling the quality of the engineering geological decisions and managing geotechnical risks
throughout the life cycle of a project is illustrated in Figure 20.

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 As the EGM is gradually refined during investigations, the observations acquired become increasingly
compatible with the concepts and the quality of the understanding improves until design can confidently
proceed. At that stage an effective EGM contributes to:

 Developing a framework for the assessment and selection of suitable characteristic values for each
engineering geological unit;

 Ensuring that the simplifications to the model that are inevitably required for geotechnical analysis are
reasonable and robust; and

 Choosing the most suitable analytical models for design and geotechnical risk assessment for the
various engineering components of the project.

As a project moves into the construction phase, the exposed ground conditions should be evaluated against the

PT
potential variations anticipated by the EGM, and an assessment made as to whether or not these variations could
potentially impact on the design or construction methodology and whether or not the geotechnical risk
assessment requires updating. During operation the predicted response of the ground to the project is similarly

RI
assessed.

It is suggested that engineering should only confidently proceed at each project stage when compatibility or

SC
harmony is achieved within the EGM and any remaining discrepancies can be managed as acceptable risks.
This is how an effective EGM can provide the project manager with confidence in the quality of the project
geotechnical engineering.

Engineering geological models and project procurement

U
N
As well as being used in investigation and design, the Engineering Geological Model should also form a
fundamental tool in project procurement. Regardless of the procurement method (e.g.
A
Owner/Engineer/Contractor or Engineer/Procure/Construct) there will be, at the very least, some form of
agreement, and more usually some form of contract, that includes a cost estimate to build the project based on
M

an evaluation of the ground conditions that may be encountered. The cost estimate will reflect an understanding
of the geotechnical risks and the risk sharing approach that is adopted, but it must also fundamentally reflect the
understanding that both of the parties to the contract or agreement have of the area of knowledge described in
D

Figure 1 as it relates to the project. The way that the knowledge is presented and documented is the Engineering
Geological Model.
TE

In those parts of the world where litigation has traditionally been associated with the procurement of major
projects, the information that forms the basis of the EGM is often presented separately in Factual Reports and
Interpretative Reports. The Factual Reports largely comprise observational data and are usually regarded as
EP

“Rely Upon Data”, whilst the Interpretative Reports, which generally include both observational and conceptual
information, are usually “For Information Only”, and have a lesser standing contractually. As a result of this
separation, the generation of a high quality EGM may not be a priority and, even if an EGM is developed, it
CC

may not be fully utilized in the procurement process. In some parts of the world, often where there is a tradition
of the State procuring the project and hence accepting all of the risk, there is less separation between Factual and
Interpretative information and consequently more opportunity to incorporate a high quality EGM into the
project documentation.
A

However, Interpretative Reports are now increasingly being used to generate Geotechnical Baseline Reports
(GBR) in an attempt to establish more clearly defined risk sharing by providing a contractual interpretation of
ground conditions e.g. ABI/BTS (2003) which requires the contract documents to include Ground Reference
Conditions or Geotechnical Baseline Conditions (Davis 2017, Gomes in press). Freeman et al. (2009) state that
“Engineers and geologists struggle to develop specific numerical baselines from a myriad of geotechnical
properties, especially where geological conditions are highly variable.” It is suggested that an Engineering
Geological Model based on observational data within a realistic and appropriate conceptual framework is the
ideal tool to support the development of “numerical baselines”, “characteristic values” and “ground reference
conditions”. Additionally, the EGM allows an evaluation of the site conditions that an experienced contractor
could reasonably have foreseen, based on knowledge, experience and available data i.e. unforeseen ground
conditions must be conditions that were neither observed in the acquired site investigation data nor anticipated

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 by the conceptual framework. Thus one of the core capabilities of an effective EGM is to minimise the potential
for claims of unforeseen ground conditions by the timely generation of an appropriate conceptual framework
that anticipates what the as-encountered ground conditions are likely to be.

The Engineering Geological Model also plays a role during Construction particularly when the Observational
Method (Peck 1969) is adopted. To paraphrase Peck and place it in the language of the 21st Century and this
paper, the Observational Method involves the following steps:
• Consider the engineering implications of a range of geological conditions that can be reasonably
anticipated from the Engineering Geological Model;
• Design for the most probable geological conditions but conceive designs suited to the range of possible
geological conditions and ensure the contract allows for such changes; and

PT
• During construction, if the as-encountered geological conditions differ from those that were expected,
the designs should be modified accordingly.

The Engineering Geological Model is more than a Data Set and a Visualization

RI
As project data bases become increasingly complex and include interrelated 3D data (especially where remote
sensing or regional collections of subsurface data are acquired) the size of the project data base increases

SC
significantly. To facilitate engineering decisions and establish contractually defensible documentation, it is
useful if all of the data is assembled within one repository, where it can be verified and accessible to the project
team. The repositories may use a Geographical Information System (GIS) to generate an interpretation of the
observational data and, in recent years, there has been a considerable increase in the use of computer modelling

U
software to generate sophisticated 3D visualizations of the ground conditions which allow the relationship
between the project and the observations to be explored. In both cases, inbuilt algorithms can be easily used to
N
generate interpretations of the spatial distribution of observational data which may be misleading if they are not
based on the geological concepts that form part of the EGM e.g. if dipping strata associated with folding are
A
thought to be present at a site it would be unreasonable and misleading to interpolate surfaces between boreholes
using a triangular mesh.
M

