Riesgos Geotecnico, Notas - Articulo

TN 060: 2014
For queries regarding this document

standards@asa.transport.nsw.gov.au
www.asa.transport.nsw.gov.au
Technical Note
TN 060: 2014
Issued date: 07 August 2014

Effective date: 07 August 2014
Subject: Withdrawal of TMC 401 Geotechnical Risk Assessment
and Hazard Management Guidelines
This technical note is issued by the Asset Standards Authority as a notification to remove from
use RailCorp document TMC 401 Geotechnical Risk Assessment and Hazard Management
Guidelines.
TMC 401 is a legacy document and should be used for reference purposes only. ASA standard
T HR CI 12100 ST Geotechnical Risk Assessment and Hazard Management, Version 1.0
supersedes this document.
Authorisation
Technical content Checked and Interdisciplinary Authorised for
prepared by approved by coordination release
checked by
Signature
Name Sarath Fernando Richard Hitch David Spiteri Graham Bradshaw

Position Principal Engineer Lead Civil Engineer Chief Engineer Rail Principal Manager
Geotech Network Standards &
Services
A3520780 Asset Standards Authority

© State of NSW through Transport for NSW Page 1 of 1
Engineering Manual
Superseded by T HR CI 12100 ST
Geotechnical
TMC 401
Engineering Manual
GEOTECHNICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT AND HAZARD
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Version 1.1
Issued December 2009
Owner: Principal Engineer Geotechnical
Approved by: John Stapleton Authorised by: Jee Choudhury
Group Leader Standards Principal Engineer
Civil
Disclaimer
This document was prepared for use on the RailCorp Network only.
RailCorp makes no warranties, express or implied, that compliance with the contents of this document shall be
sufficient to ensure safe systems or work or operation. It is the document user’s sole responsibility to ensure that the
copy of the document it is viewing is the current version of the document as in use by RailCorp.
RailCorp accepts no liability whatsoever in relation to the use of this document by any party, and RailCorp excludes
ny liability which arises in any manner by the use of this document.
Copyright
he information in this document is protected by Copyright and no part of this document may be reproduced, altered,
tored or transmitted by any person without the prior consent of RailCorp
UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Page 1 of 23

RailCorp Engineering Manual — Geotechnical
Geotechnical Risk Assessment and Hazard Management Guidelines TMC 401
Document control
Revision Date of Approval Summary of change
1.1 December 2009 Changes detailed in chapter revisions
1.0 December, 2008 First issue in this format. Replaces RailCorp document
“Geotechnical Problems Affecting Rail Operations - Risk
Assessment and Hazard Management Guidelines (2005)”
Summary of changes from previous version

Chapter Current Revision Summary of change
Control 1.1 Change of format for front page, change history and table of
pages contents
1 1.1 Format change only
App 1 1.1 Format change only
© Rail Corporation Page 2 of 23

Issued December 2009 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Version 1.1
Contents
Chapter 1 General....................................................................................................................................... 4
C1-1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................... 4
C1-2 References.................................................................................................................................. 4
C1-3 Definitions, abbreviations and acronyms .................................................................................... 4
C1-4 Geotechnical Risk Management Plan......................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2 Management Requirements ..................................................................................................... 6
C2-1 Civil Maintenance Engineer ........................................................................................................ 6
C2-2 Principal Engineer Geotechnical................................................................................................. 6
Chapter 3 Competencies............................................................................................................................ 7
Chapter 4 Geotechnical Risk Assessment............................................................................................... 8
C4-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8
C4-2 Risk Matrix .................................................................................................................................. 8
Chapter 5 Risk Assessment Procedure ................................................................................................. 10
C5-1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 10
C5-2 Identification of geotechnical problem ...................................................................................... 10
C5-3 Type of geotechnical problem................................................................................................... 10
C5-4 Mechanism of failure................................................................................................................. 10
C5-5 Event ......................................................................................................................................... 10
C5-6 History of problem..................................................................................................................... 11
C5-7 Likelihood of failure ................................................................................................................... 11
C5-8 Condition of infrastructure......................................................................................................... 11
C5-9 Likelihood of failure and affecting the Track ............................................................................. 11
C5-10 Consequence ............................................................................................................................ 12
C5-11 Track obstruction ...................................................................................................................... 12
C5-12 Type of obstruction ................................................................................................................... 12
C5-13 Size and degree of obstruction ................................................................................................. 12
C5-14 Track defect from geotechnical problem................................................................................... 12
C5-15 Type of defect ........................................................................................................................... 12
C5-16 Degree of defect ....................................................................................................................... 13
C5-17 Likelihood of derailment ............................................................................................................ 13
C5-18 Type of derailment .................................................................................................................... 13
C5-19 Extent of the consequences from the derailment ..................................................................... 13
C5-20 Rock Fall during train passage .................................................................................................13
C5-21 Likelihood of rock striking a train............................................................................................... 14
C5-22 Extent of the consequences from rock fall................................................................................ 14
C5-23 Extent of the consequences from the event ............................................................................. 14
C5-24 Risk of death, serious injury from Geotechnical Event ............................................................. 14
Chapter 6 Hazard Management ............................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 7 Repairs To Geotechnical Sites .............................................................................................. 16
Appendix 1 Risk Assessment Matrix and Ranking.................................................................................. 17
Appendix 2 Hazard Management Guidelines............................................................................................ 21
Appendix 3 Site Supervision and Repair Guidelines............................................................................... 23

