BS8485 - Code of Practice For The Characterization and Remediation From Ground Gas in Affected Developments

BS 8485:2007
BRITISH STANDARD
Code of practice for the

characterization and
remediation from ground
Licensed copy:MOHAMED SALAHUDDIN CONSULT, 10/03/2009, Uncontrolled Copy, © BSI
gas in affected
developments
ICS 91.120.99; 91.200
NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW

BS 8485:2007
Publishing and copyright information

The BSI copyright notice displayed in this document indicates when the
document was last issued.
© BSI 2007
ISBN 978 0 580 56934 0
The following BSI references relate to the work on this standard:

Committee reference I/-/2
Draft for comment 07/30149736 DC
Publication history
First published 31 October 2007
Amendments issued since publication
Amd. no. Date Text affected

BS 8485:2007
Contents
Foreword ii
Introduction 1
1 Scope 2
2 Normative references 2
3 Terms and definitions 2
4 Overview of ground gas characterization and assessment 3
5 Site categorization 3
6 Risk assessment objective – Estimation of a site characteristic
hazardous gas flow rate 6
7 Solutions choice 9
Annexes
Annex A (informative) Estimation of underfloor ventilation and
pressurization performance 13
Annex B (informative) Checklist of factors to take into
consideration 19
Bibliography 22
List of figures
Figure 1 – Ground gas characterization and assessment flowchart 4
Figure A.1 – Performance assessment criteria of ventilation layer for
methane hazard (from PiT [7]) 16
List of tables
Table 1 – Characteristic gas situation by site characteristic hazardous
gas flow rate 9
Table 2 – Required gas protection by characteristic gas situation and
type of building 10
Table 3 – Solutions scores 12
Table A.1 – Summary of gas dispersal characteristics of different
ventilation media on idealized foundations 17
Table A.2 – Comparison of PiT gas regime and CIRIA 665/BS 8485
calculated hazardous gas flow rate by gas screening value in l/hr 18
Table B.1 – Variables and common factors to be considered in the
application of this code of practice – Source variables 20
Table B.2 – Variables and common factors to be considered in the
application of this code of practice – Pathway variables 20
Table B.3 – Variables and common factors that should be considered in
the application of this code of practice – Target variables 21
Summary of pages
This document comprises a front cover, an inside front cover,
pages i and ii, pages 1 to 22, an inside back cover and a back cover.
© BSI 2007 • i
BS 8485:2007
Foreword
Publishing information
This British Standard is published by BSI and came into effect
on 31 October 2007. It was prepared by Technical Committee I/-/2,
Brownfield developments. A list of organizations represented on this
committee can be obtained on request to its secretary.
Information about this document

This standard was developed to provide designers of developments on
sites affected by ground gas with a structured method for risk-based
solution choice.
Use of this document

As a code of practice, this British Standard takes the form of guidance

and recommendations. It should not be quoted as if it were a
specification and particular care should be taken to ensure that claims
of compliance are not misleading.
Any user claiming compliance with this British Standard is expected to
be able to justify any course of action that deviates from its
recommendations.
Presentational conventions
The provisions in this standard are presented in roman (i.e. upright)
type. Its recommendations are expressed in sentences in which the
principal auxiliary verb is “should”.
Commentary, explanation and general informative material is
presented in smaller italic type, and does not constitute a
normative element.
Contractual and legal considerations

This publication does not purport to include all the necessary provisions
of a contract. Users are responsible for its correct application.
Compliance with a British Standard cannot confer immunity
from legal obligations.
ii • © BSI 2007
BS 8485:2007
Introduction
When building/developing on or adjacent to: brownfield sites, sites
where degradable materials are present within the ground, and in areas
of mineworkings, there is a potential risk of the generation of ground
gases and accumulation of these gases within buildings. Under adverse
circumstances, methane and carbon dioxide gases can build up to
hazardous concentrations within confined spaces giving rise to a
potential risk of explosion or asphyxiation. Indeed, there are
documented cases of loss of life and damage to property resulting from
ground gas accumulation.
Guidance available up to the date of this British Standard has generally
focused on the occurrence and methods of measurement of ground
gases and the incorporation of protection measures into buildings to
mitigate the risk of building on sites affected by ground gas. The issue
of how to undertake assessment of gas monitoring data in order to
determine suitable parameters to be used in the design of protection
measures has, until recently, not been developed to any significant
degree and, as a result, design solutions often lack a rigorous
assessment of data and have often resulted in overly conservative
solutions or insufficient measures being adopted.
This standard is intended to provide a framework in line with
CLR 11 [1] that will allow designers to judge the adequacy of ground
gas and related site investigation data, and provides an approach to
determine appropriate ground gas parameters that can be used to
identify a range of possible construction solutions that will mitigate
against the presence of ground gas on a development site. Importantly,
it allows the identification of those sites where gas protection measures
are not required. The framework is not prescriptive and judgement may
be made as to the acceptability of risk and whether there is a cost
benefit in undertaking more rigorous site assessment or adopting
conservative measures in design. Emphasis is placed on the justification
and recording of risk assessments and design decisions throughout the
process.
This standard is intended to be used by designers of gas protection
measures and regulators involved in the assessment of design solutions.
It recognizes that there are a number of factors requiring consideration
which affect the sensitivity of the development to the effects of ground
gas, and that there are a range of solutions available for different
situations. In this regard it is anticipated that specialist advice will be
required in the assessment of the ground gas data and in the risk
assessment phase.
© BSI 2007 • 1
BS 8485:2007
1 Scope
This British Standard gives recommendations and describes methods
for the investigation and assessment of the ground gases methane and
carbon dioxide during new development of affected sites, and is not
intended for the assessment of completed developments.
It details a process that can be used to effectively demonstrate that risks
posed by the potential presence of ground gas have been adequately
considered and addressed.
It presents the assessment and decision making stages in the form of a
process flowchart, accompanying information and explanatory
guidance and, where appropriate, references to other guidance and
information.
The standard does not consider ground gases other than methane and
carbon dioxide.
NOTE Other gases might require specific risk assessments and have to be
considered separately.
2 Normative references
The following referenced documents are indispensable for the
application of this document. For dated references, only the edition
cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the
referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
BS 10175:2001, Investigation of potentially contaminated sites –
Code of practice
Card G, Hutchings H, Mallett H, Oliver S, Wilson S. CIRIA C665,
Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases for buildings.
CIRIA. 2007. (Formerly issued as C659.)
BRE Report 414. Johnson R. Protective measures for housing on gas
contaminated land. 2001.
3 Terms and definitions

