Encountering unforeseen ground conditions mid-project can be an expensive problem. Buried obstructions, waste, contamination, mineshafts, solution features, soft ground, landfills, storage tanks, unexploded ordnance, archaeological features and difficult geology may variously lie in wait.
Buried services are often early concerns. Managing the health and safety risks means getting the right information at the right time. A well-designed investigation can pick up much more than just services at the same cost.
Each project is different. This presentation covers the latest developments in surveying and geophysics with examples of how they can be tailored to understand and reduce the specific risks encountered at any particular stage in a project.
A graphical approach to visualising information and risk is used to discuss the value and usefulness of different types of intrusive and geophysical site investigation data, including illustrations of when and when not to use geophysics, and, if it is used, how best to integrate it into a site investigation approach.
Detailed case studies illustrate the lessons and objectives.
For more information contact George Tuckwell:
gtuckwell @ rsk.co.uk
1. Understanding and managing the risk of
unforeseen ground conditions
Dr George Tuckwell
Director
Copyright of RSK
1
2. What do you know about your risks?
“…there are known knowns;
there are things we know that
we know.
There are known unknowns;
that is to say there are things
that we now know we don't
know.
But there are also unknown
unknowns; there are things we
do not know we don't know.”
Donald Rumsfeld
Former US Secretary for Defence
Copyright of RSK
2
3. Managing the risk of unforeseen ground conditions
Thinking fast and slow
Understanding and avoiding bias
Site investigation: Information vs Risk
Case study examples
When and when not to use geophysics
How do I know the survey will work?
Wrap up
Copyright of RSK
3
5. Clever brains
How cmoe your bairn is albe to
udnertsnad this snetence eevn
tghouh olny the frist and lsat lteteres
of ecah wrod are crreoct?
Copyright of RSK
6. Mind minefields: Perception
•
While we think we observe the world, we are
actually already interpreting
•
We ‘fill in the blanks’ as soon as possible to
minimise cognitive effort
•
Judgments are made in “automatic gear”
•
It is hard to turn the “lazy system” on and off
(paraphrasing Kahneman)
PRACTICE TIME:
Copyright of RSK
11. Decision making – “slow” thinking
• Define problem slowly to:
get all the facts
formulate alternatives
weigh-up and decide
Copyright of RSK
12. Decision making - “fast” thinking
•
Fast thinking tends to place action ahead
of diagnosis of problem and to reward
speed;
•
Fast thinking combines causal
determination with problem definition
PRACTICE TIME:
Copyright of RSK
13. What do you see?
Example: as printed on the
page, is the figure on the
right larger than the figure
on the left?
Copyright of RSK
14. Decisions
Paul owns shares in company A. During the past year he
considered switching to stock in company B, but he decided
against it. He now learns that he would have been better off
by €1000 if he had switched to the stock of company B.
John owned shares in company B. During the past year he
switched to stock in company A. He now learns that he would
have been better off by €1000 if he had kept his stock in
company B.
Who feels greater regret?
(source: Kahneman)
Copyright of RSK
15. Decisions
Mr Brown almost never picks up hitchhikers.
Yesterday he gave a man a ride and was robbed.
Mr Smith frequently picks up hitchhikers. Yesterday
he gave a man a ride and was robbed.
Who of the two will experience greater regret over
the episode?
Who will be criticized most severely by others?
(source: Kahneman)
Copyright of RSK
16. Mind minefields:
Idealized view on decision making
•
People expect to have stronger emotional
reactions (regret included) to an outcome that is
produced by action than to the same outcome
when it is produced by inaction
•
Biases decisions towards conventional and risk
averse choices
If this is true for site investigations – what is
the risk that decision makers are averse to?
Copyright of RSK
17. Mind minefields: Questions we ask
Is there difficult ground here?
Are sites like this usually difficult?
Have I demonstrated the ground is fine?
Copyright of RSK
18. Mind minefields: Questions we should ask
What difficult ground have I found?
Why do I think that this land might be
difficult?
How can I demonstrate the ground isn’t
difficult?
