Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 32 (2017) 748–771

Probabilistic Risk Analysis of Diversion Tunnel

Construction Simulation

Jia Yu, Denghua Zhong*, Bingyu Ren & Dawei Tong

State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China

&

Kun Hong
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China and
SINOHYDRO Bureau 14 Co., Ltd., Kunming, Yunnan, China

Abstract: Comprehensive and effective risk analysis is
significant for studying construction simulation of diver-
sion tunnel. Existing tunnel risk simulation approaches
mainly analyze ordinary risk factors, and cannot quanti-
tatively study risk events considering their causes. Addi-
tionally, in other tunnel probabilistic risk analysis meth-
ods, although some studies have made full probabilistic
estimates of tunnel schedule, risk factors are unable
to be studied considering cyclic construction character-
istics and occurrence probability of risk events cannot
be determined quantitatively. To address the issues, a
probabilistic risk analysis approach of diversion tunnel
construction simulation is proposed. Based on hierar-
chical simulation model, risk factors can be analyzed
at operation level of tunnel construction. Moreover,
Bayesian network is embedded into simulation program
to quantitatively calculate probability of risk events in
each simulation cycle, considering geology, design, con-
struction, and management conditions and their mutual
dependence.
1 INTRODUCTION
Construction of diversion tunnel plays a significant role
in increasing social effect and economic benefits of hy-
draulic engineering. Schedule is key factor in construc-
tion planning of diversion tunnel. However, tunnel ex-
cavation is an uncertain process due to the potential risk
∗ To
whom correspondence should be addressed.
dzhong@tju.edu.cn.
factors existing during construction. These factors not
only cause common variability of construction perfor-
mance, but also may lead to major losses and delays in
tunnel projects. Therefore, finding a more realistic as-
sessment approach of associated risks is of vital signifi-
cance for schedule estimations.
According to Isaksson and Stille (2005), the potential
risk factors during tunnel excavation can be divided into
two categories. Some factors, named ordinary risk fac-
tors, will cause deviation in a normal range, which can
be represented with continuous probability distribution.
The other, defined as risk events in this study, may lead
to major delays and exert a serious impact on construc-
tion processes, such as tunnel collapse. It is evident that
both ordinary risk factors and risk events should be an-
alyzed, comprehensively and effectively, for more real-
istic risk assessment.
Simulation technology is thought to be an effective
tool for analyzing the uncertainty of tunnel construc-
tion. In existing tunnel risk simulation approaches,
the impacts of ordinary risk factors are able to be
considered. Some researchers pay attention to factors
affecting tunnel excavation, especially geological con-
ditions, in simulation. However, they mainly analyze
the factors’ influence on simulation parameters or
construction modes. The impacts of potential risk
events, such as tunnel collapse, under diverse geolog-
ical conditions and other conditions including design,
construction, management, etc., are not studied. It will
E-mail:
affect the comprehensiveness of risk analysis. In other


C 2017 Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering.