Nevertheless, it appears to be a common belief, based on the burgeoning use of such models in the literature,
that an Engineering Geological Model is simply some form of 2D or 3D visualization of the ground. This view
is possibly reinforced by those publications that focus on the creation of 3D visualizations from geological data
D

sets by way of prescribed geometric algorithms that do not include any geological interpretation (e.g. Lemon &
Jones 2003, Morelli et al. 2017, Gong et al. 2004, Rocha et al. 2018, Song et al. 2019). The allure of software
generated visualizations is also a problem because stunning visualization are often treated as being “the truth”
TE

simply because they look good, despite the fact that they might be based on inaccurate or incorrect assumptions.
Bond (2015) noted this when evaluating structural geological software and considered that computer
visualizations of 3D models project a sense of reality to what is actually a virtual reality, and hence a perception
EP

of certainty, which may not be present. Turner (2006) noted that the observations used to generate visualizations
are usually very widely spaced and the creator of an appropriate model must interpolate between these widely-
spaced data points. In these circumstances a fundamental role of the EGM is to ensure that all interpretations
and interpolations of data are consistent with the embodied geological concepts. It is therefore suggested that
CC

data sets and the associated visualizations are not in themselves the Engineering Geological Model unless they
explicitly demonstrate the conceptual framework underlying their generation. Examples of visualizations based
on large data sets that incorporate geological considerations include Culshaw (2005), Royse et al. (2009), Aldiss
et al. (2012) and Kessler et al. (2008).
A

A further driver for visualisation is the introduction of Building Information Modelling (BIM) within the civil
engineering industry. BIM is a process involving the generation and management of digital representations of
physical and functional characteristics of a building or places. Fundamentally, the purpose of BIM is to ensure
that appropriate information is created in a suitable format at the right time so that better decisions can be made
throughout the design, construction and operation of built assets. To this end, data transfer standards exist that
allow the transfer of “factual” geotechnical data throughout the project life cycle (e.g. the Association of
Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Specialists (AGS) format in the UK and the Data Interchange for
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (DIGGS) in the USA). With respect to combining a 3D
visualisation of the ground with the man-made components of the project, such approaches can be highly
beneficial, for example during design evaluation. Whilst BIM is not necessarily about creating 3D models, there
is a drive to incorporate visualisation of the ground into BIM from National Geological Surveys (e.g. Kessler et

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 al. 2015), ground modelling software developers and larger civil engineering consultants. However, it should be
recognised that, even with significant ground investigation, any visualisation of this data will contain significant
uncertainties which limits the applicability of any such model within the hierarchy of BIM in terms of The Level
of Development (LOD) (BIM Forum 2019).

Case history - penstock

This case history relates to the use of an Engineering Geological Model over a period of over 30 years to
understand the engineering geological conditions and assess the geotechnical risks to a penstock system. The
six 1000mm diameter penstocks deliver water down a 250 m high slope to a power station built for 90 MW
generation. The penstocks were constructed in the 1930s and have a history of geotechnical problems associated
with them related to anchor block movements, landslides and inadequate drainage (Figure 21).

PT
The most significant incident occurred during the early 1970s when a movement of tens of millimeters of one of
the mid-slope anchor blocks (Anchor Block S) and some surrounding ground occurred. Two of the penstocks

RI
were immediately emptied to reduce the loads on the anchor block. There was some discussion of landslide
movements being involved, boreholes were drilled to investigate the ground conditions and it was concluded
that the anchor block in question was founded on poor quality basalt with layers of clay occurring to depths of

SC
tens of metres below the surface. The possibility that the poor quality basalt was the result of distress of the rock
mass caused by deep seated landslide movement was postulated. However, after careful consideration and
analysis of all of the information, the movement of the penstock anchor block was attributed to the block being
of insufficient mass to resist the thrust imposed by the hydraulic loads. The engineered solution was to increase

U
the mass of the anchor block with additional concrete and carry out periodic monitoring to detect any further
movements.
N
A series of small landslides close to the penstocks in the 1980s prompted a review of the problems, which
A
involved:

•
M

A review of all the files and data accumulated since the 1930s as a desk study;
• Review of all monitoring data;
• Review of all subsurface information including boreholes and geophysics acquired in the area for a
variety of reasons; and
D

• Interpretation of aerial photos and engineering geological mapping.

TE

One conclusion of the review was that the various remedial works that had been carried out were designed to
solve localized problems and that a “bigger picture” view of the problems at the site had not been developed. At
an early stage in the review a cross section along the penstocks that had been previously drawn (Figure 22) was
presented to the project engineers but it probably did not effectively communicate the likely ground conditions
EP

and the nature of the risks.

CC

Towards the end of the 1980s a more refined Engineering Geological Model was presented that was based on all
of the observations but included more detailed consideration of some of the engineering geological concepts
including:
A

 The geology and geomorphology of the area reflected the total geological history which included the
following sequence of events: deposition of Triassic sediments, intrusion by Jurassic dolerite, regional
faulting, development of an early Tertiary river valley, infilling of the valley with basalts with a
lacustrine deposit at their base, erosion of the infilling basalts, the development the present valley
slopes, the effects of periglacial freeze-thaw slope processes, the formation of various types and ages of
landslide, deforestation and later plantings of trees, and the effects of the cuts and fills and spoil
disposal required to construct the penstocks;
 A landslide inventory was developed documenting the size, location and mechanisms for all known
landslides in and around the penstocks which contained sufficient information to support a simplified
quantitative assessment of the likelihood of future landslide events;

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
  A groundwater model was developed which included reference to regional recharge of the basalts,
discharge on the slope and a tuffaceous aquiclude below the basalts;
 The idea that slope evolution had occurred and represented the development of an equilibrium between
erosion, transport and deposition of materials down the slopes that was episodic in nature and related to
periods of climate variation and anthropogenic activity; and
 The possibility that there was a deep seated landslide developed in the basalts beneath Anchor Block S.
As part of the EGM a block model was sketched up which allowed all the identified hazards to be illustrated and
provided the engineers with an interpretation of the ground conditions that was easily understood (Figure 23).
Immediately there was an improved understanding of the ground conditions and potential risks, largely because
of the graphic nature of the model and the easily assimilated summary of the performance history of the
structure.