For the purposes of this document the terms and definitions in
CLR 11 [1] and the following apply.
NOTE These terms are not to be confused with similar terms in other
referenced documents.
3.1 ground gas

potentially hazardous gas, generated below ground
NOTE The most common ground gases are methane and carbon dioxide.
3.2 measured flow rate

q
total gas flow from a borehole measured in volume per unit time
(typically litres per hour)
3.3 measured hazardous gas concentration

Chg
concentration of a specific hazardous gas measured as a percentage of
the total gas volume from a borehole
2 • © BSI 2007
BS 8485:2007
3.4 calculated hazardous gas flow rate

Qhg
calculated flow rate of a specific hazardous gas from a borehole
reading, i.e.
C hg
Q hg = ----------
-q
100
3.5 site characteristic hazardous gas flow rate
Qhgs
flow rate representative of a site or zone, derived from empirical
borehole data and other influencing factors, in accordance with a
conceptual model
NOTE 1 This figure is derived using professional judgement.
NOTE 2 Also known as “gas screening value”, e.g. in CIRIA C665.
4 Overview of ground gas

characterization and assessment
The process of assessing the appropriate treatment of ground gas in an
affected site should follow the flowchart in Figure 1.
5 Site categorization
5.1 Desk Study
COMMENTARY ON 5.1
The main objectives of the desk study are to start the process of
constructing a conceptual model of the likely gas sources on or near the
site, the likely migration pathways and receptors. This will inform further
site investigation which will in turn revise and augment the conceptual
model. Relevant guidance on the requirements and objectives of a desk
study can be found in BS 10175:2001. Site investigations ought to be
designed in accordance with BS 5930 and published guidance such as the
AGS Guidelines for Good Practice in Site Investigation [2]. Detailed advice
on investigation of ground gas can be found in CIRIA C665.
The primary requirements and objectives of the desk study should all be
met, which are as follows.
a) Have all potential gas sources been identified or discounted? The
assessment should include identification of natural geological
sources, mine workings, waste materials, landfills, and an
understanding of the nature of the gas generation processes
involved.
b) Have the site history and current use been evaluated and any likely
gas sources, migration pathways and receptors arising from site
uses been identified?
c) Is there a clear understanding of the geology and hydrogeology of
the site, and the presence of contamination, and how it might
affect gas sources and gas migration? This includes the effect of
groundwater level variations, including tidal variations (and how
these can affect gas sources and gas migration).
d) Have all potential pathways been identified or discounted? This
includes natural geological pathways, services, underground
structures and mine workings.
e) Have potential receptors, both on and off site, been identified and
their sensitivity assessed?
© BSI 2007 • 3
BS 8485:2007
Figure 1 Ground gas characterization and assessment flowchart
Undertake desk study

Desk study should provide
sufficient information on
sources, pathways and Develop conceptual model No
receptors for these to be
investigated. (5.1)
Are desk
Have potential gas study and existing No
sources been identified? ground investigation data sufficient further
No to determine there is no
Yes action
gas hazard?
RISK Yes
ASSESSMENT Design and undertake
ground gas investigation
Adequate/comprehensive
See notes for recommendation datasets where there is a well

to compare output with Refine conceptual model (CM) supported conceptual model
expectations from desk study (6.2) No
Are the data

Does CM indicate No
sufficient to demonstrate
there is a gas risk? further
No there is no gas risk?
Yes action
Yes
See notes for the Have hazardous Assume worst case

minimum reqirements to gas flow rates been Either/or gas flow rate for site
obtain gas flow rate calculated? No conceptual model
Yes
Data are inadequate
See notes on Select worse case

inadequate, adequate and Is the dataset
Either/or gas flow rate for site
comprehensive datasets adequate ?
No characterization
Yes
Data are inadequate
Derive site characteristic flow rate in accordance

with best practice - can include site zoning, Data adequate
selection of representative gas data
Site characterization and selection

of characterestic gas regime/hazard polution
Determination of gas design regime Consideration of external

factors (Table 3)
Remediation method
selection, remediation design
OPTIONS
APPRAISAL Could the remedial
costs be significantly reduced by
Yes
improving the data quality to "comprehensive"
and reducing characterestic
emission rates?
No
Implement remediation
IMPLEMENTATION OF
REMEDIATION STRATEGY
Undertake appropriate validation
4 • © BSI 2007
BS 8485:2007
5.2 Walk over (reconnaissance)

The desk study should be supplemented with a site walk-over study as
recommended in BS 10175:2001, 6.2.2.
5.3 Site investigation