DOI: 10.1111/mice.12276
 Probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation
tunnel probabilistic risk analysis methods, although
some studies have made full probabilistic estimates of
tunnel schedule, the two kinds of risk factors cannot
be analyzed considering cyclic features of tunnel con-
struction. Especially, the occurrence probability of risk
events is unable to be determined quantitatively taking
their causes into account. In light of this, a probabilistic
risk analysis method of diversion tunnel construction
simulation is proposed for realizing the comprehensive
and effective risk analysis of tunnel construction. With
this method, two kinds of risk factors are allowed to
be analyzed at operation level, including measurement,
drilling, blasting, and other operations composing
tunnel excavation cycle. In addition, Bayesian network
is embedded into simulation program to quantitatively
calculate probability of risk events in each simulation
cycle, considering geology, design, construction, and
management conditions and their mutual dependence.
Simulation easily lends itself to tunnel project plan-
ning on a theoretical level because tunneling is both
repetitive and linear (Hajjar and AbouRizk, 1997).
The start of modern construction simulation languages
was led by Halpin (1977) with the introduction of
cycle operation network (CYCLONE). Then, diverse
simulation tools were developed, embracing RESQUE
(Chang, 1986), UM-CYCLONE (Ioannou, 1989),
Micro-CYCLONE (Halpin, 1990), COOPS (Liu, 1991),
DISCO (Huang, 1994), STROBOSCOPE (Martinez
and Ioannou, 1994), Simphony (AbouRizk and Mo-
hamed, 2000), activity-based construction (ABC) (Shi,
1999), Vitascope (Kamat and Martinez, 2003), S3 (Lu
et al., 2008), COSYE (AbouRizk and Hague, 2009),
hybrid SD-DES (Alvanchi et al., 2011), etc.
As an effective tool for planning repetitive construc-
tion projects that involve uncertainties (Ruwanpura
and Ariaratnam, 2007), simulation modeling has been
widely used in forecasting schedules and analyzing risk
of tunnel projects. Ruwanpura et al. (2001) analyzed
tunneling process of shielded tunnel-boring machines
using a special purpose simulation tool developed with
Simphony. Liu et al. (2010) adopted CYCLONE model
to predict the excavation schedule of Tunnel Boring
Machine (TBM). Based on Simphony.NET, an inte-
grated scenario-based solution for tunnel planning and
decision support was created using modular develop-
ment and a high level architecture (HLA)-inspired com-
munications framework (Al-Bataineh et al., 2013).
For accurate estimation of tunnel schedule, Chung
et al. (2006) and Zhang et al. (2014) updated the dis-
tributions of simulation input parameters based on data
collected from actual project. Rostami et al. (2014) stud-
ied an advance rate simulation approach for hard rock
TBMs, which could predict the durations of all activities
in excavation based on their recorded time distributions
749
from past case histories or from the early stages of a
project. Vargas et al. (2014, 2015) proposed a simulation
algorithm based stochastic probabilistic method, and
adopted Monte Carlo method or Markov Chain Monte
Carlo (MCMC) approach for decision making in the
tunnel planning process. Rahm et al. (2016) evaluated
the impact of three types of disturbances in mechanized
tunneling, including production disturbances, supply
chain problems, and cascading disturbances. Construc-
tion uncertainties are considered in these tunnel simu-
lation approaches, which are mainly reflected with de-
fined probability distributions of simulation parameters.
Some simulation approaches focus on study of the
factors affecting tunnel excavation, especially geological
conditions. Decision Aids for Tunneling (DAT) consid-
ered the uncertainties in geology, which were modeled
by means of a Markov process (Chan, 1981), and used
Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic prediction of
construction time, costs, and consumption of resources.
Likhitruangsilp and Ioannou (2003) considered the fact
that tunnel excavation and support methods varied with
the change of geological conditions, and presented a
stochastic methodology for evaluating tunneling per-
formance using discrete-event simulation performed in
ProbSched. Bi et al. (2014) embedded Markov predic-
tion model into CYCLONE model to consider litholog-
ical uncertainty and automatically estimate construction
parameters for each excavation cycle of long-distance
diversion tunnels. These studies mainly consider the im-
pact that uncertainty of geological/geotechnical param-
eters (e.g., the type of rocks) exert on tunnel simula-
tion parameters or excavation modes. The impact of
potential risk events, such as tunnel collapse, under di-
verse geological conditions and other conditions includ-
ing design, construction, management, etc., has not been
taken into account.
Therefore, existing tunnel risk simulation methods
can realize the analysis of ordinary risk factors, but ne-
glect the impact of potential risk events on excavation
processes, which will affect the comprehensiveness of
tunnel schedule risk analysis.
In addition to simulation tools, other efforts have
been made to probabilistically assess tunnel construc-
tion risk. There are some studies that have made full
probabilistic estimates of tunnel construction time,
taking both ordinary risk factors and risk events into
account. Isaksson and Stille (2005) and Grasso et al.
(2006) took tunnel excavation section with certain
length as object to study the influence of ordinary
risk factors, and proposed the idea of analyzing risk
events from occurrence probability and consequence.
However, specific approach for risk events analysis was
not introduced in their studies. Špačková et al. (2013)
utilized a combined probability distribution to consider
750 Yu et al.
the influence of common construction variability, and
used database available in literature to analyze failure
rate as well as consequence of geological risk events. In
addition, Špačková and Straub (2013) defined unit ex-
cavation time with a conditional cumulative probability
distribution function for each construction method and
human factor, and described extraordinary events with
failure mode and number of failures. Nevertheless,
there still exist some deficiencies when analyzing the
two types of risk factors. For ordinary risk factors,
researchers mainly regard tunnel excavation section
with certain length as object, which cannot analyze the
influence of these factors considering cyclic features
of tunnel construction. It is because tunnel excavation
section with certain length is composed of several exca-
vation cycles, and each cycle can be divided into mea-
surement, drilling, blasting, ventilation, and other unit
operations (Gonzalez Jimenez et al., 2015). It is be-
lieved that studying the effect of ordinary risk factors at
operation level is more conducive to fine and effective
analysis of the factors when compared with taking tun-
nel excavation section with certain length as research
object. In terms of risk events, occurrence probability
is usually obtained based on subjective estimation
or statistical analysis, and cannot be quantitatively
calculated considering their causes. In addition, the
influence analysis of risk events on each excavation
cycle has not been realized in existing studies. It will
affect the effectiveness of tunnel schedule risk analysis.
Therefore, an approach enabling comprehensive and
effective probabilistic risk study of diversion tunnel,
considering both ordinary risk factors and risk events,
is in urgent need to be proposed.
As the first of modern construction simulation lan-
guages, CYCLONE is suitable for projects that consist
of hundreds of repetitive cycles of tasks (Touran, 1987;
Halpin and Riggs, 1992). It is regarded as the widely
used and best-known discrete simulation method used
in construction engineering research (Martinez and
Ioannou, 1999; Zhong et al., 2004). The satisfactory
performance of CYCLONE in describing tunnel cyclic
construction is beneficial for the fine and effective
analysis of risk factors in tunnel excavation. In addition,
CYCLONE is featured with simplicity and flexibility
(Lau et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2014), and can nest within
other tools (Bi et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2014), which
facilitates the combination of CYCLONE and other
methods, such as Bayesian network, for further analysis
of ordinary risk factors and risk events. Furthermore,
the CYCLONE model has been effectively used in
forecasting tunnel schedules and analyzing risk (e.g.,
geological uncertainty) (Bi et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2014;
Zhong et al., 2016), which lays a solid foundation for the
study in this article. Therefore, CYCLONE is adopted
in this study for simulating tunnel cyclic excavation pro-
cess. Moreover, to reduce the number of nodes, hierar-
chical model coupling CPM and CYCLONE is adopted.
Because the variances in time caused by ordinary risk
factors can be described with a continuous distribution,
appropriate probability distributions for measurement,
blasting, ventilation, and other unit operations in CY-
CLONE are determined with the BestFit technology.
In addition, occurrence probability analysis technology,
which takes the causes of risk events, is studied and
embedded into CYCLONE to facilitate quantitative
analysis of risk events in each tunnel excavation cycle.
Estimation of risk occurrence probability is critical in
tunnel risk analysis. Subjective estimation or statistical
analysis are the most common methods (Shahriar
et al., 2008; Sousa, 2010; Sousa and Einstein, 2012;
Špačková et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2015). Afterwards,
other approaches enabling quantitative calculation of
tunnel risk probability are developed, such as fault
tree, event tree analysis, risk matrices, etc. (Hong et al.,
2009; Aliahmadi et al., 2011; Nývlt et al., 2011; Jurado
et al., 2012). As a common approach to quantitatively
analyze risk occurrence probability, Bayesian network
has been widely used in construction projects to study
slope collapse (Cheng and Hoang, 2014), fall risk of
cantilever bridge projects (Chen and Leu, 2014), deep
water drilling operations (Bhandari et al., 2015), etc.,
and has also been applied to other diverse research
fields (Sun and Bette, 2015; Wang et al., 2015; Yuen and
Mu, 2015; Mu and Yuen, 2016). It not only combines
the merits of fault tree and other risk probability
quantitative analysis methods, but also has distinct
advantages in describing dependence between vari-
ables quantitatively (Holický et al., 2013), and dealing
with uncertainty information (Lee et al., 2008). These
merits make Bayesian network a more suitable tool
in analyzing occurrence probability. Bayesian network
has been used in risk analysis of tunnel construction
(Zhang et al., 2014; Feng and Jimenez, 2015; Wu et al.,
2015). Nevertheless, these studies are unable to obtain
risk occurrence probability in each excavation cycle
by fully considering geology, design, construction, and
management conditions and their mutual relationship,
which are regarded as the main causes leading to tunnel
accidents (Sousa, 2010; Zhang et al., 2015). Therefore,
in this study, Bayesian network is embedded into
simulation program to calculate occurrence probability
of risk events in each simulation cycle considering these
causes of the events.
In summary, a probabilistic risk analysis approach of
diversion tunnel construction simulation is proposed.
It facilitates comprehensive and effective risk analysis
of tunnel construction, taking both ordinary risk fac-
tors and risk events into account. For ordinary risk
 Probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation
factors, measurement, drilling, blasting, and other unit
operations in CYCLONE are regarded as study objects
to finely analyze the effect of these factors. For risk
events, Bayesian network, fully considering geology,
design, construction, and management conditions and
their mutual dependence, is embedded into the CY-
CLONE model for quantitative analysis of the events in
each simulation cycle. The data and the application ex-
ample presented in this article are limited to the conven-
tional tunneling method, such as drilling and blasting
method. The approach will be extended to the schedule
risk analysis of mechanized tunneling with use of TBM.
The article begins with an overall research framework
presented in Section 2. Then, methodology of prob-
abilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction
simulation is introduced in Section 3, including model-
ing of the probabilistic risk analysis model, fine anal-
ysis of ordinary risk factors, and quantitative calcula-
tion of risk event occurrence probability using Bayesian
network. Next, in Section 4, solving process based on
discrete event simulation (DES) and Monte Carlo simu-
lation is described in detail. Finally, the proposed proba-
bilistic risk analysis approach is applied to an illustrative
case study, and the feasibility of the approach is verified.
2 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
The research framework of probabilistic risk analysis
of diversion tunnel construction simulation is shown in
Figure 1. It consists of four layers, namely, (1) param-
eter layer, (2) model layer, (3) method layer, and (4)
index layer.
Parameter layer embraces all the parameters needed
for analysis, including simulation parameters, and pa-
rameters of ordinary risk factors and risk events. The
detailed explanation of input parameters can be found
in Section 3. Model layer refers to the established
probabilistic risk analysis model of diversion tunnel
construction simulation, which fully considers ordinary
risk factors and risk events during tunnel construction.
Method layer consists of DES method and Monte Carlo
simulation, which are utilized to solve the model. The
detailed solving process is described in Section 4. Even-
tually, construction duration, completion probability,
and activity criticality index (ACI) can be obtained for
tunnel schedule risk analysis.
3 METHODOLOGY OF PROBABILISTIC RISK
ANALYSIS OF DIVERSION TUNNEL
CONSTRUCTION SIMULATION
The methodology of probabilistic risk analysis of diver-
sion tunnel construction simulation consists of various
751
methods and parameters. The mathematical model is
built to present the overall model architecture and logi-
cal relationship between different methods. The mathe-
matical model of probabilistic risk analysis of diversion
tunnel construction simulation is shown in Figure 2.
The model is composed of four parts. Part  1 defines
the theoretical method set M of the model framework,
including simulation method (MSIM ) and risk analy-
sis method (MRISK ). MSIM can be subdivided into CY-
CLONE modeling method (MCO ) and CPM network
planning modeling method (MCM ), which reflect the hi-
erarchical characteristics of simulation structure. MRISK
can be subdivided into analysis method of ordinary risk
factors (MOR ) and that of risk events (MER ). Part  2
defines the parameter sets of simulation method, which
are the basic parameters of the model. Specifically, PCO
is the parameter set of MCO . The input parameters refer
to parameters required to simulate tunnel construction
cycle considering ordinary risk factors and risk events,
including cyclic simulation parameters (ICO ), parame-
ters about the impact of ordinary risk factors (IOR ), and
parameters about the impact of risk events (IER ). The
output parameters (OCO ) represent output of each sim-
ulation cycle. For diversion tunnel, ICO embraces tunnel
structural parameters, blasting parameters, equipment
parameters, etc. IOR means the probability distributions
of durations of tunnel excavation operations. IER is on
behalf of the occurrence probability and consequence
of risk events in each cycle. OCO includes duration of
each footage driving cycle, equipment productivity, etc.
PCM is the parameter set of MCM . The input parame-
ters include parameters required for schedule analysis,
such as simulation activities (ISIM ), nonsimulation activ-
ity (INON ), and logical relationship between the activi-
ties (IR ). The output parameters (OCM ) consist of total
duration, completion probability of planned duration,
activity critical index, etc. Because simulation activity
is composed of several construction cycles, f1 reflects
the relationship between MCM and MCO , and shows
the hierarchical characteristics of simulation structure.
Part  3 defines the parameter sets of risk analysis ap-
proach. These parameters determine the rationality and
effectiveness of risk analysis method, and are the most
important parameters in the mathematical model. POR
is the parameter set of MOR . The input parameters
include statistical data of each operation time (IOR ),
which are collected from similar project or completed
part of the project, and output parameters (OOR ) re-
fer to distributions of operation durations. PER is the
parameter set of MER . The input parameters represent
parameters required for calculating occurrence proba-
bility of risk events with Bayesian network, incorporat-
ing nodes of Bayesian network (INO ), joint probabil-
ity distribution (JPD) of risk event (IJPD ), conditional
752 Yu et al.