Chapter 1 General
C1-1 Purpose
These guidelines present an assessment methodology to rank the risk from geotechnical problems
to the safety of rail operations and infrastructure. This includes people who are travelling in trains
and/or are located adjacent to the line, to railway infrastructure and operations, and to dwellings
and property adjacent to the rail corridor.
A risk management model is presented for managing this geotechnical risk.
The Manual is based on the RailCorp document “Geotechnical Problems Affecting Rail Operations
- Risk Assessment and Hazard Management Guidelines (2005)”.
The guidelines have been revised to incorporate the requirements of RailCorp’s Safety
Management System.
The new Safety Risk Matrix replaces previous matrices.
The Risk Rankings replace previous Risk Categories.
The Manual includes the assessment of geotechnical risk and the hazard management required to
reduce the risk.
C1-2 References
SMS-06-SR-0030 V1.1 System Requirement - Safety Risk Management
TMC 203 Track Inspection
TMC 404 Recognising Geotechnical Problems
C1-3 Definitions, abbreviations and acronyms
Protected Risk: Residual risk of a geotechnical problem location after imposition of risk
mitigation actions to reduce the consequences of an event affecting
the track
Unprotected Risk: Geotechnical risk of a site before application of risk controls
Geotechnical RailCorp’s Principal Geotechnical Engineer or a competent person
Engineer: with delegated engineering authority for geotechnical design activities
relating to risk sites
Site Supervisor: A qualified civil engineer or a competent person with delegated
engineering authority for geotechnical repair works supervision
C1-4 Geotechnical Risk Management Plan
A flow chart for managing geotechnical risk is included here to demonstrate where the risk
assessment and hazard management processes fit in the Geotechnical Risk Management Plan for
rail. Refer to Figure 1.

Risk Register
Assessment
Carry out
Emergency r-------------~
lml
Remedial Works
Hazard
Management
Implement
Remedial Works
Figure 1 : GEOTECHNICAL RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN

Chapter 2 Management Requirements
Regional management is responsible for ensuring that geotechnical problem locations are
managed by competent persons in accordance with this Manual and the relevant Technical
Maintenance Plans and Service Schedules.
The respective responsibilities of personnel assigned to the inspection, assessment and repair of
geotechnical sites are detailed below:
C2-1 Civil Maintenance Engineer

The Civil Maintenance Engineer must ensure that a system is place to:
− Manage inspection and assessment of geotechnical risk sites
− Manage repairs to geotechnical risk sites
− Manage track safety whilst geotechnical risk sites exist.
C2-2 Principal Engineer Geotechnical

The Principal Engineer Geotechnical is responsible for the following:
− Assignment of Geotechnical Engineers to conduct inspections and risk assessments;
− Allocation of Geotechnical Engineers to respond to special requests from field staff for risk
assessments and design of repairs.

Chapter 3 Competencies
Track inspections shall be carried out by competent persons in accordance with TMC 203 “Track
Inspection”.
Geotechnical inspection of risk sites shall be carried out by a Geotechnical Engineer or
Engineering Geologist.
Risk assessment of geotechnical problem locations shall be carried out by a geotechnical Engineer
or Engineering Geologist.
Design of geotechnical repairs is to be approved by a Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering
Geologist.
Repair work shall only be carried out under the supervision of a Site Supervisor.
Certification of the track during or after geotechnical repairs may only be undertaken by persons
with the following competency:
− TDT B38 01A - Maintain track geometry.

Chapter 4 Geotechnical Risk Assessment
C4-1 Introduction
To assess the risk presented by a geotechnical problem site requires an assessment of both the
likelihood of the event occurring and affecting the track and the expected consequences of that
event.
To estimate the likelihood of a geotechnical problem affecting the track requires geotechnical
expert evaluation of the ground conditions and the causes of failure associated with the particular
site and an estimation of the extent and degree of failure. It is recommended to consider the
problem in three stages.
− The likelihood of the event occurring
− The likelihood that the event when it occurs will affect the track
− The size of that event.
Consideration is given to the possible benefit of buffer zones beside the track when evaluating rock
falls from above the track and the expected rock fall size and trajectory, based on knowledge of
past events. For situations of earth fill instability an expert evaluation of the likelihood of the
occurrence and potential extent and rate of track subsidence is required.
A flow chart setting this process out is presented in Figure 2.
C4-2 Risk Matrix