Copyright of RSK
20. The trouble with experts
They are wrong more often than they think they are,
and by a greater margin than they would ever expect
to be,
for reasons that are predictable…
Copyright of RSK
21. Heuristic Bias
People need to make decisions constantly,
including when they are asked to make expert
judgments
They do this by estimating probabilities
People employ several types of heuristics to
assess probabilities
However, these heuristics often lead to significant
biases in a consistent fashion
Copyright of RSK
27. OSI Inspection area
•1000 km2
•6 days to assemble a
team and deploy
•72 hours to start field
activities
•25 days to justify
continuation
•130 days maximum
Copyright of RSK
28. Signatures of underground nuclear
explosions
Changes caused by UNE
• radiation anomalies
• apical voids
• rubble chimney
• underground cavities
• fractures
• surface spallation (craters / retarcs)
• changes of soil density
• displacement of water table
Features related to UNE
• drill-hole (metallic) casing
• buried ferrous objects (e.g. drill pipes)
• shallow-buried cables
• construction debris
Copyright of RSK
29. Visual observation
Example from IFE08
Example from IFE08
Undeclared Bh51A
Concrete platform over Bh130
Detected from the air
Detected from the ground
Copyright of RSK
30. Gamma radiation monitoring
Equipment:
• Ground high-resolution gamma
spectrometer for field and lab
• Car/Airborne gamma spectroscopy
γ-survey over
• Noble gas measurement equipment
IFE08 IA (cps)
identiFinder gamma spectrometer
Dose rate, finding and nuclide
identification with NaI detector
Geiger-Mueller tube for high doses
Copyright of RSK
32. Seismic Aftershock Monitoring (SAMS)
UNE aftershocks are:
• Shallower than EQ
aftershocks
• Decay more rapidly than
most EQ aftershocks
• UNE explosions may
induce aftershocks in nearby
faults
Copyright of RSK
33. Seismic Aftershock Monitoring (SAMS)
Example of aftershocks
magnitude:
•
Magnitude -1: dropping
a brick from 1 meter
altitude
•
Magnitude -2: explosion
in hard rock of 70 gr
explosive at 3 m depth
Example of event recorded by SAMS array
Copyright of RSK
35. Drilling
Last opportunity to detect
relevant radionuclides if the
test is contained
One chance to drill in one
location
Max 130 days to fine a spot
50m across at 500-1500m
depth in a 1000 sq km
The inspection team need to be efficient,
justified, beyond criticism and correct
Copyright of RSK
36. Aspects of an OSI
Finite resources
Limited time
Pressure
Scrutiny
Copyright of RSK
November 18, 2013
36
37. 40 people…
The techniques must be applied by a restricted number of inspectors
in a limited amount of time:
• Understanding of phenomenology / knowledge about signatures
• Properly developed search logic to prioritise activities/missions
• Synergy among different technical subdisciplines
Copyright of RSK
42. Requirements
•A system that allows people to work effectively
•Clear purpose and direction
•Search logic that is robust
•Allow technologies to work together
•Synergy of analysis and interpretation
•Communication
•Maximisation of team resources
Copyright of RSK
43. What does that mean for an OSI?
Copyright of RSK
November 18, 2013
43
44. OSI in five easy steps
STEP 1
STEP 1
Consider the information
Consider the information
that is available to update
that is available to update
the logic map with IL’s and
the logic map with IL’s and
develop questions
develop questions
STEP 5
STEP 5
Implement the missions and
Implement the missions and
collect the information
collect the information
generated
generated
STEP 2
STEP 2
Develop missions to answer
Develop missions to answer
the questions from step 1
the questions from step 1
STEP 3
STEP 3
Prioritise missions according
Prioritise missions according
to the search logic
to the search logic
Copyright of RSK
STEP 4
STEP 4
Determine which missions
Determine which missions
can be implemented with
can be implemented with
the resources available
the resources available
45. OSI in five easy steps
STEP 1
STEP 1
Consider the information
Consider the information
that is available to update
that is available to update
the areas of interest and
the areas of interest and
develop questions
develop questions
DO
Consider only the information you
have
Be clear what is fact and what is
interpretation
Use your expertise, intuition, and
imagination
Develop questions that do not
prescribe the methods used to get
the answer
Copyright of RSK
46. OSI in five easy steps
STEP 1
STEP 1
Consider the information
Consider the information
that is available to update
that is available to update
the areas of interest and
the areas of interest and
develop questions
develop questions
DONT
Assume you know things you do
not yet know
Overestimate the accuracy of
completeness of the information
you have
Work towards an answer,
do work towards the answer!
Copyright of RSK
47. OSI in five easy steps
STEP 2
STEP 2
Develop missions to answer
Develop missions to answer
the questions from step 1
the questions from step 1
DO
Consider each question
Use your expertise to develop the
most effective missions
Ensure each mission has clear
objectives and deliverables
Carefully consider the information
that the mission will deliver
• limitations
• accuracy
Copyright of RSK
• risks of failure
48. OSI in five easy steps
STEP 2
STEP 2
Develop missions to answer
Develop missions to answer
the questions from step 1
the questions from step 1
DONT
Develop missions using
technologies you are not expert in
Develop missions that do not
address the live questions
Develop missions that have a low
liklihood of success
Over-use your ‘favourite’
technology
Copyright of RSK
49. OSI in five easy steps
STEP 3
STEP 3
Prioritise missions according
Prioritise missions according
to the search logic
to the search logic
DO
Objectively consider the information
that each mission will return
Ensure that the information of most
value to the purpose of the
investigation
Ensure time-critical missions are
prioritised
Copyright of RSK
50. OSI in five easy steps
STEP 3
STEP 3
Prioritise missions according
Prioritise missions according
to the search logic
to the search logic
DONT
Confuse volume of information with
value
Prioritise missions unlikely to
deliver the promised information
Consider the resources you have
available (these are considered later!)