Data derived from the main site investigation should be used to assess
the risk of gassing and to design remediation measures. The key
elements of the site investigation should be as follows.
a) The investigation should be designed to confirm the geology and
hydrogeology of the site, the presence of made ground,
contamination, identification of the source and the nature of the
mechanism of gas generation, from borehole/trial pit logs, and
where appropriate sampling, testing and analysis.
b) Where appropriate, the use of geophysical/remote sensing

techniques should be used to help delineate the extent of landfill or
made ground and the location of the methogenic material.
c) Monitoring installations: are the type and depth of monitoring
installations adequate to identify gas sources and migration
pathways, and to determine whether receptors are likely to be
impacted?
d) Distribution of monitoring points: are monitoring locations
distributed such that sources, migration pathways and receptors
can be adequately characterized?
e) Monitoring instrumentation: are the instruments used to monitor
gas appropriate and properly maintained, calibrated and operated?
f) Monitoring parameters: is enough information regarding gas
composition, concentrations and flows available to characterize
risk, and are there sufficient data concerning the factors that affect
gas migration and emission to assess the likely variability of the
gas regime? Are the data accurately measured and reported?
g) Monitoring frequency: is the frequency of monitoring sufficient to
characterize the consistency or inconsistency of the gas regime
over the monitoring period (see 5.4)?
h) Monitoring period: is the period of monitoring long enough to
monitor changes in ambient conditions that influence gas
generation and migration (see 5.4)?
NOTE In-depth information about site investigation methods and
considerations are given in many places (some of which are listed in
the Bibliography) and particularly in CIRIA C665 and NHBC Report
no.: 10627-R01 (04) [3].
5.4 Minimum requirements to assess site

characteristic hazardous gas flow rate
The minimum requirements in order to assess the site characteristic
hazardous gas flow rate are measured flow rates and hazardous gas
concentrations from an appropriate number of monitoring locations
over an appropriate number of monitoring rounds, which should
include measurements taken during conditions of falling atmospheric
pressure.
© BSI 2007 • 5
BS 8485:2007
The resultant site characteristic hazardous gas flow rate should be

reviewed to ensure it is consistent with the other information about the
gas generation potential of the site (from information obtained from
the desk study, site investigation and characterization of the source
material and the mechanism of gas generation).
5.5 Data categories

Data should be categorized as follows.
Category Description Comment

Inadequate The site assessment is insufficient in terms of quantity and/or
quality of data, inadequate or missing desk study and/or
conceptual model.
Adequate Site investigation information is not comprehensive but Where complex gas
may be sufficient to characterize risk where there is good generation/migration

supporting evidence that the risk is low, or where mechanisms are operating,
comprehensive desk study information and site or where data indicate a high
investigation data support a simple model of gas generation risk of gassing with sensitive
and migration. receptors, the site
investigation is unlikely to be
sufficient to fully
characterize the gas risk.
Comprehensive Site investigation information is comprehensive. It is likely
that (where the recommendations of 5.3 are met) the
information will be sufficient to characterize the risk due to
ground gas at the site, however judgement should be used
to infer the need for additional sampling at sites where there
is evidence of a serious gas hazard with sensitive receptors
and likely migration pathways linking the two.
NOTE There are likely to be instances where evidence of comprehensive desk study information alone is
adequate.
6 Risk assessment objective –

Estimation of a site characteristic
hazardous gas flow rate
COMMENTARY ON CLAUSE 6
This clause sets out how the data collected during site monitoring visits
that measure hazardous gas emissions from specific monitoring points
can be assessed and used to arrive at one value that represents the whole
site (or set of values if a large site would be best split up into zones).
The process set out below is considered to represent good practice in the
UK and is based upon the work of CIRIA C665 and Owen and Paul [4].
6.1 Hazardous gas flow rate calculation – Qhg

The calculation of hazardous gas flow rate should be based only on the
field data sets and assessment of the validity of that data (as set out
below) only.
6 • © BSI 2007
BS 8485:2007
The following site monitoring data should be acquired for each

monitoring point for each monitoring event:
NOTE 1 The following text applies to standpipe or borehole site data.
Flux box data could be used to supplement borehole data. Guidance on the
use of flux boxes is given in Environment Agency Guidance on monitoring
surface emissions 2003 [5]. Data from spikeholes or wells installed in trial
pits are not considered acceptable.
a) ground gas concentration as measured by monitoring equipment
methods for ground gas concentration measurement as given in
CIRIA C665, expressed as percentage-by-volume of each
hazardous ground gas being considered (methane and carbon
dioxide), which provides the concentration Chg for each specific
hazardous gas; and
b) borehole flow rate, i.e. volume of total gas flow (all gases)
measured as being emitted from the monitoring point, q,

expressed in litres per hour.
NOTE 2 q may be measured in other “volume per time period units”,
depending on the measuring method or flow pod being used, but will need
to be converted to litres per hour for use in the equations that follow.
Thus, for each monitoring point (borehole or standpipe) for each
monitoring event, hazardous gas flow rate Qhg (in lh–1) should be
calculated using:
C hg
Q hg = ----------- × q
100
where
Chg is the measured hazardous gas concentration (in percentage
volume-by-volume);
q is the flow rate (in litres per hour) of combined gases from the
standpipe, found by direct measurement.
NOTE 3 Where a site has an adequate or comprehensive site data set
(i.e. many data sets), the above calculations of hazardous gas flow rate
are best reviewed using a spreadsheet format.
If gas borehole flow was not detectable, it should be assumed to be at
the detection limit of the equipment used.
6.2 Site characteristic hazardous gas flow rate

derivation – Qhgs
Individual gas measurements obtained from several monitoring
locations over a number of visits should be considered collectively to
establish a characteristic hazardous gas flow rate for the site as a whole.
In order to consider the gas conditions across the site as a whole it is
necessary to relate data from individual locations to the site conceptual
model. To make confident judgements it is necessary to have adequately
established the source of any gas present, the mechanism of generation,
and how different factors, such as changes in atmospheric pressure or
groundwater levels, affect gas conditions on the site.
© BSI 2007 • 7
BS 8485:2007
The monitoring data, and the prevailing atmospheric conditions under

which it was obtained, should be carefully assessed to consider how
representative it is of worst case conditions. It is neither possible nor
desirable to employ generic guideline values for gas levels that are
applicable to all sites. Instead a site specific approach should be used
and the treatment of data should be clearly reported along with
justification.
It should be remembered that the principal risks associated with ground
gas are of an acute nature, i.e. explosion or asphyxiation; these risks are
only likely to manifest in much worse conditions than are likely to have
been observed during the monitoring period.
NOTE 1 NHBC Report no.: 10627-R01 (04) [3] provides further guidance
on chronic and acute risks.
As the risks being considered are of an acute nature (unlike with
chemically contaminated soils, where chronic risks are usually the