The interaction of these two subjective assessments (likelihood and consequence) has been
presented as a matrix in Appendix 1.
The matrix is the same as the RailCorp Level 2 Risk Matrix in SMS-06-SR-0030 System
Requirement - Safety Risk Management with the addition of a likelihood descriptor for a
geotechnical event affecting the track.
Geotechnical risk is expressed in terms of a risk ranking between A and D.
A priority sub-ranking within rankings B- and C+ has been established because of the large number
and variety of problems normally assessed in these rankings. The priorities set different Target
Actions and Hazard Management Guidelines within rankings B- and C+. Refer to the tables in
Appendices 1 and 2.
For example, where it has been assessed that there is a possible likelihood (F4) of an event
occurring and affecting the track with major consequences (C3), sites are categorised as Risk
Ranking B- P1.
Table 1 in Appendix 1 presents target actions for geotechnical problem sites.
Without treatment many problems will continue to deteriorate and conversely in times of prolonged
dry weather or favourable conditions the risk to safety can be less.
Where the risk to safety is resulting from deteriorating track conditions, the ability of maintenance
resources to restore safe conditions is taken into account in estimating the consequences. Where
the rate of deterioration is reported to exceed the capacity of maintenance staff to restore safe
conditions, the deterioration will continue and may produce a derailment potential. The likelihood
of derailment and the consequences are therefore considered in determining a risk ranking. This
assessment will require advice on maintenance resources and track/train dynamics from the
relevant staff of infrastructure maintenance.

Figure 2 ·ASSESSMENT OF GEOlECHNICAL RISK TO RAIL
EVENT CONSEQUENCE
H istory Track Trad<: Rock fall duOOg

Obstruction Oefed bain
LJ<elhood ofF ailure Type of Type of

O bstruction Defed
7 12
Condition of Size and Degcee of
Oefed
16 20
Lkelihood of Lkelihood of rode fa ll
8 Derailment traWl
Lkelihood of failure and
affedrtg the track·
The Event
Type of
Derailment
Extent of consequence
fto m the Derahent
22
The Consequence

Chapter 5 Risk Assessment Procedure
C5-1 General
The flow chart in Figure 2 sets out the thought process in assessing the risk due to a geotechnical
problem. The following sections provide an explanation for guidance in making an assessment.
They are neither exhaustive nor definitive and the practitioner is required to use his /her own
experience and knowledge of the particular problem in reaching an evaluation of each likelihood
assessment and the risk.
Similar procedures can be used for risk assessment to adjacent property.
Where the problem is observed to be extensive and presents a high risk to safety, it may be
necessary to be more objective and a quantitative risk assessment may be required. The same
methodology for assessing the risk is followed with the use of more reliable information.
The assessment of geotechnical risk is to be initially considered without any hazard management
in place. Hazard management and its impact on the risk will be considered independently.
C5-2 Identification of geotechnical problem

The geotechnical problem has been identified by the risk management plan presented in Figure 1,
is listed on the database and is either being assessed for the first time or is under review.
C5-3 Type of geotechnical problem

The type of the problem is categorised as:
− Unstable cutting or hillside producing a rockfall, rockslide, landslide or mudslide problem.
− Unstable embankment or an embankment producing, or has potential to produce, track
subsidence, loss of track support, ballast washaway, or total collapse.
− Failing track formation producing poor track geometry.
C5-4 Mechanism of failure

It is important to have a good understanding of the mechanism of failure of the geotechnical
problem before attempting to arrive at any likelihood assessments. The mechanism of failure will
be deduced from the results of the site investigation if one exists, from site inspections or from the
experience and knowledge of the practitioner.
Where there are numerous individual problems within the one site it is necessary to evaluate them
separately to determine the highest risk for the area or report them separately.
The following are some examples:
Embankments Cuttings
- Subsidence, creep - Rock slides
- Sliding - Wedge, Plane and Topple failures
- Collapse - Rolling rocks
- Washaway - Landslides
- Mudflows
C5-5 Event
It is recommended in this procedure to consider the likelihood of the Event occurring separately
from the likelihood of the consequences before calculating risk.
Sections C5-6 to C5-9 refer only to the likelihood of the event occurring and affecting the track.