Copyright of RSK
51. OSI in five easy steps
STEP 4
STEP 4
Determine which missions
Determine which missions
can be implemented with
can be implemented with
the resources available
the resources available
DO
Allocate resources to the missions
in priority order
Combine prioritised missions where
possible to make the most efficient
use of resources
Copyright of RSK
52. OSI in five easy steps
STEP 4
STEP 4
Determine which missions
Determine which missions
can be implemented with
can be implemented with
the resources available
the resources available
DONT
Revisit the priority of missions
Combine missions if it violates the
priority order
Listen to the technical expert
banging the table insisting that his
technology is deployed first.
Copyright of RSK
53. OSI in five easy steps
STEP 5
STEP 5
Implement the missions and
Implement the missions and
collect the information
collect the information
generated
generated
DO
Deploy personnel with the
appropriate expertise to undertake
the mission
Stay safe!
Ensure that the mission adheres to
the objectives defined
Report results clearly and
concisely, and in a way that the ITL
(and the world) can understand
Copyright of RSK
54. OSI in five easy steps
STEP 5
STEP 5
Implement the missions and
Implement the missions and
collect the information
collect the information
generated
generated
DONT
Change (or forget!) the objectives
of the mission
Take unnecessary safety risks
Confuse fact with interpretation in
the report
Copyright of RSK
55. OSI in five easy steps
STEP 1
STEP 1
Consider the information
Consider the information
that is available to update
that is available to update
the logic map with IL’s and
the logic map with IL’s and
develop questions
develop questions
STEP 5
STEP 5
Implement the missions and
Implement the missions and
collect the information
collect the information
generated
generated
STEP 2
STEP 2
Develop missions to answer
Develop missions to answer
the questions from step 1
the questions from step 1
STEP 3
STEP 3
Prioritise missions according
Prioritise missions according
to the search logic
to the search logic
Copyright of RSK
STEP 4
STEP 4
Determine which missions
Determine which missions
can be implemented with
can be implemented with
the resources available
the resources available
60. Questions, answers, methods and bias
Pose questions that
are independent of
the technology used
to get the answer
Be aware of how bias
will affect the outcome,
and take
steps to
minimise it
Select an approach based on
objective analysis:
•Value of the information
•Relevance to the question
•Risk of not returning the expected
information
•Cost
•Time scale
Copyright of RSK
November 18, 2013
60
62. Commercial Site Investigation:
linked concepts
Pose questions that
are independent of
the technology used
to get the answer
Select a technical approach,
based on an objective analysis:
•Value of the information
•Relevance to the question
•Risk of not returning the expected
information
•Cost
•Time scale
Copyright of RSK
Be aware of how bias
will affect the outcome,
and take
steps to
minimise it
65. What do you know about your risks?
“…there are known knowns;
there are things we know that
we know.
There are known unknowns;
that is to say there are things
that we now know we don't
know.
But there are also unknown
unknowns; there are things we
do not know we don't know.”
Donald Rumsfeld
Former US Secretary for Defence
Copyright of RSK
65
66. Management of risk and information
Know your risks
What information do you need and how do you get it?
Relate needs to survey scope and detail
The limitations of the information
Is it complete?
Is it accurate?
Information and risk conceptual maps
What do you know about where?
Is it enough to manage your risks?
Copyright of RSK
66
70. Your chances of finding things…
100%
90%
80%
Random holes
If the area of the target is
1/100 of the area of the
site…
What are the chances of
finding the target with a
random set of hole
locations?
Chances of hitting
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Number of holes
Copyright of RSK
November 18, 2013
70
71. Your chances of finding things…
100%
90%
Random holes
Regular grid
80%
If the area of the target is
1/100 of the area of the
site…
Chances of hitting
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
What are the chances of
finding the target with a
regular grid of hole
locations?