Fig. 1. Research framework of probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation.

Fig. 2. Mathematical model of probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation.

probability table (CPT) between each node (ICPT ), and
parameters used for analyzing consequences of risk
events (ICON ). When analyzing the risk events of di-
version tunnel, Bayesian network nodes embrace ge-
ology condition, design condition, construction condi-
tion, management condition, and the occurrence of risk
events. Output parameters embrace occurrence proba-
bility (OPRO ) and consequence (OCON ) of risk events.
Part  4 defines the relationship between simulation
method (MSIM ) and risk analysis method (MRISK ). In
the CYCLONE modeling method, impact of ordinary
risk factors (IOR ) can be expressed with fitted proba-
bility distributions (OOR ). Therefore, f2 reflects the re-
lation between MCO and MOR . Because impact of risk
events (IOR ) can be analyzed with occurrence probabil-
ity (OPRO ) and consequence (OCON ) of the events, f3
reflects the relation between MCO and MER .
The core of the mathematical model can be summa-
rized as defining simulation approach coupling CPM
and CYCLONE, defining risk analysis method studying
both ordinary risk factors and risk events, and clarifying
relationship between the two approaches, so as to
realize comprehensive and effective tunnel schedule
risk analysis. Apart from diversion tunnel constructed
with conventional tunneling methods such as drilling
and blasting approach, the mathematical model can be
generalized in TBM tunneling (Borrmann et al., 2015)
or other construction engineering, whose construction
 Probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation
processes are repetitive and affected by both ordinary
risk factors and risk events. When applying to other
projects, the input simulation parameters (ICO ), node
parameters of Bayesian network (INO ), which represent
the factors considered in risk events analysis, JPD
of risk event occurrence (IJPD ), CPT between each
node (ICPT ) need to be determined considering project
characteristics. For the TBM method, the biggest
difference from conventional tunneling approach lies
in the construction technology instead of potential risk
events, as the working environment of the two methods
are similar. Therefore, when studying the schedule
risk of TBM tunneling, the simulation parameters
(ICO ) are mainly required to adjust according to the
cyclic feature of TBM construction, including TBM
relocation, checking, boring, transportation of muck,
TBM advancing, shifting, liner installation, etc. The
parameters about risk analysis can refer to that used in
drilling and blasting method.
3.1 Overall structure of probabilistic risk analysis
model of diversion tunnel construction simulation
The probabilistic risk analysis model of diversion tunnel
construction simulation, which considers both ordinary
risk factors and risk events, is set up in this study, and
the overall structure of this model is shown in Figure 3.
The model is established based on a hierarchical simu-
lation framework coupling the CPM network and CY-
CLONE. The CPM network embraces simulation activ-
ities and nonsimulation activities. Simulation activities,
such as excavation activities, are studied using the CY-
CLONE model. Nonsimulation activities include lining,
grouting, and other activities. The durations of the non-
simulation activities are hard to measure directly and
are obtained with engineering analogy method (Bi et al.,
2014). The CYCLONE model reflects the cyclic process
of tunnel excavation. This process is repeated until all
the work of simulation activity is finished. For symbol
definitions at the CYCLONE level, refer to Lin et al.
(2011).
Based on the hierarchical simulation framework, the
impacts that ordinary risk factors and risk events ex-
ert on tunnel excavation are taken into account. For
ordinary risk factors, their impacts on measurement,
drilling, blasting, and other unit operations in CY-
CLONE and nonsimulation activities in the CPM net-
work are studied. It needs to be noted that as durations
of drilling and rubble removal are calculated according
to the selected mechanical quantity and working effi-
ciency in simulation, the impact of ordinary risk factors
on these two operations can be reflected by studying
the factors’ effect on working efficiency of drills, dump
trucks, and loaders. Analysis of ordinary risk factors is
753
described in detail in Section 3.2. In regard to risk events
such as tunnel collapse, a Bayesian network is embed-
ded into CYCLONE to calculate the occurrence proba-
bility P of risk event, with comprehensive consideration
of geological condition G, design condition D, construc-
tion condition C, and management condition M, and
their mutual dependence. The detailed calculation pro-
cess of occurrence probability is introduced in Section
3.3.1, and the consequence analysis of risk events is de-
scribed in Section 3.3.2.
The established probabilistic risk analysis model is
not a deterministic model, whose uncertainties are re-
flected in two aspects:
1. The variance of model parameters. The durations
of operations in CYCLONE and nonsimulation
activities in CPM network are defined with certain
probability distributions considering the effect of
ordinary risk factors. In addition, footage driving
cycle, blasting parameters, and other input param-
eters will change under diverse geological condi-
tions.
2. The variance of model logical relationship. Dur-
ing tunnel construction, when risk events occur in
an excavation cycle, recovery activity for event dis-
posing of is adopted, and the active vector line
will connect to the upper available vector line, as
is shown in Figure 3. It will affect operation se-
quences, and logical relationship between activi-
ties will change.
3.2 Ordinary risk factors analysis of diversion tunnel
According to Isaksson and Stille (2005) and Hulett
(2009), the variation caused by ordinary risk factors can
be described by a continuous distribution. Therefore,
the working efficiency of drills, dump trucks, and load-
ers, and operations in CYCLONE, except for drilling
and rubble removal, are endowed with certain probabil-
ity distributions. These distributions are determined us-
ing the BestFit technology through analyzing data col-
lected from similar project or completed part of the
project.
For lining, grouting, and other nonsimulation activi-
ties in CPM, these processes can be divided into quan-
tities of small operations, whose durations follow ran-
dom distribution. According to central limit theorem
(Castillo et al., 2014), the duration distributions of these
activities can be approximately regarded as normal. The
mean value and standard deviation can be determined
with comprehensive consideration of project character-
istic and expert experience.
754
Fig. 3. Overall structure of probabilistic risk analysis model of diversion tunnel construction simulation.
3.3 Risk events analysis of diversion tunnel
Risk events, such as collapse, tunnel flooding, rockburst,
etc., will exert a serious impact on the construction
schedule. The occurrence of these events not only has a
close relationship with geological conditions, which are
regarded as external factors affecting tunnel construc-
tion, but also depends on other internal factors, such
as design, construction, and management (Zhang et al.,
2015). Therefore, this study pays attention to geology,
design, construction, and management conditions of
diversion tunnel, takes advantage of Bayesian network
to model the dependencies between these causes, and
finally calculates the occurrence probability of risk
events in each excavation cycle.
It is assumed that only one risk event may occur
within each segment (Špačková and Straub, 2013).
Therefore, the selected length of a segment must be
Yu et al.
short enough to justify this assumption. In addition,
according to Špačková and Straub (2011), when conven-
tional construction method, such as drilling and blasting
approach, is adopted, the length of section should
not be selected shorter than the typical excavation
cycle length. Therefore, simultaneously considering the
two requirements, the segment length is selected as
excavation cycle length.
3.3.1 Calculation of occurrence probability with
Bayesian network. Bayesian network is a concise
graphical structure for representing the probabilistic
relationships among plenty of stochastic variables and
performing probabilistic interface with those variables
(Neapolitan, 2004; Rostami, 2012; Abimbola et al.,
2015).
The Bayesian network is a type of graph model based
on Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) (Abimbola et al.,
 Probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation
Fig. 4. Bayesian network model for calculating occurrence
probability of risk events.
2015). It is composed of qualitative and quantitative
components (Cai et al., 2013). The qualitative element
is represented by a network structure consisting of
nodes and a set of directed edges (dependencies). The
quantitative component is expressed by the assignment
of conditional probability distributions to the nodes.
Considering the conditional dependencies of variables,
Bayesian network can represent the JPD P(V) of vari-
ables V = {X1 , X2 , . . . ,Xn } as follows:

n
P(X 1 , X 2 , ..., X n ) = P(X i |Pai )
i=1
where Pai is the parent node set of nodeX i , and n repre-
sents the number of variables.
The node variables X i can be divided into discrete
variables, continuous variables, and hybrid discrete-
continuous variables, which respectively correspond to
discrete Bayesian network, continuous Bayesian net-
work, and hybrid Bayesian network. A Bayesian net-
work fully considering geology, design, construction,
and management conditions and their mutual depen-
dence is established in this article, as is shown in
Figure 4. In the network, the node of geology condition
owns three states, namely, good, fair, and poor. In ad-
dition, the nodes of design, construction, and manage-
ment are all binary variables. Therefore, as all nodes are
discrete variables, the established Bayesian network in
this article is discrete Bayesian network.
Geological condition is one of the significant factors
affecting the occurrence of risk events such as tunnel
collapse (Wang et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2015). The ge-
ological condition (G) in established Bayesian network
can be divided into three categories, including good ge-
ology (G1 ), fair geology (G2 ), and poor geology (G3 ).
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system, a rock classifica-
tion system developed by Bieniawsk, is regarded as the
judgment criteria. The RMR system employs six input
parameters, namely, the uniaxial compressive strength
755
(UCS) of intact rock material, rock quality designation
(RQD), joint or discontinuity spacing, joint condition,
groundwater condition, and an adjustment for joint ori-
entation to classify rock mass (Hamidi et al., 2010).
Each of the six parameters is assigned a value derived
from field surveys and laboratory tests, and RMR value
is determined as an algebraic sum of ratings for the six
parameters, which lies between 0 and 100. On the basis
of RMR value, the rock mass is sorted into five classes,
namely, very good (class I, RMR 100–81), good (class
II, RMR 80–61), fair (class III, RMR 60–41), poor (class
IV, RMR 40–21), and very poor (class V, RMR < 20).
In this study, rock classes I and II are classified as good
geology (G1 ), rock class III is identified as fair geology
(G2 ), and rock classes IV and V are categorized as poor
geology (G3 ).
In addition, the nodes of design condition (D), con-
struction condition (C), and management conditon (M)
all have two states, corresponding to reasonable de-
sign (D1 ) and unreasonable design (D2 ), proper con-
struction (C1 ) and improper construction (C2 ), and ef-
fective management (M1 ) and poor management (M2 ).
Specifically, unreasonable design includes wrong choice
of construction method, inappropriate support parame-
ters, inadequate planning for emergency measures, etc.
Improper construction embraces lag in primary support,
(1) disqualification in the lining thickness, etc. Poor man-
agement incorporates inexperienced site management,
inadequate emergency response measures, etc. It is be-
lieved that adverse geological condition will greatly en-
hance the difficulty in reasonable design of construc-
tion parameters, proper implementation of construction
technology, and efficient management of construction
process. Therefore, the design, construction, and man-
agement are all thought to be related to geological con-
dition. Considering geology, design, construction, and
management conditions and their mutual dependence,
a Bayesian network, shown in Figure 4, is utilized to
calculate occurrence probabilities of risk events in each
excavation cycle under good geology (G1 ), fair geology
(G2 ), and poor geology (G3 ). The occurrence probabil-
ities of risk events are respectively denoted as P(A|G 1 ),
P(A|G 2 ), and P(A|G 3 ).
3.3.2 Consequence analysis of risk events. The occur-
rence of tunnel collapse and other risk events will lead
to construction suspension and seriously affect tunnel
schedule. Project delays resulting from risk events were
analyzed by Sousa (2010) and Špačková et al. (2013).
Sousa studied 64 tunnel construction risk events. Nev-
ertheless, among the 64 risk events, only one case of
a delay was shorter than 60 days. It may be likely that
events leading to short delays were not included in the
database. Based on the study of Sousa, Špačková took
756 Yu et al.
risk events, which led to delays between 15 and 60 days,
into consideration and determined the cumulative prob-
ability distribution function of consequence, as is shown
in Equation (2):
F(d) = 1 − exp(−0.0062(d − 15)) (2)
where F(d) is the cumulative probability density func-
tion representing the probability that the delay is no
longer than d days.
This article adopts the approach proposed by
Špačková to analyze the consequence of risk events. It
is assumed that the delay resulting from risk events is
no less than 15 days and the probability density func-
tion Dgeo (d), which means the probability of delay with
d days, can be obtained as the first derivative of F(d):
Dgeo (d) = 0.0062exp( − 0.0062(d − 15)) (3)
4 SOLVING PROCESS BASED ON DES AND
MONTE CARLO SIMULATION
DES method and Monte Carlo simulation (Argyroudis
et al., 2015; Tondini et al., 2015) are utilized to solve the
probabilistic risk analysis model. Considering the estab-
lished hierarchical simulation structure, global simula-
tion clock and local simulation clock (Zhong and Liu,
2003) are respectively set to advance the simulation pro-
cess of the CPM model and the CYCLONE model. It
allows for simulating the excavation process of diver-
sion tunnel at both activity level and operation level,
and guarantees the efficiency and refinement of simu-
lation process. The two simulation clocks adopt next-
event time advance (Law et al., 2013) to record running
trajectory of simulation time. In the running process of
global simulation clock, the duration of nonsimulation
activity is obtained with Monte Carlo sampling. When
global simulation clock reaches a simulation activity, lo-
cal simulation clock is invoked to simulate the cyclic ex-
cavation process of tunnel.
In each simulation cycle, the operation time is gen-
erated with Monte Carlo sampling according to the fit-
ted probability distribution, which can reflect the impact
of ordinary risk factors. In addition, the impact of risk
events is considered in each cycle, whose occurrence
probability is calculated using a Bayesian network, with
comprehensive consideration of geology, design, con-
struction, and management conditions and their mu-
tual dependence. When local simulation clock comes
to the end, its state is fed back to global simulation
clock and global simulation clock continues running un-
til the end. Construction duration and critical path can
be obtained in each simulation. Completion probabil-
ity, which means the probability of completing a project
within a specified time (Lee, 2005), and ACI, showing
the probability that an activity falls on the critical path
(Ghomi and Teimouri, 2002), are finally calculated af-
ter repeating simulation for multiple times. The detailed
solving process based on DES and Monte Carlo simula-
tion is presented in Figure 5.
The number of simulation times N is determined
according to the error range between duration sam-
ple average and expected value (Johnson, 2002). The
results of N simulations are respectively denoted  N as
[T1 , T2 , ..., TN ]. The mean value is T = 1/N i=1 Ti ,
N 2
and variance is S = 1/(N − 1) i=1 (Ti − T ) . μ is the
2
expected value of construction durations and σ 2 is the
population variance. T1 , T2 , ..., TN are independent and
identically distributed, and S 2 is the consistent estimate
of σ 2 . Therefore, according to the central limit theorem,
when N is large enough, the following equations can be
obtained:

Z = (T − μ)/ S 2 /N ∼ N (0, 1) (4)
(x) means probability distribution of random variable
x, which obeys standard normal distribution X N(0,1),
and β is the confidence level:
 
 T −μ 
 
P(   ≤ V ) = (V ) − (−V ) = β (5)
 S 2 /N 

Denote ω = V. S 2 /N , when absolute error requires
to be less than ω and confidence level is β, the error
function can be expressed as
 
P(T − μ ≤ ω) = β (6)
Considering the requirements of schedule risk analy-
sis of diversion tunnel, β = 0.95, ω = 1.5 days. Accord-
ing to normal distribution, (V ) = (β + 1)/2 = 0.975,
and V = 1.96 after checking normal distribution ta-
ble. For the pressure pipes analyzed in the case study,
3,000 simulations, which take into account both ordi-
nary risk factors and risk events, are first conducted to
obtain sample variance S2 = 5294.934. To meet accuracy
requirement, simulation number needs to be at least
N = V 2 S 2 /ω2 = 9,040. For statistical convenience, the
simulation time is N = 10,000.
5 CASE STUDY
5.1 Project description
Two pressure pipes are located behind a diversion tun-
nel to convey the water from diversion tunnel to the
turbine for power generation in a hydropower station.
The two pipes comprise upper section, vertical shaft sec-
tion, and lower section. Drilling and blasting method
 Probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation 757

Fig. 5. Solving process based on DES and Monte Carlo simulation.