principal concern) any statistical treatment of the results should be
carefully considered and clearly justified.
An interpretation of the dataset of the calculated, individual Qhg values
should be undertaken to arrive at a site characteristic hazardous gas
flow rate Qhgs for the site (or zone).
NOTE 2 There are numerous methods of statistical and graphical
analysis of empirical data. The propriety of the approach will depend on
site specific circumstances and the quality and quantity of data. No single
method is prescribed within this code of practice.
NOTE 3 In some circumstances a consideration of maximum recorded
gas concentrations obtained from any location on the site, along with the
maximum recorded borehole gas flow rate from any location and any time
period might be appropriate. In many circumstances this would result in
an overly conservative assessment.
NOTE 4 It is generally more appropriate to consider concentrations and
borehole gas flow rates on a location by location basis (this would be
appropriate where there is a comprehensive dataset [see also 5.4]).
NOTE 5 Review of the data might suggest that a large site would be best
considered as a number of separate zones. Sites can be zoned if and only
if there are sufficient data to support the specific zones being treated as
independent supported by geological and other desk study data.
NOTE 6 Other factors for consideration can be found in Table B.1,
Table B.2 and Table B.3.
8 • © BSI 2007
BS 8485:2007
6.3 Characteristic gas situation

Having determined Qhgs, the characteristic gas situation in the
range 1 to 6 should be chosen using Table 1.
Table 1 Characteristic gas situation by site characteristic hazardous gas flow rate
Characteristic Hazard potential Site characteristic Additional factors
gas situation hazardous gas flow
rate, Qhgs
lh–1
1 Very low <0.07 Typically u1% methane concentration and u5% carbon
dioxide concentration (otherwise consider an increased
characteristic gas regime)
2 Low W0.07, <0.7 Typical measured flow rate < 70 l/h (otherwise consider
an increased characteristic gas regime)
3 Moderate W0.7, <3.5

4 Moderate to high W3.5, <15
5 High W15, <70
6 Very high W70
NOTE The side characteristic hazardous gas flow rate is synonymous with the “gas screening value” in
CIRIA C665 and NHBC Report no.: 10627-R01 (04) [3].
7 Solutions choice
7.1 Recommended gas protection
Having ascertained the characteristic gas situation, as the final part of
the process, the appropriate gas protection should be selected for the
building.
There are a great number of existing designs and component elements
available in the current market (and others being developed constantly);
this document does not seek to remove professional judgement which
should at all times form part of any decision making process; Table 2
and Table 3 however give a guide as to the relative performance of the
various types of designs and systems available today.
Given the combined design gas regime and risk factors, a guidance
value for the required gas protection in the range 0 to 7 should be
obtained from Table 2. Then, a combination of ventilation and/or barrier
systems should be chosen from Table 3 to meet that requirement.
NOTE The guidance value is allocated to reflect the risk associated with
the characteristic gas situation and the combined effectiveness of the
elements in Table 3.
© BSI 2007 • 9
BS 8485:2007
The factors that should be considered in making this decision include:

a) characteristic gas situation;
b) type of construction, foundations and ground slab detail;
c) size (particularly width) of building footprint;
d) end use of building (domestic or commercial, controlled or
uncontrolled, occupancy, room size, etc.);
e) the nature of the management of maintenance of gas control
facilities and service provision of the buildings; and
f) views of client/building owner.
NOTE These and other factors are presented in Table B.3.
Ultimately the whole process should be one of transparency where all
interested parties can see the approach taken, can understand the
various steps and decisions made and be confident that a robust
risk-assessed solution has been designed and installed commensurate

with the construction and site constraints.
Where the characteristic gas situation is four or more, the site requires
a comprehensive risk assessment to confirm the scope of protection
measures. These are higher risk sites and reliance on Table 2 and
Table 3 alone is not sufficient.
Table 2 Required gas protection by characteristic gas situation and type of building
Characteristic NHBC Required gas protection
gas situation, CS traffic light
Non-managed Public building A) Commercial Industrial buildings B)
property, e.g. buildings
private housing
1 Green 0 0 0 0
2 Amber 1 3 3 2 1 C)
3 Amber 2 4 3 2 2
4 Red 6 D) 5 D) 4 3
5 6 E) 5 4
6 7 6
NOTE Traffic light indications are taken from NHBC Report no.: 10627-R01 (04) [3] and are mainly applicable
to low-rise residential housing. These are for comparative purposes but the boundaries between the traffic light
indications and CS values do not coincide.
A) Public buildings include, for example, managed apartments, schools and hospitals.
B) Industrial buildings are generally open and well ventilated. However, areas such as office pods might require a separate
assessment and may be classified as commercial buildings and require a different scope of gas protection to the main
building.
C) Maximum methane concentration 20% otherwise consider an increase to CS3.
D) Residential building on higher traffic light/CS sites is not recommended unless the type of construction or site
circumstances allow additional levels of protection to be incorporated, e.g. high-performance ventilation or pathway
intervention measures, and an associated sustainable system of management of maintenance of the gas control
system, e.g. in institutional and/or fully serviced contractual situations.
E) Consideration of issues such as ease of evacuation and how false alarms will be handled are needed when completing
the design specification of any protection scheme.
10 • © BSI 2007
BS 8485:2007
7.2 Inter-site pathway intervention

A site which is impacted by migratory gases from an off-site source may
be protected by pathway intervention methods, which, if successfully
validated, could also remove the need for further analysis.
It is essential that the gas regime affecting the site has been fully
characterized and that the only source impacting the site is located
off site and that the pathway is clearly defined and its interception
equally proven before construction commences.
COMMENTARY ON 7.2
These methods vary from simple vertical membrane installations, through
vent trenches, rows of stone columns, activated trenches, right up to
proprietary systems.
These solutions are particularly relevant in the area of domestic housing
where there is limited scope for foundation type solutions.
7.3 Appropriate protection measures

