PLANT MACHINERY & SITE SAFETY
THE 50% SURGE
There’s an alarming increase in excavation breaches on UK construction sites, but how can we reverse the trend? Oliver Smith, Engineering Director at Groundforce Shorco, shares his views.
Last year delivered a sobering wake-up call to the UK ground engineering and construction sector. According to the latest data from the Building Safety Group (BSG), excavation breaches on construction sites surged by a staggering 50% between the first and second quarters of the year.
Based on over 7,000 independent site inspections, the findings suggest that despite our industry’s sophisticated understanding of soil mechanics and the proliferation of advanced shoring solutions, the gap between design intent and site reality is widening.
Excavation remains one of the most hazardous phases of any build, with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) attributing approximately 15% of all construction-related fatalities to collapses. However, this recent spike demands more than a cursory review of safety processes; it requires a deep dive into the technical and systemic pressures currently facing geotechnical contractors.
THE PHYSICS OF FAILURE
While it is tempting to attribute the spike in breaches to a seasonal increase in workload or shifting groundwater levels, the reality is more nuanced. Groundwater levels are typically highest in late winter, but the transition into
summer leaves ground conditions highly variable – with residual saturation, softening, and changing drainage behaviour creating uncertainty in how the ground will perform.
However, the primary driver is rarely environmental alone. It is systemic. As an industry, we are building on increasingly constrained, ‘marginal’ brownfield sites with incomplete data and tighter timelines.
Procurement routes often push specialist input later into the process, meaning temporary works solutions are frequently developed around fixed constraints rather than influencing them early. The issue is not the capability of the proprietary shoring systems – which are generally robust and designed to provide warning through deformation before failure – but how consistently they are applied and controlled under programme pressure.
THE DISCONNECT: DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS VS SITE REALITY
In ground engineering, the point of failure is rarely found in the structural design of the equipment itself. Instead, it occurs at the interface between design assumptions and site execution.
A temporary works design is only valid if the excavation depth, geometry, soil parameters, groundwater, surcharge loads, and installation sequence match what was assumed in the office. Ground Investigation (GI) data is effectively a snapshot of conditions at a particular point in time; in many cases, one or more of these parameters changes on-site without a formal engineering review. Once that happens, the excavation may no longer behave in line with the design intent, even if the support system appears to be in place.
The robustness of modern proprietary systems can ironically create a false sense of security. Because these systems are designed with inherent factors of safety and
18
WWW.TOMORROWSHS.COM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40