is adopted for the excavation of the pressure pipes.
The construction of upper section can start after the
completion of M4 auxiliary tunnel, and the lower sec-
tion is able to be excavated following the finish of M1
auxiliary tunnel. The vertical shaft can be constructed
when the upper section is finished. Specifically, a pilot
hole is first drilled from top to bottom. Then, the hole
is extended to be a pilot shaft in the opposite direc-
tion. Finally, the vertical shaft is excavated downwards
with drilling and blasting method. The rock type and
excavation process of pressure pipes are presented in
Figure 6.
The two pressure pipes are planned to be completed
within 1,176 days. The proposed probabilistic risk
758 Yu et al.
Fig. 6. Rock type and excavation process of two pressure pipes.
analysis method of diversion tunnel construction simu-
lation is applied to analyze excavation process and study
schedule risk of the pressure pipes.
5.2 Establishment of CPM network of pressure pipes
The CPM network of pressure pipes is established based
on the layout and excavation direction, as shown in
Figure 7. Squares in the network represent simulation
activities and the circles mean nonsimulation activities.
Definitions of diverse excavation sections of the pres-
sure pipes are shown in Figure 6.
5.3 Probabilistic risk analysis of pressure pipes
The impacts that ordinary risk factors and risk events
exert on the construction of pressure pipes are ana-
lyzed based on hierarchical simulation structure cou-
pling CPM network and CYCLONE model.
5.3.1 Analysis of ordinary risk factors. The effect that
ordinary risk factors make on construction can be
reflected by continuous probability distribution. For
simulation activity, operations in CYCLONE model,
including measurement, blasting, ventilation, security
inspection, clearing, shotcrete-bolt support, working
efficiency of drill and loader, and velocity of transport-
ing rubble and return, are endowed with appropriate
probability distributions.
Distributions of these simulation parameters are
fitted based on data collected from completed part
of the pressure pipes using the BestFit software.
BestFit is a distribution-fitting software that performs
well in finding the statistical distribution function
that best fits a data set (Jankauskas and Mclafferty,
1996). More than 60 distributions, including Normal,
Gamma, Lognormal, Weill, etc., are provided in the
software. When selecting the best fit for input data,
for each distribution type, BestFit first estimates pa-
rameters values using maximum-likelihood estimators
(MLEs) (Teimouri and Nadarajah, 2013; Asgharzadeh
et al., 2013), then optimizes the parameters with the
Levenberg–Marquardt method (Ueda and Yamashita,
2010), an algorithm that maximizes the goodness-of-fit
between a data set and a distribution function. BestFit
offers three goodness-of-fit tests: chi-square (Adekped-
jou et al., 2015), Kolmogorov–Smirnov (Wang et al.,
2011; Lekomtcev et al., 2014), and Anderson–Darling
(Coronel-Brizio and Hernandez-Montoya, 2010;
Ashkar et al., 2012), and the function with the lowest
goodness-of-fit values is considered as the best fit. In
 Probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation
Fig. 7. CPM network of pressure pipes.
this article, chi-square is adopted for goodness-of-fit
measurement.
The data used for optimal distribution fitting are
collected from the onsite construction record of the
completed sections of the pressure pipes. Due to space
limitations, Figure 8 presents fitting results of security
inspection and shotcrete-bolt support with the BestFit
technology. Detailed fitting results of each parameter
are shown in Table 1.
It can be learned from Table 1 that except for ven-
tilation, whose duration is thought to be constant, the
durations of other operations, including measurement,
blasting, security inspection, clearing, and shotcrete-
bolt support, all follow the skewed distributions. The
skewness values of these distributions are all positive,
which indicates that the tail on the right side of the
distributions is longer than the left side, as is pre-
sented in Figure 8. It is because during construction of
measurement, blasting, security inspection, and other
759
operations, the delay of material supply and worker
arrival will significantly increase the durations of op-
erations. Furthermore, in the skewed distributions, the
kurtosis values are all greater than three. It indicates
that these distributions are heavy-tailed, which reflects
the large dispersion of activity durations due to impact
of risk factors. With the largest skewness and kurtosis of
duration distribution, shotcrete-bolt support is thought
to have higher uncertainty than other operations and
needs more attention during tunnel excavation.
Chi-square test (Satorra and Bentler, 2001) is used to
justify the selected distributions, and the test results are
presented in Table 2. Because the ventilation time is de-
fined to be constant, it is not required to be justified.
It can be learned from the results that, for each sim-
ulation parameter, the statistical value (Dn ) is smaller
than threshold (Dn,0.05 ) under the significance level of
0.05, which justifies the rationality of the selected distri-
butions of simulation parameters.
760 Yu et al.
Fig. 8. Fitting results of security inspection and shotcrete-bolt support.
Regarding lining, grouting, and other nonsimulation
activities, their distributions are thought to obey normal
distribution according to central limit theorem, as is ex-
plained in Section 3.2. The mean value and standard de-
viation are determined combining construction feature
of this project and expert experience. The duration dis-
tributions and coefficients of variation of nonsimulation
activities are presented in Table 3.
With comparison of the coefficients of variation of
diverse nonsimulation activities, it can be learnt that
drilling of pilot hole and expanding of pilot shaft have
higher uncertainty than that of other nonsimulation
activities, due to their larger coefficients of variation
presented with bold font in Table 3. Therefore, more
attention should be paid to the drilling of pilot hole and
expanding of pilot shaft during construction.
5.3.2 Analysis of risk events. Risk events such as col-
lapse are likely to occur in each excavation cycle.
Figure 4 shows that the occurrence of risk events (A)
has a relationship with geological condition (G), design
condition (D), construction condition (C), and manage-
ment condition (M). Moreover, design, construction,
and management situations are all affected by geologi-
cal condition. Therefore, geological condition (G) is the
root node of this Bayesian network, and plays a critical
role in analyzing occurrence of risk events.
The determination of JPD and CPT is critical for the
establishment of Bayesian network. There are generally
three approaches to constructing a Bayesian network:
(1) learning from quantities of training data; (2) depend-
ing on experiences of domain experts; and (3) hybrid
method (Chen and Leu, 2014). The second approach is
chosen in this study as the training data are limited, and
Delphi technology (Billig and Thrän, 2016) is adopted
to build a consensus on the determination of JPD and
CPT.

2 
2 
2

P(A |G i ) = P(A Dj Ck Mm Gi ).P(Dj |Gi ).
m=1 k=1 j=1
P(Ck |G i ).P(Mm |G i ) i = 1, 2, 3 (7)
Thirty experts, including senior engineers, project
managers, and consultants, make up the panel mem-
bers. The probability scales shown in Tables 4
 Probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation 761

Table 1
Detailed fitting results of simulation parameters

Parameters

Standard Probability
Name (unit) Mean Median Mode deviation Skewness Kurtosis distribution
Measurement (min) 60.64 59.06 56.19 12.96 0.686 3.706 Gamma
Blasting (min) 65.13 62.41 57.20 23.39 0.742 3.995 Lognormal
Ventilation (min) 70.00 70.00 70.00 0.00 – – Constant
Security inspection (min) 53.58 50.45 44.08 23.07 0.824 4.012 Gamma
Clearing (min) 61.26 58.51 52.15 24.96 0.601 3.191 Weibull
Shotcrete-bolt support (min) 160.03 148.28 127.44 63.54 1.325 6.275 Lognormal
Production rate of drilling 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.0196 0.00 3.0 Normal
machine (m/min)
Production rate of loading 60 60 60 1.98 0.00 3.0 Normal
machine (m3 /h)
Velocity of transporting (km/h) 20 20 20 2.32 0.00 3.0 Normal
Velocity of returning (km/h) 25 25 25 2.06 0.00 3.0 Normal

Table 2
Results of chi-square test

Simulation parameters Degrees of freedom n Significance level α Threshold Dn,α Statistical value Dn
Measurement 5 0.05 11.071 7.8526
Blasting 6 0.05 12.592 8.1743
Security inspection 6 0.05 12.592 4.3977
Clearing 6 0.05 12.592 5.9627
Shotcrete-bolt support 5 0.05 11.071 3.1519
Production rate of drilling machine 6 0.05 12.592 5.6892
Production rate of loading machine 7 0.05 14.067 7.1857
Velocity of transporting 5 0.05 11.071 6.5742
Velocity of returning 6 0.05 12.592 5.4983

(Edwards, 1995) and 5 (Wang, 2004) with both verbal
and numerical expressions are used for determining the
probability. Table 5 is particularly suitable for study-
ing event or condition with small occurrence probabil-
ity. Iterative questionnaires are generally required for
reaching a consensus, and the results of the previous
questionnaires are returned to the respondents, who are
then allowed to modify their responses. In this study,
the degree of consensus is measured in terms of abso-
lute deviation (e.g., standard deviation). When Table 4
is adopted for probability analysis, the target value is an
average absolute deviation of less than 0.01 on proba-
bility. When Table 5 is chosen, the target value turns to
be 10−6 .
The JPD is determined using Table 4. Under the cir-
cumstance of reasonable design, proper construction,
and effective management, the verbal expressions of the
occurrence of risk events are all “impossible” regardless
of geological conditions. However, it is believed that
there is still difference between occurrence probabili-
ties under diverse geological conditions. Therefore, oc-
currence probabilities of risk events under satisfactory
design, construction and management conditions, and
diverse geological conditions are determined according
to Table 5. In addition, when geology, design, construc-
tion, and management are all under adverse conditions,
the occurrence probability of risk events is 0.99 in accor-
dance with Table 4. However, experts point out that risk
event is certain to happen under such condition, then
the occurrence probability is adjusted to be 1. When it
comes to conditional probability, because the probabili-
ties of unreasonable design, improper construction, and
poor management under diverse geological conditions
in each excavation cycle are thought to be quite small,
Table 5 is chosen for analysis. The determined JPD and
CPT are presented in Tables 6 and 7.
762 Yu et al.