C5-6 History of problem
To understand the potential for a failure and its outcome it is necessary to research some of the
history of the problem.
− What evidence is there that warning signs of failure have been observed?
− What incidences have been reported and recorded by maintenance staff and over what
period?
− What information is available from geotechnical monitoring, if in place?
− What degree of problem has been experienced at the site?
An understanding of likelihood of failure can be gained from the following type of information:
− Number of rock falls per year
− Amount of ground movement over particular periods, is it creep or shear?
− The amount of maintenance effort required to provide a serviceable track.
− Correlation of events with factors such as rainfall.
C5-7 Likelihood of failure

After considering the information suggested in Sections C5-3 to C5-6 make an assessment of the
likelihood of failure considering the failure mechanism and the condition of the infrastructure.
C5-8 Condition of infrastructure

The condition of the infrastructure will influence the occurrence of an event and therefore including
this information can make a better assessment of likelihood. Infrastructure in good condition will
have a lower likelihood of failure for the same mechanism than for a similar situation where the
infrastructure is in poor condition. The following examples give a range of conditions that can
influence the likelihood.
Good Poor
- Cuttings are clean with no vegetation - Thick vegetation over rock cuttings, active
tree root activity
- Cess and toe drains are clean and graded
uniformly - Cess drains blocked and ponding water
- Top drains are clear and intact and direct - Water ponding at embankment toe area
water to culverts
- Top drains blocked or breached
- Cut off drains are in place for up hill
- No cut off drains and seepage from uphill
seepage
is active
- Well engineered fill
- End tipped Fill
- Culvert capacity adequate without ponding
- Ash embankment widened on the
for design storm
downstream side with clay fill
- Culvert not positioned correctly - not in the
lowest part of the embankment
- Culvert inadequate and ponding on
upstream occurs regularly
- High potential for blockage of culvert
C5-9 Likelihood of failure and affecting the Track

Having selected a likelihood of failure occurring modified by the influence of the condition of the
infrastructure, review this with regard to the likelihood of it adversely affecting the track. Do this by
considering the chance of the problem adversely affecting the track. To do this it is necessary to
consider the site conditions and the mechanism of failure.

Superseded by T HR CI 12100 ST Example
There may be a small buffer zone beside the track and with other contributing factors an
assessment could be made that there was reduced chance that the rock fall would adversely affect
the track. i.e., an almost certain likelihood of an event occurring with a possible likelihood of an
event affecting the track may be a likely likelihood of the event occurring and affecting the track.
It is also necessary to assess the likelihood for various degrees of impact to the track.
− Will the impact on the track be major or minor?
− Where will the debris be likely to come to rest? Will it land on the track or beside the track?
− Will the embankment failure under mine the track or only affect the batter slope.
If there is a reasonable expectation that the affects could include a major impact then it would be
necessary to assess all outcomes separately.
To calculate “likelihood” quantitatively it would be advisable to use an Event Tree Analysis to
include all possible outcomes with numerical values for likelihood of the event occurring over a
nominated time frame.
C5-10 Consequence
Having arrived at an assessment of the likelihood of the event occurring and affecting the track the
following Sections C5-11 to C5-21 assess the likelihood of death and serious injury from that event.
It is necessary to look at the various types of outcome possible from the mechanism of failure.
C5-11 Track obstruction

This note refers mostly to outcomes from cutting failures where the effect on the track is debris on
the track, which will obstruct traffic.
C5-12 Type of obstruction

When considering the impact of an obstruction on the track to track safety it is necessary to be
aware of the particular type of obstruction that each problem will produce. In order to make a
realistic interpretation on the outcome of a train colliding with the obstruction it is necessary to be
reasonably confident of the manner of the collision. The following features of the obstruction need
to be considered:
− single rock or scree
− shape and size of the rock
− what the debris consists of; rocks, colluvium, mud etc.,
− crushability of rock material,
C5-13 Size and degree of obstruction

The outcome of a collision of a train with an obstruction is also dependent on the magnitude of the
obstruction and how much of the track is affected:
− size of debris mass and its spread over the track
− depth of material over the track
C5-14 Track defect from geotechnical problem

A track defect may be the result of embankment subsidence or failure of track formation.
C5-15 Type of defect

This may vary from a defect only affecting the embankment shoulder and hence the lateral support
to the track to one that causes a depression in one or both rails. A misalignment can also be a
symptom of embankment subsidence.

Superseded by T HR CI 12100 ST Loss of track support due to a collapse of the embankment or a washaway of ballast or fill is
considered under this issue.
C5-16 Degree of defect

The degree of track defect will depend on the particular site and the failure mechanism. The
history of the problem will provide information about the rate of failure and whether the track defect
will occur suddenly or slowly due to creep.
The impact on track safety will also depend on whether the failure will cause non uniform
subsidence (or twist) or a uniform depression in the track over a short or long distance and whether
the track becomes misaligned as a result. The background information should provide guidance on
this.
C5-17 Likelihood of derailment

Having considered all the information reviewed as per Sections C5-10 to C5-16 relating to the
impact of the EVENT on the track an assessment of the likelihood of a derailment occurring is
made.
C5-18 Type of derailment

Having established that there is a likelihood of derailment occurring, before assessing the risk of
death or serious injury, it is necessary to review the type of derailment that may occur.
C5-18.1 Track obstruction

The nature of the obstruction will contribute to the manner of the derailment and the likelihood that
the derailment will almost certainly to highly likely involve the leading loco or carriage.
C5-18.2 Track defects