PT
Figure 23 is constrained by observational 3D data and was accompanied by an interpretative report but it also
contains a significant conceptual basis and interprets the flat area under Anchor Block S to be an ancient

RI
landslide. Consequently, this model was used to both conceptualize and communicate the possible hazards.
Interestingly, LiDAR which became available in 2010 supports the view that there could be a variety of stability
problems on the hillside which the penstock traverses (Figure 24).

SC
The visualization of the EGM in Figure 23, together with the entire desk study, detailed maps and sections and

U
up to date monitoring, were used to carry out a fairly sophisticated quantitative risk assessment for the penstocks
during a series of workshop sessions held in 2018. The assessment assumed that various hazards, ranging from
N
rockfalls through to deep seated landslides, may be present and/or may occur in the future and this study
provided the impetus to prepare an improved cross section that for the first time included an interpretation of the
A
deep seated landslide mechanism (Figure 25).
M

One critical input to this revised and updated EGM was the appreciation, based on experience gathered in the 30
years since the model was first generated, that there was a layer of tuff at the base of basalts which is generally
D

associated with landslides in the area and which could have a residual angle of shearing resistance as low as 12o.
This experience-based information was fed directly into the EGM and provided a plausible mechanism for the
TE

deep seated landslide postulated in the EGM created in the 1980s - 30 years before the risk assessment was
carried out.

The penstocks currently continue to be monitored and further investigations are ongoing, including boreholes
EP

and permeability testing. To date the asset has continued to perform satisfactorily and it is still not known if
there is actually a landslide beneath Anchor Block S, but the conceptual models that have been developed for
this penstock continue to provide a framework for identifying areas of uncertainty, collecting further
CC

information from subsurface investigations, understanding the observations, assessing the risks and informing
engineering decisions regarding this important piece of infrastructure and what actions, if any, should be
planned to manage the risks.
A

This case history illustrates the iterative development of the conceptual and observational components of the
Engineering Geological Model and how that development gradually refines the understanding, provides a
platform for risk management decisions, guides the further acquisition of subsurface data and communicates the
aspect of the problem to all parties involved during the life time of the project.

Conclusions
An Engineering Geological Model is an approximation of the engineering geological conditions created to help
solve geotechnical engineering problems and manage geotechnical risks. All projects that involve ground
engineering require an EGM, regardless of their project or geological complexity. The EGM should be
generated at the start of the project, be reviewed and updated as additional data becomes available, and be used
to manage the area of knowledge where engineering and geology interact from project inception through to
operation and even decommissioning. The most powerful capability of an EGM is the ability to anticipate what

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 might be present at a project site and evaluate how the ground could adversely affect the project i.e. when
developed correctly an EGM allows an evaluation of what is “foreseeable” at a site. Whilst a visualization is an
important output of any model, and serves to communicate between geological and non-geological professionals
involved in the project, EGMs are much more than this. Fundamentally, they represent an understanding of the
geological conditions that are of engineering significance to the project, provide the framework for all
engineering geological input to a project and are used to manage geotechnical risks.
In practice, all EGMs consist of an interlinked mixture of conceptual ideas characterized by epistemic
uncertainty and observational data characterized by aleatory uncertainty. In the initial phases of a project the
emphasis of the EGM development will be focused on conceptual ideas due to the limited observational data
and as the project proceeds increasing amounts of observational data are added to the model. The balance of
conceptual and observational data within a model will vary depending on the project type and the stage the
project is at, as well as the geotechnical complexity of the site. However, the conceptual ideas always provide

PT
the framework for the placement and interpretation of the observational data.

Whilst a desk study is fundamental in evaluating what is already known about a site, it is insufficient on its own
to develop a conceptual framework. The data has to be interpreted and extrapolated to generate a meaningful

RI
conceptual framework; this is the process of conceptualization. The success of this process will be dependent on
the engineering geological knowledge and experience of the individuals involved in the project, especially the

SC
knowledge and experience derived from similar past cases of EGM generation.
Developing the conceptual framework for EGMs is an essential part of a site investigation and a generic
methodology is outlined as the following eight steps:

1.
2.
Assemble Team.
Desk Study. U
N
3. Evaluate the data – Initial Conceptualization.
4. Initial Hazard Identification.
A
5. Documentation of the emerging Engineering Geology Model.
6. Identify key geotechnical risks and uncertainties.
M

7. Plan and Execute Site Investigation.

8. Review of models and risk registers

It is postulated that there is an “engine” that drives the development of the EGM that involves consideration of
D

the “compatibility” or “harmony” between the conceptual framework and the observational data and that a lack
TE

of compatibility or harmony represents uncertainty in the EGM and potential risk. An effective EGM is
achieved when there is appropriate compatibility or harmony between the evolving conceptual framework and
the acquired observational data. It is the conceptual framework that is used to measure this compatibility or
harmony as it embodies the fundamentally correct engineering geological thinking that has been developed for
EP

the site. There will always be discrepancies between the conceptual and observational components of the EGM.
The risks associated with these discrepancies should be progressively evaluated and it is only when they are
judged to be insignificant or manageable that good geotechnical engineering decisions can be made, as the
CC

project proceeds through the various stages of design, construction and operation. An effective EGM should also
be used during project procurement to document the site conditions that an experienced contractor could
reasonably have foreseen, thus minimising the potential for claims based on unforeseen ground conditions.
A

Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-
profit sectors.