Table 3
Duration distributions and coefficients of variation of nonsimulation activities

Activity number Activity name Duration distribution N (a, b) Coefficient of variation (×10−2 )
6 Lining of 1# shaft section N (240, 6.75) 2.81
7 Grouting of 1# shaft section N (135, 5.21) 3.86
8 Lining of section 2 of 1# upper section N (30, 2.12) 7.07
9 Lining of 1# lower section N (200, 6.51) 3.26
14 Steel liner installation of 1# lower section N (343, 7.37) 2.15
15 Plugging between M1 and 1# lower section N (60, 2.54) 4.23
13 Steel liner installation of 2# lower section N (425, 7.85) 1.85
17 Lining of 2# lower section N (217, 6.32) 2.91
18 Plugging of M6 auxiliary tunnel N (70, 2.62) 3.74
19 Plugging between M1 and 2# lower section N (50, 2.47) 4.94
20 Lining of 2# shaft section N (236, 6.64) 2.81
21 Lining of section 2 of 2# upper section N (32, 2.05) 6.41
22 Grouting of 2# shaft section N (120, 5.04) 4.20
23 Plugging between M4 and 2# upper section N (55, 2.68) 4.87
27 Drilling of 2# pilot hole N (44, 4.54) 10.32
28 Expanding of 2# pilot shaft N (53, 4.75) 8.96
30 Lining of section 1 of 2# upper section N (322, 7.17) 2.23
31 Lining of section 1 of 1# upper section N (388, 7.72) 1.99
32 Plugging of M5 auxiliary tunnel N (40, 1.95) 4.88
33 Plugging between M4 and 1# upper section N (30, 1.89) 6.30
36 Drilling of 1# pilot hole N (44, 4.42) 10.05
37 Expanding of 1# pilot shaft N (52, 4.68) 9.00
Note: In normal distribution N(a,b), a represents the mean value of activity duration, whose unit is day, and b means the standard deviation of
activity duration.

Table 4
Probability elicitation scale 1

Impossible Improbable Uncertain 50-50 Somewhat expected Probable Certain

1% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 99%

The occurrence probability of risk events under good Table 5

geology (G1 ), fair geology (G2 ), and poor geology (G3 ) Probability elicitation scale 2
can be calculated with Equation (7).
Risk level Verbal expressions of risk level Probability scale
The definitions of A, Dj (j = 1, 2), Ck (k = 1,
2), and Mm (m = 1, 2) are explained in Section 1 Very large [0.1, 1]
3.3.1. P(A|D j Ck Mm G i ) refers to the JPD presented in 2 Large [0.01, 0.1]
3 Medium [0.001, 0.01]
Table 6. P(D j |G i ), P(Ck |G i ), and P(Mm |G i ) can be ob-
4 Small [0.000001, 0.001]
tained according to conditional probability in Table 7.
5 Very small [0, 0.000001]
According to Table 6, Table 7, and Equation (7), oc-
currence probabilities of risk events under diverse geo-
logical conditions are calculated: P (occurrence| good
geology) = 7.2* 10−6 ; P (occurrence| fair geology) =
3.6* 10−5 ; P (occurrence| bad geology) = 1.02* 10−4 . agement conditions on the occurrence of risk events
The consequence of risk events can be expressed as is thought to be same, and is larger than that of ge-
Equation (3) in Section 3.3.2. ological condition. It reflects that although geological
More information can be found from Tables 6 and condition will influence the occurrence of risk events,
7. Table 6 shows the JPD of risk events. It can be experts believe that the performance of engineer in de-
learnt that the impact of design, construction, and man- sign, construction, and management is more important
 Probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation 763

Table 6 stages of tunnel engineering, especially at construction

JPD of occurrence of risk events (A) stage.
Dj (j = Ck (k Mm (m
Gi (i = 1, 2, 3) 1,2) = 1,2) = 1,2) P(A|D j Ck Mm G i )
D1 C1 M1 0 5.4 Simulation result analysis
D2 C1 M1 0.15
Construction simulations considering and without con-
D1 C2 M1 0.15
G1 D1 C1 M2 0.15
sidering risk events are both conducted 10,000 times and
D2 C2 M1 0.5 simulation results are compared. The determination of
D1 C2 M2 0.5 simulation times refers to Section 4. With the proces-
D2 C1 M2 0.5 sor of Intel R
CoreTM i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz and the
D2 C2 M2 0.7 RAM capacity of 12.0 GB, the CPU times required by
the probabilistic risk analysis model, which fully consid-
D1 C1 M1 0.00002
D2 C1 M1 0.2 ers ordinary risk factors and risk events, are 446.675 sec-
D1 C2 M1 0.2 onds under 10,000 times simulation.
G2 D1 C1 M2 0.2 As shown in Figure 9, mean values of simulation
D2 C2 M1 0.65 durations considering and neglecting risk events are
D1 C2 M2 0.65 1,180 and 1,165 days, standard deviations are 70.91 and
D2 C1 M2 0.65 11.34, respectively, and the completion probabilities of
D2 C2 M2 0.85 planned duration (1,176 days) are 0.841 and 0.771. Thus,
D1 C1 M1 0.00005 consideration of risk events in tunnel simulation will
D2 C1 M1 0.4 lead to larger mean value and standard deviation, and
D1 C2 M1 0.4 lower completion probability of planned duration. Par-
G3 D1 C1 M2 0.4 ticularly, the standard deviation of simulation duration
D2 C2 M1 0.8 increases considerably when considering risk events,
D1 C2 M2 0.8 which is also evident from the tail behavior presented
D2 C1 M2 0.8 in Figure 10. This is because once a risk event occurs,
D2 C2 M2 1
it will exert great influence on the tunnel construction
and increase schedule risk, despite the low occurrence
probability.
Table 7 Activity duration will change due to the influence of
CPT between each node ordinary risk factors and risk events, leading to variance
of the critical path. Figure 11 shows the criticality anal-
D2 C2 M2
ysis result of each activity after 10,000 times simulation
G1 0.000015 0.000018 0.000015 considering risk events.
G2 0.000025 0.00003 0.000025 It can be observed that the criticalities of activities
G3 0.00004 0.00005 0.00004 1, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 19 are significantly larger than
those of other activities. Therefore, these activities are
critical activities affecting tunnel construction and need
to be attached great importance to in construction man-
in guaranteeing tunnel schedule. Table 7 reflects the agement.
influence of geological condition on design, construc- Not only can the results of 10,000 times simulation be
tion, and management. Experts believe that construc- analyzed, but detailed study of each simulation can be
tion is more sensitive to geology than design and man- realized. Taking one simulation as an example, the bar
agement, which have the same sensitivity to geologi- chart in Figure 12a shows that the total duration of this
cal condition. It is mainly embodied in two aspects. To simulation is 1,309 days and the critical path consists of
begin with, under same geological condition, the oc- activities 1, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 19. The detailed ex-
currence probabilities of unreasonable design and in- cavation process of 2# lower section, embracing section
effective management are the same and both smaller 1 (activity 10) and section 2 (activity 11), is shown in
than that of improper construction. In addition, as ge- Figure 12b. As is shown, when the cumulative excava-
ological condition going adverse, the increase degree tion length reaches 562 m, a risk event will occur in the
of occurrence probability of improper construction is next excavation cycle and the corresponding risk treat-
larger than that of the other two. Therefore, geological ment time is 131 days, which leads to major delay for
condition should be taken into account at different tunnel excavation.
764 Yu et al.