20%
10%
0%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Number of holes
Copyright of RSK
November 18, 2013
71
72. Finding things…
It may be possible to cover the
entire area in a fraction of the
time with a geophysical survey
Copyright of RSK
November 18, 2013
72
73. When to use geophysics
•
Finding something (beneath the ground surface or
concealed within a structure)
•
Providing reliable information across large areas
•
Reducing and/or targeting intrusive investigations
Minimises the risk of unforeseen ground conditions
Copyright of RSK
November 18, 2013
73
74. Risk and information maps
Conceptualisation of risk/need for information
3D view
top
side
Copyright of RSK
74
75. Risk and information maps (cont.)
Tools at our disposal to gather information
x-section geophysics
surface geophysics
e.g. resistivity, seismic
e.g. EM conductivity,
magnetics, GPR
trial pits
boreholes
Copyright of RSK
75
76. Risk and information maps (cont.)
Following a detailed intrusive SI
Copyright of RSK
76
77. Risk and information maps (cont.)
Following a detailed intrusive SI – where do you have information?
Copyright of RSK
77
78. Risk and information maps (cont.)
Following a detailed intrusive SI – where does risk remain?
Copyright of RSK
78
79. Risk and information maps (cont.)
Following a detailed intrusive SI – where does risk remain?
How likely is it
to have picked
up these buried
obstructions?
Copyright of RSK
79
80. Risk and information maps (cont.)
Using geophysics as a site investigation tool
3D view
top
side
Copyright of RSK
80
81. Risk and information maps (cont.)
Using geophysics as a site investigation tool
Find out something about everything in the near-surface
Copyright of RSK
Surface geophysics
indicates some
buried structures
81
82. Risk and information maps (cont.)
Using geophysics as a site investigation tool
Follow up with targeted trial pits, boreholes and geophysics
Copyright of RSK
82
85. Buried services – detail and scope of survey
The Survey
Association
(TSA) level 1
desk study
Borehole
location
clearances
Using ground penetrating radar
(GPR), radiodetection, cover lifting
and tracing
TSA level 4
utility survey
Full site radiodetection and cover
lifting with unrecorded GPR findings
marked out on ground
TSA level 5
utility survey
As above but with additional
detail/accuracy in pre-agreed areas
covered with recorded GPR grids and
post-processing
TSA* level 6 full
GPR utility
survey
Copyright of RSK
Reviews of statutory service records
and other site-specific data
Radiodetection and cover lifting, with
recorded GPR grids across the entire
accessible site
85
89. Project Details & Scope
Further information required to improve the understanding of the buried
features at the site to aid redevelopment works
Geophysical Surveying to establish Location, extent and depth of features indicative of potential vaults
Location of Buried Services
?
Copyright of RSK
90. Equipment Used - Services
Radiodetection Survey
RD8000 pipe and cable locator
Cover lifting and inspection
Ground Penetrating Radar Survey
Medium frequency antenna
Undertaken on dense grid of orthogonal transects across the
site to build up complete 100% 3-D map of the area
Limited by ground conditions (clay, rebar, made ground)
Copyright of RSK
94. Results - Buried Services
+ GPR linear features
Copyright of RSK
95. Equipment Used - Obstructions
Ground Penetrating Radar
High frequency – slab construction
Medium frequency – services, shallow obstructions, voids
Low frequency – deeper obstructions, foundations, possible vaults
0.7m
Depth
Copyright of RSK
~2.5m
Up to 5m
96. Example Data - Slab Thickness
Ground Penetrating Radar
1.5Ghz antenna to scan to 600mm depth
Consistent across majority of survey area
Copyright of RSK
107. How to match a survey scope to your risk
TSA* level 1
desk study
Borehole
location
clearances
TSA* level 4
utility survey
TSA* level 5
utility survey
TSA* level 6
full gpr utility
survey
Copyright of RSK
107
108. Limitations to the information
Is the information you now have
limited?
complete?
accurate?
Copyright of RSK
108
116. Project Example
Brownfield Site
Carrington Power CCGT
860MW gas fired combined cycle power plant on location
of former Carrington Power Station.
3km pipeline corridor from adjacent National Grid Site to CCGT.
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
116
117. Case Study - Location
Proposed
power
station
Pipeline
route
NG Site
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
117
118. Case Study - Project Details
Geophysical Surveying to establish constraints along pipeline route Buried Services
Underground obstructions
Geophysics to compliment boreholes
Power cables (lots!)