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 References
ABI/BTS 2003. Association of British Insurers and the British Tunnelling Society. The Joint Code of Practice
for Risk Management of Tunnel Works in the UK

AGS 2007. Practice note guidelines for landslide risk management 2007. Australian Geomechanics 42 (1), 63 –
114

Aldiss, D.T., Black, M.G., Entwisle, D.C., Page, D.P. and Terrington, R.L. 2012. Benefits of a 3D geological
model for major tunnelling works: An example from Farringdon, east-central London, UK. Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 45(4), 405–414, http://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2011-066

ASBOG 2005. The Professional Geologist Model Licensure Law, National Association of State Boards of
Geology, USA

PT
AS1726 2017. Australian Standard Geotechnical site investigations, Standards Australia, SAI Global, Sydney
Australia, 75 pp

RI
Aswar, D.S. and Ullagaddi, P.B. 2017. An Overview 3-D Geological Modelling Part I – Basics of 3-D
Geological Modelling. International Journal of Latest Engineering Management Research 02(11), 1–14,
http://www.ijlemr.com/papers/volume2-issue11/19-IJLEMR-22541.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2020

SC
Baynes, F.J. 2010. Sources of geotechnical risk. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology,
43, 321–331, https://doi.org/10.1144/1470-9236/08-003

U
BIM forum 2019. Level of Development (LOD) Specification 2019, Part I & Commentary for Building
Information Models and Data. https://bimforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/LOD-Spec-2019-Part-I-and-
N
Guide-2019-04-29.pdf, Accessed 7 January 2020
A
Bock, H., Broch, E., Chartres, R., Gambin, M., Maertens, J., Maertens, L., Norbury, D., Pinto, P., Schubert, W.
and Stille, H. 2004. The Joint European Working Group of the ISSMGE, ISRM and IAEG for the Definition of
Professional Tasks, Responsibilities and Co-operation in Ground Engineering. In: Hack, R., Azzam, R. and
M

Charlier, R. (eds) Engineering geology for infrastructure planning in Europe. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences
104, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39918-6_1
D

Bond, C.E. 2015. Uncertainty in structural interpretation: Lessons to be learnt. J Struct Geol 74, 185–200,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2015.03.003
TE

Bond, C.E., Gibbs, A.D., Shipton, Z.K., Jones, S. 2007. What do you think this is? “Conceptual uncertainty” in
geoscience interpretation. GSA Today 17, 4–10, https://doi.org/10.1130/GSAT01711A.1
EP

Bowden, R.A. 2004. Building confidence in geological models. Geological Society, London. Special
Publications, 239, 157–173, https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2004.239.01.11

Bridges, C. 2019. Geotechnical risk: It’s not only the ground. Australian Geomechanics 54(1), 27–38
CC

British Geological Survey 2000. Geology of the Bradford district. Sheet description of the British Geological
Survey 1:50 000 Series Sheet 69 Bradford (England and Wales), 41 pp

BS EN 1997-2:2007 Eurocode 7. Geotechnical design. Ground investigation and testing

A

Clayton, C.R.I. 2001. Managing geotechnical risk: improving productivity in UK building and construction.
Thomas Telford, London, 80 pp
Cripps, J.C. and Taylor, R.K. 1981. The engineering properties of mudrocks. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology and Hydrogeology 14(4), 325–346, https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.QJEG.1981.014.04.10

Culshaw, M.G. 2005. From concept towards reality: developing the attributed 3D geological model of the
shallow subsurface. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 38(3), 231–284,
https://doi.org/10.1144/1470-9236/04-072

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Davis, J. 2017. Crossrail’s experience of Geotechnical Baseline Reports (GBRs). Crossrail Project:
Infrastructure design and construction, 4, Published Online: August 21, 2017, © Thomas Telford Limited and
Crossrail, https://doi.org/10.1680/cpid.63594.323

De Freitas, M.H., Griffith, J.S., Press, N., Russell, J., Parkes, A.A., Stimpson, I.G., Norbury, D.R., Coleman, C.,
Black, J., Towler, G. and Thatcher, K. 2017. Engineering Investigation and Assessment. In: Griffiths, J.S. and
Martin, C.J. (eds) Engineering Geology and Geomorphology of Glaciated and Periglaciated Terrains –
Engineering Group Working Party Report. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special
Publications, 28, 741–825
Dostalik, M., Novotny, J., Kurtsikidze, O. and Gaprindashvili, G. in press. Catastrophic Debris Flows in
Kazbegi Mountain Area, Georgia – Use of Available Free Internet Information as a Source to Generate
Conceptual Engineering Geological Model. Lowland Technology International: ISSN 1344-9656, Special Issue

PT
on: HEGC-I

Fletcher, C.J.N. 2016. Geology for Ground Engineering Projects. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. 309 pp

RI
Fookes, P.G. 1997. Geology for Engineers: the geological model, prediction and performance. Quarterly
Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 30(4): 293–424,
https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.QJEG.1997.030.P4.02

SC
Fookes, P.G., Baynes, F.J. and Hutchinson, J.N. 2000. Total geological history: a model approach to the
anticipation, observation and understanding of site conditions. Invited Paper, GeoEng 2000 Conference,
Technomic Publishing, Melbourne, 370–460

U
Fookes, P.G., Pettifer, G. and Waltham, T. 2015. Geomodels in engineering geology – An introduction.
N
Dunbeath, UK, Whittles. 208 pp
Freeman, T., Klein, S., Korbin, G. and Quick, W. 2009. Geotechnical Baseline Reports - A review. Proceedings
A
of the rapid excavation and tunnelling conference; 19th, Las Vegas, 232–241
M

GEO, 2007. Engineering Geological Practice in Hong Kong. GEO Publication No. 1/2007, Geotechnical
Engineering Office, Hong Kong.