A derailment resulting from a track defect, caused by a geotechnical event, is highly likely to
involve a trailing wagon or carriage.
C5-18.3 Manner of derailment

Having understood the type of derailment it is also necessary to consider the manner or behaviour
of the train after the derailment. This will involve considering the terrain around the site and the
directions train travel if double track. Some possible outcomes are:
− Train or carriage stays upright and comes to rest
− Train collides with a more substantial obstruction (bridge, tunnel portal etc.) and jack knifes
− Train careers off the track and down an embankment, onto private property, over steep incline
(etc. )
− The train crosses onto another track
− The train collides with a oncoming train
− The train overturns and slides to rest
− etc.
It is necessary to consider which of the above are most appropriate to the particular site and the
likelihood of each occurring.
C5-19 Extent of the consequences from the derailment

Having considered the possible derailment outcomes and the likelihood of each it is necessary to
assess the likelihood of death or serious injury from each.
C5-20 Rock Fall during train passage

From the history and mechanisms at the site it is possible that the most dangerous mechanism will
involve rock fall during train passage. This will involve rocks of all sizes and the consequence will

Superseded by T HR CI 12100 ST depend on their trajectory across the track. For example, if small rocks are projected across the
cutting at cabin height there is a chance of striking a person.
C5-21 Likelihood of rock striking a train

It is necessary to have some history of rock fall or observation of debris around the site and
information on the frequency of train passages.
C5-22 Extent of the consequences from rock fall

It will be necessary to have information on the type of trains on the line as the likelihood of death or
serious injury will be higher for passenger trains.
C5-23 Extent of the consequences from the event

It is necessary to decide the extent of the consequences ranging from extreme to minor as defined
in the risk table.
C5-24 Risk of death, serious injury from Geotechnical Event

Finally, a risk ranking is determined using the matrix in Appendix 1.

Chapter 6 Hazard Management
Hazard Management can effectively reduce the geotechnical risk facing the rail system by reducing
the consequence rather than eliminating the problem where the cost or practicabilities of
eliminating the hazard are prohibitive. This can be achieved by imposing operational limitations or
by increasing maintenance.
The assessment of the reduced risk to rail operations due to hazard management is shown as
Protected Risk by acknowledging the benefit of:
− speed limits on trains
− early warning systems
− regular maintenance activity
− increased surveillance inspections.
Where relevant, the use of “protection” measures such as train speed limits or early warning
systems may reduce the assessed Unprotected Risk to a safer Protected Risk by reducing the
consequences of an event affecting the track. Such protection will not change the likelihood of the
event occurring. For example, in the Risk Assessment Matrix Appendix 1, an unprotected risk rank
of A (F6:C3 in matrix) may be reduced to a protected risk rank of B+ (F6:C2 in matrix) because an
imposed train speed limit has reduced the consequences from C3, Major to C2, Minor (the
likelihood remaining at F6, Almost Certain). Where applicable, risk ranking in this document refers
to the protected risk.
Surveillance is an important hazard management tool as it can give warning of deterioration of a

geotechnical problem site or identify new problems. However, depending on the individual site and
the level of surveillance, it may not always be relied on as a protection measure.
Definitions of the procedures and guidelines for surveillance inspections of geotechnical problem
sites are described in Appendix 2. The critical features to be checked during inspections are
presented and Table 2 provides a flexible system to vary surveillance to suit the current situation.
The guidelines recommend minimum levels of surveillance relating to the Risk Ranking. For the
bulk of geotechnical problems (Rank C+, D) a level of surveillance provided by the Track
Examination System (T) is sufficient. However for sites ranked as Rank B- or higher, more
frequent inspections with greater detail are needed. Sites assessed as Rank “B-, P1” require as a
minimum, monthly detailed inspections during the track patrol; and for higher Rankings, more
frequent detailed inspections or full time monitoring.
Speed limits are imposed by Maintenance staff and or recommended by Geotechnical staff when
it is recognised that conditions would be unsafe for normal speeds or to reduce the consequences
if trains were to strike fallen rocks. Speed limits are only a temporary measure as they have a
direct influence on operating reliability.
Early Warning systems are installed to provide warning of ground movement that would impact
on safe operating conditions. A variety of systems exist some of which are connected to the
signalling system to stop trains, while others provide a warning to train control. The intention is to
give sufficient warning to prevent the running of trains over unsafe track or to provide warning to
adjacent property owners.
Regular maintenance of some geotechnical problem sites such as drainage improvements may
reduce the likelihood of failure while other activities such as fettling are related to the reduction of
the severity of the consequences.
All sites require reviewing by expert geotechnical personnel every 12 months and every 6 months
or less for Rank “B-, P2” sites or higher.
Hazard management recommendations are also mentioned in Table 1 Appendix 1.