Copyright of RSK
Gas pipe tracing
Radar
EM mapping
03 Sept 2013
118
119. Case Study - Final Interpreted Results Plan
CAD Plan
Pipeline Route
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
119
120. Case Study - Final Interpreted Results Plan
CAD Plan
Pipeline Route
Topographic
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
120
121. Case Study - Final Interpreted Results Plan
CAD Plan
Pipeline Route
Topographic
Statutory
service records
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
121
122. Case Study - Final Interpreted Results Plan
CAD Plan
Pipeline Route
Topographic
Statutory
service records
Drainage
tracing
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
122
123. Case Study - Final Interpreted Results Plan
CAD Plan
Pipeline Route
Topographic
Statutory
service records
Drainage
tracing
Power & radio
electrolocation
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
123
124. Case Study - Final Interpreted Results Plan
CAD Plan
Pipeline Route
Topographic
Statutory
service records
Drainage
tracing
Power & radio
electrolocation
Radar data
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
124
125. Case Study - Final Interpreted Results Plan
CAD Plan
Pipeline Route
Topographic
Statutory
service records
Drainage
tracing
Power & radio
electrolocation
Radar data
EM data
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
125
126. Case Study - Final Interpreted Results Plan
CAD Plan
Pipeline Route
Topographic
Statutory
service records
Drainage
tracing
Power & radio
electrolocation
Radar data
EM data
Combined
Drawing
Multiple
techniques
= More
information
= Less risk
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
126
127. Case Study - Intrusive Investigation
Pipes found at location and depth
shown by geophysics;
subsequently exposed;
found to be cut at end; proven to be disused
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
127
128. Case Study – Depth to bedrock & Faults
Borehole data
?
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
128
129. Case Study – Depth to bedrock & Faults
P-wave refraction seismics
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
129
130. Case Study – Depth to bedrock & Landfill
Electrical resistivity and seismic data with targeted boreholes to develop a detailed ground model
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
130
131. Case Study – Depth to bedrock & Landfill
Ground Investigation Specialist of the Year 2012
Copyright of RSK
03 Sept 2013
131
135. Integrated SI – if your site looks like this…
Copyright of RSK
135
136. … would this information help?
Copyright of RSK
136
137. When, and when not
to use geophysics
Copyright of RSK
November 18, 2013 137
138. When to use geophysics
Do I need help finding (or avoiding) my target(s)?
Do the targets represent a contrast in
physical properties that may be detected?
Can one or more geophysical techniques help?
Are my targets big enough?
Are my targets shallow enough?
Are the site conditions suitable for a successful survey?
Copyright of RSK
139. start
Standard
intrusive SI
no
Does
the brief include
finding or proving
the absence of
something?
yes
If it is there
do we know with
confidence where it
should be?
yes
Standard
intrusive SI
no
Standard
intrusive SI
Copyright of RSK
acceptable
What are the
statistical chances
of finding it with
pits/holes?
not acceptable
140. acceptable
Standard
intrusive SI
What are the
statistical chances
of finding it with
pits/holes?
not acceptable
Do the targets
represent contrasts in
physical properties that
are detectable?
no
Intrusive
investigation
yes
Intrusive SI
no
Can one or more
geophysical techniques help?
Are my targets big enough?
Are my targets shallow enough?
Are the site conditions suitable for
a successful survey?
Copyright of RSK
yes
Integrated SI
including
geophysical
survey
141. How do I know if the
survey will work?
Copyright of RSK
November 18, 2013 141
142. How do I know the survey will work?
Who is doing the geophysical survey?
Has the survey been designed by an expert
to fit your information needs?
What will the survey deliver?
Copyright of RSK
142
143. Who is doing the survey?
Qualifications and experience
chartership
qualifications/demonstrable CPD
Copyright of RSK
143
144. Is the survey designed for YOU?
Ask some basic questions about how the
survey design proposed will deliver
information that addresses your risks
Copyright of RSK
144
145. What should the survey produce?
Ask consultants/contractors to
‘show their working’
example data annotated with interpretations
Interpretative report to support drawings
Copyright of RSK
145
146. How could a third party help?
Supervision
Copyright of RSK
Peer review
146
148. Contact details
Hemel office
George Tuckwell, gtuckwell@rsk.co.uk, 01442 416656
Tim Grossey, tgrossey@rsk.co.uk, 01442 416654
Helsby office
Stephen Owen, sowen@rsk.co.uk, 01928 728457
Paul Birtles, pbirtles@rsk.co.uk, 01928 728148
More information
www.environmental-geophysics.co.uk
geophysical information and case studies
www.safe-ground.co.uk
utility mapping and surveying
www.rsk.co.uk
company website
Copyright of RSK
November 18, 2013 148
Notas del editor
Not a helpful political position, but a reasonable way to approach risk. The site investigation seeks to deal with the known unknowns and minimises the risk of unknown unknowns. Good. How?
The talk will go through the need to understand your risks sufficiently to be able to ask for the right information to mitigate/control them.
We will talk about risk and information in general terms, as you must for any site investigation, but will focus on examples from surveying, utility mapping and geophysics.
We will also talk about the limitations of the information you get. Is it complete? Is it accurate?
It is a simple conceptual tool to develop a model of where your risks are, where you need to get what information and, having gathered information, assessing where your risk or information gaps are. We will see how this works for subsurface mapping using geophysics.
When the world becomes too familiar, your brain reverts to automatic pilot and stops seeing what is right in front of your eyes.