Goldsmith, R. 2014. Working with Engineers, as an Engineering Geological Consultant. In: Lollino, G. et al.
D

(eds.), Engineering Geology for Society and Territory – Volume 7, Springer, Cham, 197–200,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09303-1_38
TE

Gong, J., Cheng, P., Wang, Y. 2004. Three-dimensional modelling and application in geological exploration
engineering. Computers & Geosciences 30 (4), 391–404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2003.06.003
EP

Griffiths, J.S. 2016. Incorporating geomorphology in engineering geological ground models. In: Eggers, M.J.,
Griffiths, J.S., Parry, S. and Culshaw, M.G. (eds) Developments in Engineering Geology, Engineering Geology
Special Publications 27, Geological Society, London, 159–168, https://doi.org/10.1144/EGSP27.14
CC

Gomes, A.R.A. in press. Considerations on the Practical Development of the Geotechnical Baseline Report
(GBR) for the FIDIC Emerald Book and Similar Contract Forms. Accepted for publication in ITA-AITES World
Tunnel Congress, WTC2020 and 46th General Assembly, Malaysia, 2020,
https://www.google.cz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiIqr_
A

r8rfnAhVNi1wKHTXTDR0QFjAAegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fptop.only.wip.la%3A443%2Fhttps%2Feasychair.org%2Fpublications%2Fpre
print_download%2FSKlm&usg=AOvVaw1yX0v00MrMfbR86xV_uR2F. Accessed 3 February 2020
Harlan R.L., Kolm, K.E. and Gutentag, E.D. 1989. Water-Well Design and Construction (Developments in
Geotechnical Engineering), Elsevier Science, 205 pp

Huddersfield Geology Group, 1998. Rocks and Landscapes of Huddersfield – a Guide to the Geology of the
Huddersfield District, http://www.huddersfieldgeology.org.uk/publications/ Accessed 20 January 2020
Hutchinson, J.N. 1991. Periglacial and Slope Processes. In: Forster, A., Culshaw, M.G., Cripps, J.C., Little, J.A.
and Moon, C.F. (eds) Quaternary Engineering Geology, Engineering Geology Special Publications 7,
Geological Society, London, 283–331, https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.ENG.1991.007.01.27

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Jack, C. and Parry, S. 2015. Communicating Geological Uncertainty: The Use of the Conceptual Engineering
Geological Model. In: Lollino, G. et al. (eds) Engineering Geology for Society and Territory - Volume 6,
Springer, Cham, 347–350, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09060-3_59

Jardine, G. and Nelis, S. in press. The use of 3D Geological Models for Managing Geological and Geotechnical
risks for dam structures – risks and opportunities. Accepted for publication in Symposium on Sustainable
Development of Dams and River Basins, ICOLD 2020, Delhi.
Kessler, H., Turner, A.K., Culshaw, M. and Royse, K. 2008. Unlocking the potential of digital 3D geological
subsurface models for geotechnical engineers. European econference of the International Association for
Engineering geology, Madrid, Spain, http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/3817

Kessler, H., Wood, B., Morin, G., Gakis, A., McArdle, G., Dabson, O., Fitzgerald, R. and Dearden, R. 2015.
Building Information Modelling (BIM) – A route for geological models to have real world impact. In:

PT
MacCormack, K., Thorleifson, H., Berg, R. and Russell, H. (eds) Three-dimensional geological mapping:
workshop extended abstracts; Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland, October
31, 2015; Alberta Energy Regulator, AER/AGS Special Report 101, 13–18

RI
Knill, J.L. 2003. Core values: the First Hans Cloos Lecture. Bull Eng Geol Environ 62 (1), 1–34,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-002-0187-9

SC
Lee, E.M. 2016. Landslide risk assessment: the challenge of communicating uncertainty to decision-makers.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 49(1), 21–35, https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2015-
066

U
Lemon, A.L. and Jones, N.L. 2003. Building solid models from boreholes and user-defined cross-sections.
N
Computers & Geosciences 29(5), 547–555, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-3004(03)00051-7

McMahon, B.K. 1985. E.H. Davis Memorial Lecture: geotechnical design in the face of uncertainty. Australian
A
Geomechanics Journal, Australian Geomechanics Society, 10, 7–19
M

Massey, J.B. 2001. Panelist Report – Qualification, registration, and licensing of geotechnical practitioners in
Hong Kong. In: Ho, K.K.S., Li, K.S. (eds) Geotechnical Engineering Meeting Society´s Needs, Vol 1, Swets and
Zeitlinger, Lisse, 623–627
D

Morelli, M., Mallen, L., Nicolò, G., Cozzula, S., Irace, A., Piana, F. 2017. 3D geological modeling and
visualization of the subsurface data of the Piemonte plains derived from the Geodatabase of digital Geological
TE

map of Piemonte. Rendiconti Online della Società Geologica Italiana 42, 90–93,
https://doi.org/10.3301/ROL.2017.22

Morgenstern, N.R. 2000. Common ground. Proceedings of GeoEng 2000, Melbourne, Australia, Australian
EP

Geomechanics Society, Lancaster, Pa.: Technomic Publishing Co., 1, 1–30

Novotny, J. 2014. Engineering Geological Models: Some examples of use for landslide assessments. In: Lollino,
CC

G., Arattano, M., Giardino, M., Oliveira, R. and Peppoloni, S. (eds) Engineering Geology for Society and
Territory 7. Springer, Cham, 11 – 15, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09303-1_2
Parry, S., Baynes, F. and Novotny, J. 2019. Conceptual engineering geological models. In: Shakoor A, Cato K
(eds) IAEG/AEG Annual Meeting Proceedings, San Francisco, California 2018, 6, Springer, Cham, 261–267,
A