Having selected the appropriate gas protection for the building from
Table 2, an element or combination of elements should be chosen from
Table 3a, Table 3b, Table 3c and Table 3d), and combined to achieve
the required gas protection. No more than one element of each type
should be combined to achieve the required gas protection.
A combination of elements should be chosen where high gas protection
is required, unless professional judgement and risk assessment show
otherwise.
NOTE 1 The scores are not proportionate and are not to be taken as an
indication of relative quantitative performance.
NOTE 2 This method relies upon the method developed in CIRIA C665
and is intended to be consistent with the CIRIA approach while developing
the principle. As such, minor inconsistencies in result might be observed
between the two methods.
© BSI 2007 • 11
BS 8485:2007
Table 3 Solutions scores

PROTECTION ELEMENT/SYSTEM SCORE COMMENTS
a) Venting/dilution (see Annex A)
Passive sub floor ventilation (venting layer Very good 2.5 Ventilation performance in accordance
can be a clear void or formed using performance with Annex A.
gravel, geocomposites, polystyrene void Good performance 1 If passive ventilation is poor this is
formers, etc.) A) generally unacceptable and some form of
active system will be required.
Subfloor ventilation with active abstraction/pressurization 2.5 There have to be robust management
(venting layer can be a clear void or formed using gravel, systems in place to ensure the continued
geocomposites, polystyrene void formers, etc.) A) maintenance of any ventilation system.
Active ventilation can always be designed
to meet good performance.
Mechanically assisted systems come in
two main forms: extraction and positive
pressurization.
Ventilated car park (basement or undercroft) 4 Assumes car park is vented to deal with
car exhaust fumes, designed to Building
Regulations Document F [5] and IStructE
guidance [6].
b) Barriers
Floor slabs
Block and beam floor slab 0 It is good practice to install ventilation in
Reinforced concrete ground bearing floor slab 0.5 all foundation systems to effect pressure
Reinforced concrete ground bearing foundation raft with limited 1.5 relief as a minimum.
service penetrations that are cast into slab Breaches in floor slabs such as joints have
to be effectively sealed against gas
Reinforced concrete cast in situ suspended slab with minimal 1.5
ingress in order to maintain these
service penetrations and water bars around all slab penetrations
performances.
and at joints
Fully tanked basement 2
c) Membranes
Taped and sealed membrane to reasonable levels of 0.5 The performance of membranes is
workmanship/in line with current good practice with heavily dependent on the quality and
validation B), C) design of the installation, resistance to
Proprietary gas resistant membrane to reasonable levels of 1 damage after installation, and the
workmanship/in line with current good practice under integrity of joints.
independent inspection (CQA) B), C)
Proprietary gas resistant membrane installed to reasonable 2
levels of workmanship/in line with current good practice under
CQA with integrity testing and independent validation
d) Monitoring and detection (not applicable to non-managed property, or in isolation)
Intermittent monitoring using hand held equipment 0.5
Permanent monitoring and alarm Installed in the 2 Where fitted, permanent monitoring
system A) underfloor venting/ systems ought to be installed in the
dilution system underfloor venting/dilution system in the
Installed in the 1 first instance but can also be provided
building within the occupied space as a fail safe.
e) Pathway intervention
Pathway intervention — This can consist of site protection
measures for off-site or on-site sources
(see Annex A).
NOTE In practice the choice of materials might well rely on factors such as construction method and the risk
of damage after installation. It is important to ensure that the chosen combination gives an appropriate level of
protection
A) It is possible to test ventilation systems by installing monitoring probes for post installation validation.
B) If a 1 200 g DPM material is to function as a gas barrier it should be installed according to BRE 212 [8]/BRE 414 [9],
being taped and sealed to all penetrations.
C) Polymeric Materials >1 200 g can be used to improve confidence in the barrier. Remember that their gas resistance is
little more than the standard 1 200 g (proportional to thickness) but their physical properties mean that they are more
robust and resistant to site damage.
12 • © BSI 2007
BS 8485:2007
Annex A (informative) Estimation of underfloor ventilation

and pressurization performance
A.1 Introduction
All underfloor ventilation and pressurization systems should be
designed to provide sufficient air flow to dilute ground gases to
acceptable levels below the floor slab. The only exception is on sites
with very low volumes of ground gas where the venting is provided as
a precautionary pressure relief system.
The first part of the design process is to estimate the surface emission
rate of gas from the ground. The surface emission rate is then used to
design the necessary level of ventilation or pressurization.
A.2 Surface emission rate

There are two methods of analysis.
a) A method known as the Pecksen method (after Pecksen [10]). In
this case the surface emission rate (X in l/h⋅m2) is estimated from
the relationship
X = Qhg/10
The drawback with this approach is that it is very simplistic and
makes no allowance for factors that affect surface emissions such as the
depth of the headspace in the borehole and the permeability of the
ground overlying the gas source. It is however considered to give an
upper bound estimate of the surface emission rate (Wilson, Card and
Haines [11]).
b) A method based on Darcy’s Law for fluid flow in a permeable
medium. Further information is given in CIRIA Report 130 [12].
This is more robust and allows for the permeability of the ground
overlying the gas source.
Note that where zero measured flow rates are recorded from boreholes
gas can still migrate to the surface by diffusion if there is an elevated
concentration of ground gas. The rate of diffusion driven migration can
be assessed using Fick’s Law (CIRIA Report 130 [10]).
© BSI 2007 • 13
BS 8485:2007
A.3 Ventilation capacity