Try switching to manual by becoming more curious . Ask interesting questions each week. How cmoe your bairn is albe to udnertsnad this snetence eevn tghouh olny the frist and lsat lteteres of ecah word are crreoct?
We crave cognitive ease – coherent story, causal explanations asap
Conclusion comes first, arguments follow – associative machinery runs smoothly and at high speed
“Kahneman calls it “Lazy and “automatic” systems that generate our judgments.
The letter in a middle is once interpreted as H and once as A.
This doesn’t happen only with visuals but with our understanding of what other people do and say and events are more ambiguous. We have to fill in the blanks and the interpretations we come up with matter because they dictate how we ACT and feel.
Subjective interpretations are formed quickly and unconsciously. When something happens to us our brains kick into gear and try to make sense of it as best we can – rapidly. A duck looking to the right? Or a bunny looking to the left? Objectively it is not either one. It depends on how our minds interpret it. What’s more we often don’t know we are interpreting, making sense of a drawing in a particular way.
How do we do that? One way is to rely on past experience or use context. If I have a pet rabbit, or if this drawing is shown around Easter time, I will probably see a bunny first (82 % of people). On October Sunday 90% in USA saw a duck or similar bird.
They are all ambiguous. We have idealized view on decision making! We thought we processed this with our rational mind but were biased by the context, the ease of retrieval by associative machinery..
How did you read the left column. Probably as ABC. And the right as 12 13 14. But the middle items are identical . You could have read. A 13 C and 12 B 14. But you didn’t? Why not? The whole context helped you interpret the same shape once as a number and once as a letter. The shape IS ambiguous, but you jump into conclusion about its identity and do not become aware of ambiguity that was resolved.
As for Ann. What is the image coming to your mind? In the absence of explicit context the mind (fast part) you generated a likely context on its own and we are not aware of the possibility of another interpretation.
Neglect of ambiguity and suppression of doubt .OSI search logic in place to protect your mind from this type of bias. But there’s resentment, because we are hardly aware of the bias and the need to have a “safety measure”.
The obvious answer comes quickly to mind: the figure on the right is larger. If you take a ruler, you will discover that figures are exactly the same size. Your impression of their relative size is dominated by a powerful illusion: process of substitution.
The corridor in which the figures are seen is drawn in perspective and appears to go into the depth plane. Your perceptual system authomatically interprets the picture as 3D scene, not as an image printed on a flat paper surface. In 3D interpretation, the person on the right is both much farther away and much larger. For most of us this impression of 3d size is overwhelming. Only visual artists and experienced photographers have developed the skill of seeing the drawing as an object on a page. For the rest of us substitution occurs: dominant impression of 3d size dictates the judgment of 2d size. It’s a 3d heuristics. It;’s a true illusion, not miusnderstanding of the question. You knew the question was about the size of the figures as printed on the page. You were not confused by the question, but you were influenced by the answer to the question you were not asked “How tall are the three people”. The substitution in heuristics – it occurred automatically. The picture contains cues that suggest a 3d interpretation. These cues are irrelevant to the task at hand – the judgment of size of the figure on the page – and you should have ignored them, but you couldn’t . The bias associated with the heuristic is that objects that appear to be more distant also appear to be larger on the page. A judgment that is based on substitution will inevitably be biased in predictable ways. In this case it happens so deep in the perceptual system that you simply cannot help it. Cognitive illusion happens same way. Again: search logic tool is like taking a ruler! Not that it comes in your mind that it’s necessary – thus resentment.
8% respondens say Paul. 92% say George.
Situations of the two investors are objectively identical: they both now own stock A and both would have been better of by the same amount if they owned stock B.
The only difference is: George got there by acting, Paul got to the same place by failing to act
88% said Mr Brown, 12% said Mr Smith.
23% said Mr Brown and 77% Mr Smith.
Bias of “Normal and abnormal events”
Difference between default option and deviating from it. In favor of conventional and risk averse choices. Even life or death decisions can be affected (Physicians choosing standard and unconventional treatment of gravely ill patient.
Key difference is distinction between default options and actions that deviate from default. If I own the stock the default is not to sell it. When you deviate from default, you can easily imagine the norm – discrepancy between the two can be source of painful emotions.
When the world becomes too familiar, your brain reverts to automatic pilot and stops seeing what is right in front of your eyes.
Try switching to manual by becoming more curious . Ask interesting questions each week. How cmoe your bairn is albe to udnertsnad this snetence eevn tghouh olny the frist and lsat lteteres of ecah word are crreoct?
When the world becomes too familiar, your brain reverts to automatic pilot and stops seeing what is right in front of your eyes.
Try switching to manual by becoming more curious . Ask interesting questions each week. How cmoe your bairn is albe to udnertsnad this snetence eevn tghouh olny the frist and lsat lteteres of ecah word are crreoct?