Published online 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93142-5_36

Parry, S., Baynes, F.J., Culshaw, M.G., Eggers, M., Keaton, J.F., Lentfer, K., Novotny, J. and Paul, D. 2014.
Engineering geological models – an introduction: IAEG Commission 25. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73(3), 689–
706, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-014-0576-x
Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavation and tunneling in soft ground – State of the Art Volume. Proc. 7th Int. Conf.
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 225–290
Pospisil, P., Rapantova, N., Kycl, P., Novotny, J. 2019. Pitfalls in generating an engineering geological model,
using a landslide on the D8 Motorway near Dobkovičky, Czech Republic, as an example. In: Shakoor, A. and

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Cato, K. (eds) IAEG/AEG Annual Meeting Proceedings, San Francisco, California, 2018, 6, Springer, Cham,
269–276. Published online 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93142-5_37

Price, N.J. and Cosgrove, J.W. 1990. Analysis of geological structures. Cambridge University Press, 502 pp

Rocha, A., Mota, R.C.R., Hamdi, H., Alim, U.R. and Costa Sousa, M. 2018. Illustrative multivariate
visualization for geological modelling. In: Heer, J., Leitte, H. and Ropinski, T. (guest eds) Eurographics
Conference on Visualization 2018, 37 (3), 13 pp, https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13434

Rose, G., Kirk, P., Gibbons, C. and Lander, A. 2018. Three dimensional geological models in ground
engineering: when to use, how to build and review, benefits and potential pitfalls. Australian. Geomechanics.
53(3), 79–88

Royse, K.R., Rutter, H.K. and Entwisle, D.C. 2009. Property attribution of 3D geological models in the Thames

PT
Gateway, London: new ways of visualising geoscientific information. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68(1), 1–16,
http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10064-008-0171-0
Salvany, J.M., Carrera. J., Bolzicco, J. and Mediavilla, C. 2004. Pitfalls in the geological characterization of

RI
alluvial deposits: site investigation for reactive barrier installation at Aznalcóllar, Spain. Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 37(2), 141–154, https://doi.org/10.1144/1470-9236/04-039

SC
Selley, R.C. 1985. Ancient Sedimentary Environments. 3rd edn. Chapman & Hall, London, England, 317 pp

Semenza, E. 2010. The story of Vaiont told by the geologist who discovered the landslide. First published in
Italian in 2001 and translated by Carolyn Goodman Masè, K-flash, Ferrara. 205 pp

U
Shao, Y., Zheng, A., He, Y. and Xiao, K. 2012. 3D Geological modeling under extremely complex geological
N
conditions, Journal of Computers 7(3), 699–705, doi:10.4304/jcp.7.3.699-705
A
Shilston, D.T., Teeuw, R.M., West, G. and Engineering Group Working Party 2012. Chapter 6 Desk study,
remote sensing, geographical information systems and field evaluation. Engineering Geology Special
Publications 25, Geological Society, London, 159–200, https://doi.org/10.1144/EGSP25.06
M

Song, R., Qin, X., Tao, Y., Wang, X., Yin, B., Wang, Y. and Li, W. 2019. A semi-automatic method for 3D
modeling and visualizing complex geological bodies. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(3), 1371–1383. Published
D

online 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-1244-3

Sullivan, T.D. 2010. The Geological Model. In: Williams, A.L., Pinches, G.M., Chin, C.Y., McMorran, T.J. and
TE

Massey, C.L. (eds) Geologically Active, Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the International Association for
Engineering Geology and the Environment, Auckland, New Zealand, CRC Press, London, 155–170
EP

Sweeney, M. 2017. Terrain and geohazard challenges for remote region onshore pipelines: risk management,
Geoteams and Ground Models. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 50 (1), 13–52,
https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2016-074
CC

Topper, R., Spray, K.L., Bellis, W.H., Hamilton, J.L., and Barkmann, P.E. 2003. SP-53 Ground Water Atlas of
Colorado. Special Publications, SP-53. Denver, CO: Colorado Geological Survey, Division of Minerals and
Geology, Department of Natural Resources
A

Turner, A.K. 2006. Challenges and trends for geological modelling and visualization. Bull Eng Geol Environ 65,
109–127, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-005-0015-0
Turner, A.K., Van der Meulen, M. and Kessler, H. (ed) In press. Applied multidimensional geological
modelling, Wiley 450pp
Waltham, T. 2005. Subsidence. Chapter 12. In: Fookes, P.G., Lee, E.M. and Milligan, G. (eds). Geomorphology
for Engineers. Whittles Publishing, Dunbeath, Scotland, UK, 318–342

Whitman, R.V. 1984. Evaluating Calculated Risk in Geotechnical Engineering. J. Geotech. Eng. 110 (2) 145 –
188, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1984)110:2(143)

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Zaruba, Q. and Mencl, V. 1954. Engineering geology. Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd, Praha, 428
pp, (in Czech)

Zaruba, Q. and Mencl, V. 1976. Engineering Geology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1976, 504 pp

Zhong, D.H., Li, M.C., Song, L.G. and Wang, G. 2006. Enhanced NURBS modeling and visualization for large
3D geoengineering applications: An example from the Jinping first-level hydropower engineering project,
China. Computers & Geosciences 32(9), 1270–1282, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2005.11.007

PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Figure Captions
Fig. 1 The domain of the Engineering Geological Model.

Fig. 2 Example of the implications of an inadequate Engineering Geological Model within the project life cycle.