The ventilation capacity of passive or active underfloor venting systems
and positive air flow systems ought to be sufficient to dilute the gas in
an underfloor void or gravel layer to an acceptable concentration. There
are three main methods of analysis for passive ventilation.
a) Simple calculation following the guidance in BS 5925 and also in
CIRIA Report 149 [13]. This is a robust method of analysis for
diluting gas inside buildings by natural (passive) ventilation. It is
applicable to underfloor venting systems and has been well proven
by performance monitoring of various underfloor gas protective
systems.
b) Using the reference tables in PiT [14]. The tables give the
performance characteristics of various underfloor venting systems
for a range of gas regimes and building sizes. The data is based on
computational fluid dynamics analysis (CFD). The scope of the
original analyses was limited to two sizes of building and limited
ventilation options at the outlets. Various manufacturers have
subsequently commissioned the authors of the report to
undertake further CFD analysis that extends the tables in the
original report.
c) Specific CFD modelling for a particular system or site.
For active ventilation and positive pressurization, the volume of air
flow required to dilute the gas to acceptable levels is estimated using
the guidance in CIRIA Report 149 [13]. It is then a simple matter
of providing a sufficient number of fans to meet the required
capacity (allowing for factors of safety, breakdowns, even air flow, etc.).
Positive pressurization systems also have to provide sufficient air
flow to maintain the pressure immediately below the slab at a level
that is greater than the pressure driving the gas from the ground. All
systems with fans have to be designed to vent passively whenever
possible in the event that the fans stop working (e.g. due to power cuts).
Factors of safety have to be applied to the required ventilation or fan
capacity, depending on the sensitivity of the end use and the robustness
of the conceptual model and data for the site (including desk study,
descriptions of the gas source as well as gas monitoring data). Factors
of safety typically vary from 1 to 3.
14 • © BSI 2007
BS 8485:2007
A.4 Acceptable level of ventilation performance

The performance of a passive ventilation system can be compared to the
performance criteria provided in PiT [14]. The criteria for methane are
summarized below and in Figure A.1.
• VERY GOOD The steady state concentration of methane
over 100% of the ventilation layer remains below 1% by volume at
a wind speed of 0.3 m/s.
• GOOD The steady state concentration of methane over 100% of
the ventilation layer remains below 1% by volume at a wind speed
of 1 m/s and below 2.5% by volume (50% LEL) at a wind speed
of 0.3 m/s.
• FAIR The steady state concentration of methane over 100% of
of 2 m/s and below 5% by volume (100% LEL) at a wind

speed of 0.3 m/s.
• POOR The steady state concentration of methane over 100% of
of 3 m/s and below 5% by volume (100% LEL) at a wind
speed of 1 m/s.
• UNSUITABLE The steady state concentration of methane
over 100% of the ventilation layer is above 1% by volume at a wind
speed of 3 m/s and above 5% by volume (100% LEL) at a wind
speed of 1 m/s.
The performance assessment of the ventilation layer below a building
has to take account of site specific factors and the sensitivity of the
building. For example, a lower standard of performance may be
acceptable for a warehouse than for housing. It also has to take account
of factors that might reduce the performance of the system after
construction (e.g. blocking vents by building patios or conservatories).
All the methods of analysis assume steady state conditions when in
reality this rarely occurs (both for the ventilation and gas emissions).
Therefore an assessment of factors such as the impact of periods when
there is no wind has to be made.
For all types of underfloor venting system the venting area provided at
the perimeter has to be continued through any downstand beams or
sleeper walls and has to be much greater than the area of the side
ventilation provided (typically 2 or 3 times greater).
© BSI 2007 • 15
BS 8485:2007
Figure A.1 Performance assessment criteria of ventilation layer for

methane hazard (from PiT [7])
Y
5.0
4.0
E
3.0 D
C
2.0
B
1.0
0.3 1.0 2.0 3.0

X
Key X Wind speed (m/s)
A Very good Y Maximum hazardous gas concentration in ventilation layer (% v/v)
B Good
C Fair
D Poor
E Unsuitable
Table A.1 (taken from PiT [14]) was derived from research based on the
computational fluid dynamic modelling of a range of ventilation media.
There are many factors to be considered in assessing the potential
performance of a passive ventilation system and therefore this table is
to be considered as a guide only and to determine the appropriate
scoring for a chosen media type in Table 3. Specialist advice will
generally be required in designing a suitable passive ventilation system.
Gas regimes A to F do not equate to calculated hazardous gas flow rates
(Qhg) 1 to 6. Column four of Table A.2 gives an indication of the fit
between the PiT gas regimes and the Qhg scale.
16 • © BSI 2007
Table A.1 Summary of gas dispersal characteristics of different ventilation media on idealized foundations
Open void space A) Polystyrene shuttering A) Geocomposite 20 mm single size 20 mm single
Methane concentration
Characteristic situation E)
drainage blanket gravel blanket size gravel
blanket with
Equivalent clear void Equivalent clear Equivalent clear void
interleaved
Emission rate D) depth 22 mm depth 100 mm depth 36 mm
pipes at
3 m centres B)
Gas regime
Foundation width C)
% v/v m/s 5m 30 m 5m 30 m 5m 30 m 5m 30 m 5m 30 m 30 m
A 1 0.005 2 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate
B 5 0.005 3 Very good Very good Very good Good Very good Very good Very good Good Good Poor Good
C 5 0.01 4 Very good Very good Very good Good Very good Very good Very good Fair Fair Unsuitable Fair
D 20 0.005 4 Very good Very good Very good Fair Very good Good Good Poor Poor Unsuitable Poor
E 20 0.01 4 Very good Good Good Poor Very good Good Good Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable Unsuitable
F 20 0.05 5 Good Poor Fair Unsuitable Fair Poor Fair Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable
A) For open void space and polystyrene shuttered ventilation layers additional side ventilation provision can improve gas dispersal characteristics.
B) Gas dispersal characteristics based on maximum steady state concentration over 80% area of foundation, pipes interleaved at 3 m centres.
C) Assumes sympathetically detailed underside of foundation.
D) Emission rate values refer to equivalent total gas flow velocity from 50 mm diameter borehole and Peckson [10] assumption.
E) Characteristic situation after CIRIA Report 149 [13].
© BSI 2007
BS 8485:2007
•
17
BS 8485:2007
Table A.2 Comparison of PiT gas regime and CIRIA 665/BS 8485
calculated hazardous gas flow rate by gas screening value in l/hr
Gas regime (PiT [7]) Qhg (CIRIA 665 and BS 8485)
1 < 0.07
A < 0.35
2 < 0.7
B < 1.77
C < 3.5 3 < 3.5
D < 7.1
4 < 15
E < 14.15
5 < 70
F < 70.77
6 > 70
NOTE Categories 1, 2 and A tend to signify a low risk site,