The first task in Step 1 is to collate all the information available. At the launch of the exercise basic topographic maps were available, together with low resolution aerial imagery. Three principal OSI relevant pieces of information were known: IDC epicentre, the ISP declared epicentre, and an area boreholes declared to have been used for UNE’s in the historic past.
Not a helpful political position, but a reasonable way to approach risk. The site investigation seeks to deal with the known unknowns and minimises the risk of unknown unknowns. Good. How?
Summarise and re-make the main points
Your risks depend on your site and what you want to do.
Is it industrial, residential or greenfield?
What is the history of the site?
What are you trying to do with it?
Start with an easy example of information levels. Surveys of aboveground features.
What you need to know is dictated by what you want the information for.
It is relatively straightforward to match the scope to your requirements for information. You can see if the information is complete.
We have equated risk of known unknowns and unknown unknowns with the need for information.
We can visualise risk/information need by the red shaded areas.
This is a conceptual schematic model of a brownfield site 1Ha in area where the information available to date (desk study and walk over) suggests that this is a sensitive site with:
Risk of contamination from fuel storage (dark red area)
Risk of buried obstructions and utilities across the site (upper 3m)
Unknown ground water and depth to bedrock
In our game we have four sets of tools that provide precise information (dark blue), and either partial information or inferred information (light blue)
The borehole and trial pits tell you everything about that point (dark blue), and you might be confident to infer the ground is the same for a radius around the hole (light blue).
Geophysical surveys will tell you about one aspect (physical property – electrical, density, elastic properties) of the ground across an area, cross section of volume of ground (light blue).
A detailed intrusive SI might look like this with a combination of trial pits and boreholes
The information gathered is distributed like this
The volumes of ground for which there is no information are still shaded red.
The question, and the judgement regarding risk, is
“what is the likelihood that unforeseen ground conditions remain on the site, and if they do what are the consequences?”
If it is a well behaved site then you might reasonably feel confident.
If there remains a high risk of buried services (live or relic), or buried obstructions or waste that would have significant consequences for the development then the risk might require more information to manage it.
If bedrock is likely to contain local variations of significance (erosion channels, voids or solution features) more information might be required at depth.
The volumes of ground for which there is no information are still shaded red.
The question, and the judgement regarding risk, is
“what is the likelihood that unforeseen ground conditions remain on the site, and if they do what are the consequences?”
If it is a well behaved site then you might reasonably feel confident.
If there remains a high risk of buried services (live or relic), or buried obstructions or waste that would have significant consequences for the development then the risk might require more information to manage it.
If bedrock is likely to contain local variations of significance (erosion channels, voids or solution features) more information might be required at depth.
Geophysics is one of your site investigation tools.
It has the advantage of telling you something about everything.
If we do a surface geophysics survey we get information about one aspect (e.g. electrical conductivity) of the upper 4-5m.
This provides infromation on buried utilities and obstructions – mitigating that risk – an indicates two features of note –
a large buried obstruction, possible buried floor slab from former stores/workshop area
A small, metallic, buried obstruction within/near the edge of the area of interest for fuel storage contamination
The SI can continue with trial pit positions modified to target the buried obstructions, boreholes can be moved to clear areas to avoid obstructions.
Information can also gathered from greater depths using x-section geophysics (resistivity or seismic data) to link the information between boreholes.
The result is more information, more confidence in the information, and a reduction of he possibility of unknown unknowns (especially in the shallow part in this example)
Of course, if unacceptable risks remain in the deeper ground, there are geophysical techniques that can help, and will avoid the need for boreholes or probing on a tight grid.
The assessment of risk, of course, accounts for the consequences, but also the likelihood. There is a different risk and a different need for information for different sites.
The Survey Association has produced a very helpful guidance document with the scope for different ‘survey levels’ that are distinguished by the effort put in to getting the information, but equate to the provision of different amounts of information, appropriate to sites with different risks.
Describe the levels briefly.
Explain (briefly) how your risks of buried utilities vary for the different types of site in this image (outskirts of Hemel – includes Bunsfield )
So how much information do you need?
It will vary from site to site – depending on the risks.
Briefly outline the difference between a green field site that might just need a level 4 around the perimeter, to the area around bunsfield that will have a great deal of buried infrastructure associated with it, including a fuel line that runs our to heathrow.
There are some physical limitations on the equipment, its accuracy, and its ability to detect things. These limitations are physical. Assuming the physics is the same for everyone, the other main limitation on the information that you get back is the skill and experience of the people doing the survey.
This is an example of a section of a site where we undertook a survey a relatively short time (less than a year) after another survey company had done this particular section.
Both surveys were done to TSA Level 6 (supposedly)
Comparison of the two sets of information (reinforce the fact that these are interpretative drawings) show a number of errors in the previous survey.