Fig. 3 Scope of site investigation in Europe according to Eurocode 7 (adapted from Annex B, EN 1997-2:
2007). Permission to reproduce extracts from British Standards is granted by BSI Standards Limited (BSI). No
other use of this material is permitted. British Standards can be obtained in PDF or hard copy formats from the
BSI online shop: www.bsigroup.com/Shop.
Fig. 4 Typical development and application of the “model approach” for major projects in Hong Kong. From
Griffiths (2016) after GEO (2007) - use of the word model highlighted. Developments in Engineering Geology,
Engineering Geology Special Publications 27, 2016 © Geological Society of London 2016.

PT
Fig. 5 The jig saw analogy (right hand image world citizen ©Tim Klein).
Fig. 6 Upper image: An example of an “unreasonable and mechanical” interpretation between boreholes when a

RI
conceptual framework is absent. Lower image: a more realistic interpretation based on geological concepts - two
unconformities in red, fluvial (river deposits) in green, colluvial (slope deposits) in yellow and a wedge of fill
placed on the slope in blue. Unit descriptions: 1 – Cretaceous marls, 2 – Cretaceous sandstones, 3, 4 – sand and

SC
gravel of lower terrace, 5 – loess loam, 6 - sand and gravel of the valley terrace, 7 – sand, 8 – Holocene clayey
alluvium, 9 - slope detritus, 10 – recent soil profile, 11 - flood loam, 12 – filling. Reprinted from, Záruba &
Mencl (1954, 1976), with permission from Elsevier.

U
Fig. 7 Interpretation without an adequate conceptual framework (A) and subsequent modification after further
investigations (B). (adapted from Salvany et al. 2004) Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol, 37(2), 2004 © Geological
N
Society of London 2004.
A
Fig. 8 1:50,000-scale Geological Map extract – Sheet 69 Bradford 2000. Copyright Permit CP20/003 BGS ©
UKRI. All Rights Reserved. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright and database rights 2020. Red
M

rectangle indicates project site.

Source https://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/publications/pubs.cfc?method=viewRecord&publnId=1986679
D

Fig. 9. Stratigraphy: 1:50 000-scale Geological Map extract – Sheet 69 Bradford 2000. Copyright
Permit CP20/003 BGS © UKRI. Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved. All Rights
TE

Reserved. Source
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/publications/pubs.cfc?method=viewRecord&publnId=19866797
EP

Fig. 10 Geological cross section from the 1:50,000-scale map (Section line crosses the NE part of the site).
1:50,000-scale Geological Map extract – Sheet 69 Bradford 2000. Copyright Permit CP20/003 BGS © UKRI.
All Rights Reserved.
CC

Source https://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/publications/pubs.cfc?method=viewRecord&publnId=19866797

Fig. 11 A coal measure cyclothem © Huddersfield Geology Group (1998). Reproduced with permission.
Fig. 12 Residual angle of shearing resistance of mudstones (Cripps & Taylor 1981). Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol
A

14(4), 1981 © Geological Society of London 1981.

Fig. 13 Topper et al., 2003 after Harlan et al., 1989. Reprinted from Water-Well Design and Construction
(Developments in Geotechnical Engineering) Copyright (1989), with permission from Elsevier.
Fig. 14 Periglacial slope processes (Hutchinson, 1991) Quaternary Engineering Geology, Engineering Geology
Special Publications 7, 1991 © Geological Society of London 1991.

Fig. 15 The possible anthropogenic effects of coal extraction © Tony Waltham in Geomorphology for
Engineers, edited by Fookes, et al. Whittles Publishing, 2005.
Fig 16 Aerial photograph of site showing former coal shafts (example circled green) and shallow landslides
(distinctive geomorphology within red ellipse).

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Fig. 17 Visualization component of the Baildon Engineering Geological Model used to summarize and
communicate the anticipated conditions (primarily conceptual).
Fig. 18 Visualization component of the Baildon Engineering Geological Model used to communicate the
Qualitative Risk Assessment

Fig. 19 Investigation generic methodology driven by conceptualization.

Fig. 20 The central role of the Engineering Geological Model in ensuring project success.

Fig. 21 Hydropower station and penstock. Anchor Block S arrowed

Fig. 22 Cross section along penstocks with little interpretation.

Fig. 23 Engineering Geological Model presented in 1989 as a block diagram to communicate the anticipated

PT
conditions and some of the potential hazards. Anchor Block S arrowed.
Fig 24 LiDAR imagery of the penstock hillside that can be interpreted to show evidence of a variety of

RI
landslides.

Fig. 25 Updated cross section along penstocks with engineering geological interpretation added.

SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Geological Factors Possible Engineering Geological Implications for Project

Sloping ground Slope instability and landslides

Quarry Sub vertical quarry rock faces, rockfall

Glaciated terrain Glacial deposits, glacial and periglacial conditions, pre-existing shear
surfaces, low strength shear surfaces, possible landslide control

PT
Coal seams Existing mine workings, former workings, voids/low strength backfill,

RI
Cavities, subsidence

Toxic/explosive gases, methane, CO2, spontaneous combustion

SC
Acid sulphate generating, chemically aggressive groundwater

Seat earth
shear surfaces, landslide control U
Clay rich, high plasticity, interbed shear, residual strengths, low strength
N
Low permeability, aquiclude
A
M

Mudstone Low strength, extensive weathering, low permeability, aquiclude

Easily excavated, variable depth to rock,

D

Acid sulphate generating, chemically aggressive groundwater

TE

Sandstone High strength, wide joint spacing, high permeability

EP

Difficult to excavate

Aquifer
CC

Sedimentary depositional Spatially variable lithology

environments
Variable ground conditions
A

Variscan orogeny Faulting and flexural slip folding

Variable distribution of strata,

Development of shear surfaces

Landslides Instability on different scales affecting excavations and operations

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Groundwater Highly variable permeability