Chapter 7 Repairs To Geotechnical Sites
Timing of remedial works to geotechnical problems are mentioned in Table 1 of Appendix 1.
During the construction of the remedial works to geotechnical problems the exposed subsoil
conditions should be recorded and assessed by geotechnical experts to confirm the proposed
design and to make modifications if necessary.
The design of repairs to geotechnical problems is based on as thorough an investigation as the site
conditions and cost would permit. The analysis and design is therefore based on the best “model”
possible and not upon actual conditions.
It is therefore important to record all the information gained from the exposure of subsurface
conditions by the excavations or borings associated with construction. It is possible then to modify
construction if necessary where a more complete picture of the geotechnical problem is gained,
that would suggest changes.
Post construction monitoring is also necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the design and
construction in correcting the geotechnical problem.
Appendix 3 sets out guidelines for the site supervision and recording repairs to geotechnical
problems.

Appendix 1 Risk Assessment Matrix and Ranking
Geotechnical Description of Risk Ranking
(Examples are not definitive and depend on individual risk assessment.)
A. UNACCEPTABLE
− Track is impassable as a result of a geotechnical event.
− Traffic is stopped (unless hazard manage measures are suitable) due to a geotechnical event
which would be anticipated to result in loss of life being imminent and the situation is too
dangerous to allow trains to pass.
Example 1.
High embankment constructed on side fill. Mechanism is identified as a slide, which could occur
rapidly taking the track and leaving it unsupported. Track maintenance has little impact in reducing
risk.
Example 2.
High narrow cutting consisting of rock which has been identified as having potential failure
mechanisms which could produce large boulders that could crush a train or cause serious impact.
B. UNDESIRABLE
− Safety action or hazard management, is necessary for problems identified as undesirable, to
reduce the likelihood of the event occurring or the consequences of that event. Such action
which includes maintenance, speed limits & surveillance may effectively reduce the risk
provided the action is continued.
Example 1.
Cutting consisting of weathered rock which has been identified as a potential failure onto the track
into which the train might plough and become derailed.
Example 2.
Moderately high embankment constructed on gently sloping ground, mechanism identified has
been perceived as slow or comprising small increments and track can be maintained. Lack of
maintenance would lead to derailment condition.
C. TOLERABLE
− Low risk problem identified and (if remedial work incomplete) is being monitored for any
deterioration to a higher risk.
Example 1.
A rock cutting which has been identified as potentially failing, or has failed, and debris from the
failure falls clear of the line.
Example 2.
An embankment constructed on gently sloping ground which is experiencing instability of the slope
face and which only affects an access road or embankment shoulder with no affects to the track
geometry.
D. BROADLY ACCEPTABLE
− Problem has been rectified and is being monitored for effectiveness of remedial work.
− Very low risk problem identified and is being monitored for any deterioration to a higher risk.

Issued December 2009
© Rail Corporation
Geotechnical Risk Assessment and Hazard Management Guidelines

RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX - GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEMS
Incredible Rare, Improbable Unlikely Possible Likely Almost Certain

GEOTECH Not expected to Not expected to May only occur lt is possible event Will probably occur Expected to occur
LIKELIHOOD occur at any time occur or only under under very adverse will occu r within 12 within 12 months in within 12 months in
of geotechnical event exceptional weather conditions months in adverse most circumstances most circumstances
conditions at some time weather conditions
affecting track
SMS
CONSEQUENCE
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
> 10 fatalities
Disastrous CS 8- I P1 8+
UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
2- 10 fatalities
Catastrophic CS C+, P1 8- I P1 8+
1 fatality
(2- 10 serious injuries)
Critical C4 C- C+, P1 8- 1 P1 8+
1 Major injury
Major C3 C- C+, P1 8- 1 P1 8+
1 or more minor injuries
Minor C2 C- C+, P2 8- 1 P2 8+
Illness. 1st aid treatment

or injury not requiring
atment Negligible C1 C- C+ , P2 8- P2
'
P1 & P2 =PRIORITY for 8- and C+ Safety Action reduces the risk by reducing the consequence of the event affecting the track.
Page 18 of 23
Version 1.1
The likelihood of event affecting the track is assessed from a visual inspection of the site and taking
TMC 401
into account past performance.
Superseded by T HR CI 12100 ST TABLE 1 - TARGET ACTIONS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEM SITES
Table 1 below is to be read in conjunction with Table 2 - Guidelines for Hazard Management of
Geotechnical Problem Sites. Text in italics and inverted commas is an extract from RailCorp Safety
Risk Management SMS–06–SR–0030.
RISK RANKING TARGET ACTIONS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEM SITES

(& Priority)
“All necessary steps should be taken to further control the hazard…..".