Categories 3, B, C and D tend to signify a medium risk site (where the vast
majority of passive ventilation solutions can be expected to perform) and
categories 4, 5, 6, E and F tend to signify high risk (where well designed,
high performance solutions will be needed, probably including active
ventilation).
18 • © BSI 2007
BS 8485:2007
Annex B (informative) Checklist of factors to take into

consideration
In this annex, additional factors over and above assessment of the
monitoring data only are discussed.
It is difficult for a best practice guide such as this document to be
prescriptive in detail, so the assessor making the selection of design gas
regime has to be experienced and knowledgeable about all the issues
discussed so far.
Table B.1, Table B.2 and Table B.3 provide some of the more common
source, pathway and target variables that will influence the final
selection of the gas protection measures. It is important to note that this
is not exhaustive and each site and development has to be considered in
its particular geological, environmental and structural context.
Table B.1, Table B.2 and Table B.3 also set out some of the common
factors that have to be taken into account when deciding on the level of
risk associated with any development where gas protection measures
are required. Each of these risk variables has to be appraised by the
designer in order to determine the appropriate uncertainty factor to be
applied to a given situation. The designer ought to show that he has
assessed the impact of each of these variables (and any other variables
that are relevant to the site and the proposed development);
consideration of these factors may require the designer to select a
higher gas protection level than that indicated in Table 2.
It is common that the post-construction gas regime will differ from that
measured pre-construction. A number of factors can affect this.
EXAMPLE
If a large area of the site surface is effectively sealed, then gas will be
forced to migrate to escape from other areas of the site (increasing the
emissions in that area post construction compared to the monitoring
data), or indeed, perhaps increase off-site migration.
Such a circumstance might occur if as part of the development:
a) large areas are to be laid to hardstanding;
b) a fully lined and contained SUDs scheme for site drainage is
required; or
c) a large warehouse type building is likely to need gas protection such
as is provided by a positive air blanket (that functions by displacing
the gas away from the underside of the building).
(These are examples, not an exhaustive list.)
© BSI 2007 • 19
BS 8485:2007
Table B.1 Variables and common factors to be considered in the

application of this code of practice – Source variables
Location of source A) Off site
On site, adjacent to building
On site, beneath building
Consistency of source B) Isolated high mission levels in one monitoring
location, source identified
Sporadic high levels across whole site, source
identified
High emission across whole of site, source
identified
Risk rating of gas regime C) Low concentration/borehole flow less than limit
of detection
Low concentration/low borehole flow rate

High concentration/high borehole flow rate
A) Proximity to building.
B) Takes account of gassing.
C) Concentrations and flow rates; relate to the volumes being generated.
Table B.2 Variables and common factors to be considered in the

application of this code of practice – Pathway variables
Pathway permeability A) Cohesive soils
Mixed soils, high water table
Mixed soils, water table at depth
Predominantly granular soils/fractured rock,
high water table
Predominantly granular soils/fractured rock,
water table at depth
Presence of underground services with
permeable surround
Foundation conditions B) Reinforced concrete raft
Shallow footing
Bored, cast in situ piles
Driven piles
Stone columns
A) Soil types, discontinuities, services, tunnels, mineworkings, etc.
B) Potential for pathways to be developed.
20 • © BSI 2007
BS 8485:2007
Table B.3 Variables and common factors that should be considered in the
application of this code of practice – Target variables
Complexity of Suspended floor slab
substructure A) Single level ground bearing floor slab with flat
underside
Single level ground bearing floor slab with
downstanding ground beams
Multi-level ground bearing floor slab
Basement incorporated in structure
Validation of installed Specialist contractor installed, independent
design measures B) inspection and testing by specialist engineer
Specialist contractor installed, independent
inspection by specialist engineer
Specialist contractor installed, no independent

inspection
Main contractor installed, no independent
inspection
Maintenance Simple routine inspection
requirements C) Routine mechanical maintenance
Complex electrical and mechanical
maintenance
Sensitivity of end use D) Hardstanding/heavy industrial use
Light industrial
Office/shops
Hospitals, care institutions, schools
Domestic housing
A) Potential for gas “traps”, basements, inherent ventilation, difficulty in
detailing measures.
B) Confidence in installation, use of skilled installers, post construction
validation.
C) Degree of complexity and reliability.
D) Issues of occupancy, ventilation, management and perception.
© BSI 2007 • 21
BS 8485:2007
Bibliography
Standards publications
BS 5925, Code of practice for ventilation principles and designing
for natural ventilation
BS 5930, Code of practice for site investigations
Other publications
[1] Model procedures for the management of land contamination
CLR11. 2004 Environment Agency.
[2] AGS Guidelines for Good Practice in Site Investigation.
Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists.
(http://www.ags.org.uk)
[3] Guidance on evaluation of development proposals on sites