They said GPR wouldn’t work – ground conditions and access.
Explain what ground conditions might restrict GPR.
We were on site after a month of rain this summer.
GPR data shows a big culvert with a reinforced concrete top.
Here, the signal they have induced along the CCTV has jumped across to the metal in the electric and has been marked in the wrong place. As a result the electric is also in the wrong place.
The signal jumped when we were on site too, but our guys realised it (it was Joe I think – graduate geophysicist with 1.5 yrs experience), and picked up the CCTV further along and traced it back to get a good location on it.
The previous survey drawing also missed a reference to a GAS pipe running through the middle (yellow line on our drawing)
Open site –was industrial – post demolition – everything should have been grubbed out and crushed or taken away
The risk is it used to look like this – the information needed is – is any of this still in the ground?
Explain the EM conductivity technique, average of upper 5m, quick across the ground (1-2Ha/day)
Describe the data – explain main features
The intrusive investigation can now be planned based on having some information about everywhere, and the known unknowns are mapped, and the unknown unknowns are minimised.
In many cases – quick information about something – just one physical parameter – can provide a rationale to be confident about what lies between the positions (intrusives) where you know everything.
In many cases – quick information about something – just one physical parameter – can provide a rationale to be confident about what lies between the positions (intrusives) where you know everything.
Emphasise the point by asking them to think about developing a conceptual model and planning as SI for this site with this data, and without it.
The talk will go through the need to understand your risks sufficiently to be able to ask for the right information to mitigate/control them.
We will talk about risk and information in general terms, as you must for any site investigation, but will focus on examples from surveying, utility mapping and geophysics.
We will also talk about the limitations of the information you get. Is it complete? Is it accurate?
It is a simple conceptual tool to develop a model of where your risks are, where you need to get what information and, having gathered information, assessing where your risk or information gaps are. We will see how this works for subsurface mapping using geophysics.
Some tips on how to get what you thought you has asked for
1 – look for surveys designs and interpretative drawings to be signed off by chartered professionals. If you want a geophysical survey – use a geophysicist to do it.
2 – If you ask some questions about what equipment will be used, what the limitations are, and what information it will deliver that will be useful in controlling your risks – if you get a load of sales patter back you might be concerned. They should be able to be specific about your site – within the bounds of what is known about the site and the ground. You can always ask someone else and see if you get the same answers
3- These data fields must exist for a level 5 and 6 survey if the data has been processed and interpreted, and the results transposed onto a CAD drawing.
4 – not necessarily practical or cost effective unless the size or complexity of the site warrants it, but it is always there as an option, and might pay for itself
Some tips on how to get what you thought you has asked for
1 – look for surveys designs and interpretative drawings to be signed off by chartered professionals. If you want a geophysical survey – use a geophysicist to do it.
2 – If you ask some questions about what equipment will be used, what the limitations are, and what information it will deliver that will be useful in controlling your risks – if you get a load of sales patter back you might be concerned. They should be able to be specific about your site – within the bounds of what is known about the site and the ground. You can always ask someone else and see if you get the same answers
3- These data fields must exist for a level 5 and 6 survey if the data has been processed and interpreted, and the results transposed onto a CAD drawing.
4 – not necessarily practical or cost effective unless the size or complexity of the site warrants it, but it is always there as an option, and might pay for itself
Some tips on how to get what you thought you has asked for
1 – look for surveys designs and interpretative drawings to be signed off by chartered professionals. If you want a geophysical survey – use a geophysicist to do it.
2 – If you ask some questions about what equipment will be used, what the limitations are, and what information it will deliver that will be useful in controlling your risks – if you get a load of sales patter back you might be concerned. They should be able to be specific about your site – within the bounds of what is known about the site and the ground. You can always ask someone else and see if you get the same answers
3- These data fields must exist for a level 5 and 6 survey if the data has been processed and interpreted, and the results transposed onto a CAD drawing.
4 – not necessarily practical or cost effective unless the size or complexity of the site warrants it, but it is always there as an option, and might pay for itself
Some tips on how to get what you thought you has asked for
1 – look for surveys designs and interpretative drawings to be signed off by chartered professionals. If you want a geophysical survey – use a geophysicist to do it.
2 – If you ask some questions about what equipment will be used, what the limitations are, and what information it will deliver that will be useful in controlling your risks – if you get a load of sales patter back you might be concerned. They should be able to be specific about your site – within the bounds of what is known about the site and the ground. You can always ask someone else and see if you get the same answers
3- These data fields must exist for a level 5 and 6 survey if the data has been processed and interpreted, and the results transposed onto a CAD drawing.
4 – not necessarily practical or cost effective unless the size or complexity of the site warrants it, but it is always there as an option, and might pay for itself