A TRACK CLOSED. Remedial works should be immediately undertaken to
eliminate possibility of an imminent geotechnical event, which is too
Unacceptable dangerous to allow train passage or to restore track to service (where
(Extreme) track is impassable due to geotechnical event).
"Additional control measures should be sought and evaluated to assess

their reasonable practicality." & “B+ hazards are considered to be on the
B+ verge of being unacceptable and must be given immediate priority.”
Undesirable Hazard management or safety action is immediately necessary to reduce
(High) the consequences of geotechnical event. Such action, which includes
speed limits, maintenance & surveillance, may effectively reduce the risk
provided the action is continued.
Remedial works should be undertaken as soon as possible. Emergency
possessions may be needed for remedial works depending on severity of
problem (as assessed by geotechnical staff) or if hazard
management/safety action is unsuitable.
Target action is to remove/reduce this risk within 1 month of identification
or sooner.
Additional control measures should be sought and evaluated to assess
their reasonable practicality."
B-, P1
During rain, hazard management or safety action, may be necessary to
Undesirable reduce the consequences of geotechnical event. Such action, which
(High) includes speed limits, maintenance & surveillance, may effectively reduce
the risk when applied.
Remedial works should be undertaken at next planned possession if
hazard management/safety action is unsuitable or the following
possession.
Notional target action is to remove/reduce this risk within 6 months of
identification.
“Additional control measures should be sought and evaluated to assess
their reasonable practicality."
B-, P2
Monitoring (surveillance) should be carried out as per Table 2 to ascertain
Undesirable if geotechnical problem has deteriorated.
(High) Remedial works should be planned to be undertaken at a reasonably
practicable time.
identification.

RISK RANKING TARGET ACTIONS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEM SITES
(& Priority)
"Tolerable only if risk reduction is impractical or if its cost is grossly

disproportionate to improvement gained." & "Additional control measures
C+, P1 should be sought if a significant net benefit in doing so can be
Tolerable demonstrated and/or there is an additional measure which is recognised
as good practice in other relevant railways."
(Medium)
if geotechnical problem has deteriorated.
Remedial works could be carried out at the same time as works to higher
ranked instability features in the same area.
identification.
C+, P2 should be sought if a significant net benefit in doing so can be
(Medium)
ranked instability features if in the same area and if practicable.
Notional target action is to remove/reduce this risk within 2 years of
identification.
C- should be sought if a significant net benefit in doing so can be
(Medium)
ranked instability features if in the same area and if practicable.
"Control measures should be subject to continuous monitoring."
D Monitoring (surveillance) should be carried out as per Table 2 to ascertain
if geotechnical problem has deteriorated. Possible remedial works not
Broadly Acceptable imperative at this stage.
(Low)

Appendix 2 Hazard Management Guidelines
Guidelines for Surveillance Inspection of Geotechnical Problems
The following features form a checklist for inspecting a site. Those, which are relevant to a
particular problem, are to be noted, particularly for changes in condition between inspection visits.
A written report should be prepared for each inspection. Comments are to be made for each site
and the inspection record signed and dated.
These reports are to be presented to the Team Manager immediately.
Embankments and Sidefills (slip problems)

Check for:
− change in track alignment/superelevation
− tension cracks in the ground surface on the downhill shoulder or access road
− changes in width of such cracks
− dips in shoulder/access road
− leaning structures (overhead wiring structures, signals, power poles)
− note any seepage from slope (toe)
− vegetation - areas of unusual lush green vegetation
− check cess drainage (clear or otherwise, water ponding)
− check culvert condition (clear or otherwise)
− subsurface drainage (where applicable), is water running?
Cuttings (rock falls)

Check for:
− note any recent rock falls or spoil onto track/cess drain, note size and origin
− recent rock falls onto bench areas or behind catch fences
− isolated or partially supported blocks of rock, due to cracks or joints
− apparent movement of prominent rock wedges/blocks
− condition of any nominated area of known instability
− excessive seepage/water flows
− slumping and/or leaning trees above cutting
− tree roots visible in rock joints
Notes:
1. The inspections are an integral part of the safety management system of the railway and are
distinctly separate from the route track patrol (T). Each site should be inspected for the features
relevant for that site.
Where relevant, site-specific guidelines for inspections by track patrol staff can be issued by
Geotechnical staff. These guidelines may include descriptions of specific features and may include
photographs of those features.
2. The same personnel with training in the geotechnical processes must carry out the inspections
on a regular basis with regular supervision.
3. An inspection register should be maintained and each visit discussed with the nominated
supervisor.

Superseded by T HR CI 12100 ST 4. Any Early Warning System register at the site is to be read and recorded.

Appendix 3 Site Supervision and Repair Guidelines
Repairs to Geotechnical Problems
Site Supervision and Recording
1. Works should be adequately defined prior to commencement.