Confined aquifers, high porewater pressures

Aggressive groundwater

Construction materials Suitable trench backfill probably imported

PT
Table 1 The start of the Baildon Engineering Geological Model - geological factors with possible engineering
implications (primarily conceptual)

RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Hazard Hazard Justification of significance Likelihood Consequence if RISK
ID Description of impacting impacts project
project

Stratigraphy - Coal Seams - Coal seams shown on BGS map beneath site. (Soft Bed, Middle Band, Hard Bed)

1a If seams are Potential subsidence associated with Possible Major. Large scale Medium
present, have they collapse of working. Unrecorded shafts subsidence could
been worked by affect integrity of
pillar and stall? pipeline

PT
1b If seams are Unrecorded shafts/variable ground Unlikely Minor, localized Low
present, have they conditions/poor quality backfill subsidence

RI
been worked by unlikely to affect
bell pits? pipeline integrity

SC
1c Thick strong Variable trench excavatability, possible Likely Minor, may cause Medium
Sandstones and refusal delays and changes
weak interbedded
mudstones
U to machinery
N
Landslides - BGS map shows “landslip deposits”
A
2a Shallow inactive Could be reactivated by construction if Likely Minor Medium
landslide pipeline crosses the landslide However, it
is likely that the pipeline will be lower
M

than the shear surface and trench backfill

should stabilize in the short term.
Acceptable during operation.
D

2b Shallow active Could move during construction if Almost Minor Medium

landslide pipeline crosses the landslide However, it certain
TE

is likely that the pipeline will be lower

than the shear surface and trench backfill
should stabilize in the short term.
Acceptable during operation.
EP

2c Deep seated Could be reactivated by construction but Unlikely Medium Medium

inactive landslide trench backfill should stabilize so
probably OK during operation.
CC

2d Deep seated active Could move during construction but Possible Catastrophic High
landslide could rupture pipeline during operation.
A

2e Rockfall Restricted to former quarries so unlikely Unlikely Insignificant Low

to impact pipeline and pipeline also
protected by backfill

Groundwater Chemistry – coal workings often have aggressive groundwater seepages

3a Acidic Corrosion of pipeline Likely Major High

groundwater

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Likelihood Consequence

Catastrophic Major Medium Minor Insignificant

Almost Certain 2b

Likely 3a 1c, 2a

Possible 2d 1a

Unlikely 2c 1b 2e

Rare

PT
High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk

RI
Table 2 Baildon Engineering Geological Model, initial hazard identification and risk register

SC
Topic Examples of sources of information

Topography Maps
U
N
Aerial photographs
A
Satellite and aerial imagery
Geomorphology, geology and hydrogeology Maps, memoirs and reports
M

Aerial photographs
Satellite and aerial imagery
D

Published papers and books

TE

Mine and quarry records

Thematic databases
Previous ground/site investigations
EP

Environment and planning Planning maps

Aerial photographs
CC

Satellite and aerial imagery

Archaeological site and historic building records
Contaminated land records
A

Environmental impact assessments

Climate records
River and coastal information
Site condition, land use and history Historical maps
Historical documents
Aerial photographs
Satellite and aerial digital imagery

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Land use and planning maps
Initial site visit/walk-over ´Skilled-eye´ inspection of site and its district
Ground-truthing reconnaissance
Visits to specific localities
Local knowledge Local history societies
Neighbours
Previous site users
Construction records
Building control office

PT
Precedent Case histories
Construction records

RI
Codes, standards, regulations and guidance Professional bodies and institutes
Government departments

SC
Research organizations and universities

U
Table 3 General checklist for desk study information from Shilston et al. (2012) Engineering Geology Special
N
Publications 25, 2012 © Geological Society of London 2012
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 Type of Geotechnical Risk Hazard Source

Poor management of An inadequate understanding of the importance of

entire geo-engineering ground conditions resulting in poor management of
Project management process the entire geo-engineering process e.g. a decision to
submit a tender price with no risk weighting for
geotechnical factors.

An inadequate understanding of the importance of

Poor management of site ground conditions resulting in poor acquisition,
Contractual investigation and understanding and/or communication of site

PT
contract documentation investigation information; this often leads to claims
based on contractually unforeseen ground conditions

An inadequate understanding of ground conditions

Unreasonable analytical

RI
Analytical and analytical methods, resulting in an unreasonable
model chosen
choice of analytical models

SC
An inadequate understanding of ground conditions
Unreasonable design
Properties and field and laboratory testing, resulting in an
values chosen
unreasonable choice of design values

Unforeseeable geological
details U
Geological conditions that are very variable, and
because investigation of all geological details is
N
Technical impractical
A
Geological conditions and geological processes that
Inherently hazardous
involve hazards such as large ground movements,
ground conditions
Geological voids, aggressive chemistry, erosion, etc.
M

An inadequate understanding of geological

conditions resulting in unforeseen ground conditions
Unforeseen ground
D

being encountered during construction, often

conditions
because of an inadequate site investigation due to
poor project management
TE

Table 4 Sources of geotechnical risk (Baynes 2010) Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol, 43 (3), 2010 © Geological
EP

Society of London 2010

CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 P
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
PT
CE

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 P
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
P TE
CE

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 P
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
P TE
CE

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 N
A
M
D
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf
by Florida International University user
 R
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 SC
U
N
A
M
E D
PT

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 SC
U
N
A
M
E D
PT

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 SC
U
N
A
M
E D
PT

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 N
A
M
D
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf
by Florida International University user
 SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
P
CE

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/

by Florida International University user
 PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 P
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
PT
CE

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
EPT
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user
 PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/article-pdf/doi/10.1144/qjegh2020-080/5097771/qjegh2020-080.pdf

by Florida International University user