where methane and carbon dioxide are present.
Report no.: 10627-R01 (04). 2007 NHBC.
[4] Owen R. and Paul V. Gas protection measures for buildings.
Methodology for the quantitative design of gas dispersal
layers. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference –
Polluted and Marginal Land. 1998.
[5] Guidance on monitoring surface emissions 2003. Environment
Agency.
[6] GREAT BRITAIN. Building Regulations 2000 and subsequent
amendments. Part F. London: The Stationery Office.
[7] Institute of Structural Engineers. Design recommendations for
multi-storey and underground car parks. 3rd Edition. 2002.
[8] Hartless R. Construction of new buildings on gas-
contaminated land. BRE Report 212. 1991. BREpress.
[9] Johnson R. Protective measures for housing on gas-
contaminated land. BRE Report 414. 2001. BREpress.
[10] Peckson, G.N. London Environmental Supplement No. 13.
Methane and the development of derelict land. GLC. 1985.
[11] Wilson S.A., Card G.B. and Haines S. Gas protection – a common
sense approach. Society of Chemical Industry. Contaminated
Land Achievements and Aspirations. 12 to 15 September 2004,
Loughborough.
[12] Report 130 Methane; its occurrence and hazards in
construction. CIRIA, 1993.
[13] Report 149 Protecting Development from Methane. CIRIA,
1996.
[14] Passive Venting of Soil Gases Beneath Buildings – Research
Report. 1997. Department of the Environment, Transport and the
Regions/Partners in Technology (PiT).
22 • © BSI 2007
BS 8485:2007
This page deliberately left blank

BS 8485:2007
BSI – British Standards Institution

BSI is the independent national body responsible for preparing British Standards.
It presents the UK view on standards in Europe and at the international level.
It is incorporated by Royal Charter.
Revisions
British Standards are updated by amendment or revision. Users of British Standards
should make sure that they possess the latest amendments or editions.
It is the constant aim of BSI to improve the quality of our products and services.
We would be grateful if anyone finding an inaccuracy or ambiguity while using this
British Standard would inform the Secretary of the technical committee responsible,
the identity of which can be found on the inside front cover.
Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 9000. Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7400.
BSI offers members an individual updating service called PLUS which ensures that
subscribers automatically receive the latest editions of standards.
Buying standards
Orders for all BSI, international and foreign standards publications should be
addressed to Customer Services. Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 9001.
Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7001. Email: orders@bsi-global.com. Standards are also
available from the BSI website at http://www.bsi-global.com.
In response to orders for international standards, it is BSI policy to supply the BSI
implementation of those that have been published as British Standards, unless
otherwise requested.
Information on standards
BSI provides a wide range of information on national, European and international
standards through its Library and its Technical Help to Exporters Service. Various
BSI electronic information services are also available which give details on all its
products and services. Contact the Information Centre. Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 7111.
Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7048. Email: info@bsi-global.com.
Subscribing members of BSI are kept up to date with standards developments and
receive substantial discounts on the purchase price of standards. For details of these
and other benefits contact Membership Administration. Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 7002.
Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7001. Email: membership@bsi-global.com.
Information regarding online access to British Standards via British Standards
Online can be found at http://www.bsi-global.com/bsonline.
Further information about BSI is available on the BSI website at
http://www.bsi-global.com.
Copyright
Copyright subsists in all BSI publications. BSI also holds the copyright, in the UK, of
the publications of the international standardization bodies. Except as permitted
under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 no extract may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic,
photocopying, recording or otherwise – without prior written permission from BSI.
This does not preclude the free use, in the course of implementing the standard, of
necessary details such as symbols, and size, type or grade designations. If these
details are to be used for any other purpose than implementation then the prior
written permission of BSI must be obtained.
389 Chiswick High Road Details and advice can be obtained from the Copyright & Licensing Manager.
London Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 7070. Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7553.
W4 4AL Email: copyright@bsi-global.com.

BS8485 - Code of Practice For The Characterization and Remediation From Ground Gas in Affected Developments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BS8485 - Code of Practice For The Characterization and Remediation From Ground Gas in Affected Developments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BS 8485:2007

Code of practice for the

NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW

Publishing and copyright information

ISBN 978 0 580 56934 0

The following BSI references relate to the work on this standard:

Amendments issued since publication

Amd. no. Date Text affected

Information about this document

Use of this document

As a code of practice, this British Standard takes the form of guidance

Contractual and legal considerations

3 Terms and definitions

3.1 ground gas

3.2 measured flow rate

3.3 measured hazardous gas concentration

3.4 calculated hazardous gas flow rate

4 Overview of ground gas

Figure 1 Ground gas characterization and assessment flowchart

Undertake desk study

See notes for recommendation datasets where there is a well

Are the data

See notes for the Have hazardous Assume worst case

See notes on Select worse case

Derive site characteristic flow rate in accordance

Site characterization and selection

Determination of gas design regime Consideration of external

5.2 Walk over (reconnaissance)

5.3 Site investigation

b) Where appropriate, the use of geophysical/remote sensing

5.4 Minimum requirements to assess site

The resultant site characteristic hazardous gas flow rate should be

5.5 Data categories

Category Description Comment

may be sufficient to characterize risk where there is good generation/migration

6 Risk assessment objective –

6.1 Hazardous gas flow rate calculation – Qhg

The following site monitoring data should be acquired for each

measured as being emitted from the monitoring point, q,

6.2 Site characteristic hazardous gas flow rate

The monitoring data, and the prevailing atmospheric conditions under

chemically contaminated soils, where chronic risks are usually the

6.3 Characteristic gas situation

3 Moderate W0.7, <3.5

The factors that should be considered in making this decision include:

risk-assessed solution has been designed and installed commensurate

7.2 Inter-site pathway intervention

where there is limited scope for foundation type solutions.

7.3 Appropriate protection measures

Table 3 Solutions scores

Annex A (informative) Estimation of underfloor ventilation

A.2 Surface emission rate

A.3 Ventilation capacity

A.4 Acceptable level of ventilation performance

of 2 m/s and below 5% by volume (100% LEL) at a wind

Figure A.1 Performance assessment criteria of ventilation layer for

0.3 1.0 2.0 3.0

NOTE Categories 1, 2 and A tend to signify a low risk site,

Annex B (informative) Checklist of factors to take into

Table B.1 Variables and common factors to be considered in the

Low concentration/low borehole flow rate

Table B.2 Variables and common factors to be considered in the

Specialist contractor installed, no independent