2. Supervision is necessary because of variations in subsurface materials.
3. Decisions made on site to alter the design without informed advice may jeopardise success of
remedial works.
4. The Supervisor must have an appreciation of the purpose of the work.
5. Accurate recording of what work is done is necessary to:
∼ review accuracy of geotechnical model
∼ plan for future remedial work by ensuring that a treated individual instability feature is
removed from a list of numerous features
∼ understand what additional work is necessary if further problems occur
∼ review whether work was carried out according to the design/or whether it achieved the
objective.
∼ If adequate supervision is not possible with staff available, qualified staff should visit the
site periodically when work involves activities critical to the safety of the site and stability
of the final solution. Guide-lines for information necessary to ensure this are set out on
the following page.
Earthworks Site Supervision
Geotechnical Problems (Embankments)
Key points to note during work

1. Maximum depth of any excavation. - Depth below rail to be measured and recorded.
2. Date of measurement.
3. Location of excavation. ie. distance from rail and distance along rail from a known point.
4. Material visible in sides of excavation and in embankment:
∼ note peculiar features (photographs if possible )
∼ water, source and flow
∼ ash
∼ spalls
∼ vegetation
∼ colour of material
∼ presence of top soil
5. Material placed in excavation:
∼ type:
∼ rock
∼ spall
∼ fabric
∼ etc.
∼ treatment, compaction. method of placement
∼ level of each type below rail and extent along and away from track.
6. Levels and grade of subsoil drains.

7. The above information to be recorded and filed with the infrastructure maintenance staff and
Geotechnical Services.


Riesgos Geotecnico, Notas - Articulo

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Riesgos Geotecnico, Notas - Articulo

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

TN 060: 2014

For queries regarding this document

Issued date: 07 August 2014

Name Sarath Fernando Richard Hitch David Spiteri Graham Bradshaw

A3520780 Asset Standards Authority

ASSESSMENT AND HAZARD

Issued December 2009

Owner: Principal Engineer Geotechnical

Approved by: John Stapleton Authorised by: Jee Choudhury

Group Leader Standards Principal Engineer

UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Page 1 of 23

Summary of changes from previous version

© Rail Corporation Page 2 of 23

Geotechnical Risk Assessment and Hazard Management Guidelines TMC 401

C1-3 Definitions, abbreviations and acronyms .................................................................................... 4

C1-4 Geotechnical Risk Management Plan......................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2 Management Requirements ..................................................................................................... 6

C2-1 Civil Maintenance Engineer ........................................................................................................ 6

C2-2 Principal Engineer Geotechnical................................................................................................. 6

Chapter 4 Geotechnical Risk Assessment............................................................................................... 8

C4-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8

C4-2 Risk Matrix .................................................................................................................................. 8

Chapter 5 Risk Assessment Procedure ................................................................................................. 10

C5-1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 10

C5-2 Identification of geotechnical problem ...................................................................................... 10

C5-3 Type of geotechnical problem................................................................................................... 10

C5-4 Mechanism of failure................................................................................................................. 10

C5-5 Event ......................................................................................................................................... 10

C5-6 History of problem..................................................................................................................... 11

C5-7 Likelihood of failure ................................................................................................................... 11

C5-8 Condition of infrastructure......................................................................................................... 11

C5-9 Likelihood of failure and affecting the Track ............................................................................. 11

C5-10 Consequence ............................................................................................................................ 12

C5-11 Track obstruction ...................................................................................................................... 12

C5-12 Type of obstruction ................................................................................................................... 12

C5-13 Size and degree of obstruction ................................................................................................. 12

C5-14 Track defect from geotechnical problem................................................................................... 12

C5-15 Type of defect ........................................................................................................................... 12

C5-16 Degree of defect ....................................................................................................................... 13

C5-17 Likelihood of derailment ............................................................................................................ 13

C5-18 Type of derailment .................................................................................................................... 13

C5-19 Extent of the consequences from the derailment ..................................................................... 13

C5-20 Rock Fall during train passage .................................................................................................13

C5-21 Likelihood of rock striking a train............................................................................................... 14

C5-22 Extent of the consequences from rock fall................................................................................ 14

C5-23 Extent of the consequences from the event ............................................................................. 14

C5-24 Risk of death, serious injury from Geotechnical Event ............................................................. 14

Chapter 6 Hazard Management ............................................................................................................... 15

Chapter 7 Repairs To Geotechnical Sites .............................................................................................. 16

Appendix 1 Risk Assessment Matrix and Ranking.................................................................................. 17

Appendix 2 Hazard Management Guidelines............................................................................................ 21

Appendix 3 Site Supervision and Repair Guidelines............................................................................... 23

© Rail Corporation Page 3 of 23

Issued December 2009 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Version 1.1

RailCorp Engineering Manual — Geotechnical

A risk management model is presented for managing this geotechnical risk.

The new Safety Risk Matrix replaces previous matrices.

The Risk Rankings replace previous Risk Categories.

© Rail Corporation Page 4 of 23

Geotechnical Risk Assessment and Hazard Management Guidelines TMC 401

Figure 1 : GEOTECHNICAL RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN

© Rail Corporation Page 5 of 23

Issued December 2009 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Version 1.1

RailCorp Engineering Manual — Geotechnical