Fig. 9. Completion probability curves of excavation duration.

Fig. 10. Exceedance probability curves of duration.

5.5 Model verification ule does. Especially in the 700–725 m excavation sec-
tion, as water inflow occurred, whose processing time
The excavation process of 2# upper section is taken
was 25 days, the actual excavation efficiency decreased
as the research object for verification of the estab-
obviously, which led to greater deviation between actual
lished probabilistic risk analysis model of diversion tun-
and planned schedule. The pictures of the water inflow
nel construction simulation. The schedule obtained us-
and the treatment are presented in Figures 14 and 15.
ing probabilistic risk analysis model, actual schedule,
Because the proposed probabilistic risk analysis model
and planned schedule are compared in Figure 13. Be-
can comprehensively consider the impact that potential
cause construction duration varies in each simulation,
ordinary risk factors and risk events exert on pressure
the 1st, 50th, and 99th percentile curves are respec-
pipe construction, the actual schedule of 700–725 m and
tively drawn after analyzing 10,000 simulation results.
subsequent excavation section still lies between the 1st
The figure shows that the 50th value performs better in
and 99th value. Therefore, when compared with tradi-
matching with the actual schedule than planned sched-
tional construction schedule plan, the probabilistic risk
 Probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation
Fig. 11. Analysis of activity criticality after 10,000 times simulation considering risk events.
analysis model established in this article can fully take
potential risk into account, and realize effctive analysis
of construction process.
6 DISCUSSION
Schedules are major concerns in construction planning
(Adeli and Karim, 1997; Adeli and Wu, 1998; Karim
and Adeli, 1999a,b; Adeli and Karim, 2001; Senouci and
Adeli 2001). The potential risk during construction may
cause delay and the planned schedule cannot be success-
fully implemented.
The proposed probabilistic risk analysis method of di-
version tunnel construction simulation guarantees com-
prehensiveness and effectiveness of tunnel construction
risk analysis, which allows engineers to accurately es-
timate tunnel schedule and develop effective schedule
plan. Potential risk events (such as collapse) during
tunnel construction are taken into consideration in the
proposed method. It can be learnt from Figure 9 that
risk events influence mean value of simulation dura-
tion to some extent, and increase standard deviation,
namely, fluctuation of total duration, considerably,
which can be observed more obviously in Figure 10.
The minimum and maximum simulation durations
neglecting risk events are respectively 1,125 and 1,206
days, and the corresponding exceedance probability
curve, shown in Figure 10, is smooth without any
inflection point. When risk events are taken into
consideration, the minimum duration remains the
same, but the maximum value turns to be 2,320 days.
When it comes to the exceedance probability curve,
obvious turning is presented at point T = 1,200 days,
and the curve tail appears to be gentle and long. This
phenomenon is closely related to the low occurrence
probability and serious consequence of risk events.
765
Furthermore, the coefficient of variation of simulation
durations without risk events is 0.97%, and the value
increases to be 6% when considering risk events. The
difference demonstrates that the proposed probabilistic
risk analysis method facilitates comprehensive study of
tunnel construction risk and is conducive for accurate
estimation of construction schedule.
Besides ensuring comprehensiveness, the proposed
method performs distinctive advantages in realizing ef-
fective analysis of tunnel construction risk. For ordinary
risk factors, this approach pays attention to unit oper-
ations composing an excavation cycle, and studies the
factors’ impact on measurement, blasting, ventilation,
working efficiencies of drill, dump truck, and loader, etc.
When compared with existing approaches that take tun-
nel excavation section with certain length as research
object for analyzing ordinary risk factors (Špačková
and Straub, 2011, 2013; Špačková et al., 2013), this ap-
proach carries on research combining the cyclic features
of tunnel construction, and allows for analyzing the im-
pact of ordinary risk factors at operation level. For
risk events, the probabilistic risk analysis method takes
excavation cycle, the fundamental unit of tunnel con-
struction, for research, and quantitatively analyzes the
impact of risk events on each excavation cycle. Espe-
cially in terms of occurrence probability of risk events,
compared with other methods used in tunnel schedule
risk analysis, such as statistical analysis and expert ex-
perience (Špačková et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2014), the
proposed method studies the occurrence of risk events
from their root causes, namely, geological condition,
design condition, construction condition, management
condition, and the mutual dependence between these
causes, and utilizes Bayesian network to quantitatively
calculate risk occurrence probability in each excavation
cycle, which facilitates effective analysis of potential risk
events during tunnel construction.
766 Yu et al.

Fig. 12. Result analysis of one simulation: (a) Gantt chart of pressure pipe construction schedule; (b) detailed excavation process
of 2# lower section.

The proposed probabilistic risk analysis method can
be generalized in other tunnels of civil engineering con-
structions, such as highway tunnel, railway tunnel, etc.,
regardless of whether conventional tunneling method or
mechanical tunneling method is adopted. Tunnel con-
struction processes with diverse methods are all repet-
itive and involve numerous activities. In addition, the
excavation process is affected by both ordinary risk fac-
tors and risk events. The occurrence of risk events (e.g.,
tunnel collapse) is related to geology, design, construc-
tion, and management conditions, which are not inde-
pendent of each other. For these tunnel projects, the
presented probabilistic risk analysis approach could ef-
fectively describe cyclic construction process with hier-
archical simulation structure coupling CYCLONE and
CPM. Furthermore, based on the hierarchical model,
the impact of ordinary risk factors is allowed to be
finely analyzed at the operation level, and the influ-
ence that risk events exert on each excavation cycle can
be studied, taking into account geology, design, con-
struction, and management conditions and their mu-
tual relationship. Therefore, the proposed probabilistic
risk analysis method guarantees the comprehensive and
effective assessment of tunnel schedule risk, which facil-
itates the accurate estimation of construction schedule
and effective development of schedule plan.
There are still some limitations requiring further re-
search in future study. In the proposed probabilistic
 Probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation
Fig. 13. Comparison of schedule calculated with probabilistic risk analysis model, actual and planned schedule of 2# upper
section.
Fig. 14. Water inflow happened in 2# upper section.
Fig. 15. Treatment for water inflow.
risk analysis approach of diversion tunnel construc-
tion simulation, simulation parameters, such as prob-
ability distributions of operation durations, are deter-
mined based on data collected from completed section.
With the advancement of tunnel excavation, finding
an efficient approach for fully utilizing abundant con-
struction data to update parameters is of vital signif-
767
icance for accurately predicting tunnel construction.
Moreover, more efforts for collecting data about lining,
grouting, and diverse risk events such as water inflow,
rockburst, etc. should be made for further analysis of
tunnel schedule risk. In addition, as modern construc-
tion development tends toward digitalization and sys-
tematism, further research will aim to study a probabil-
ity risk analysis system of diversion tunnel. This system
can be applied to actual projects in practice and is more
convenient for designers and construction management
personnel.
7 CONCLUSIONS
A probabilistic risk analysis method of diversion tun-
nel construction simulation is proposed. It enables com-
prehensive and effective risk analysis of tunnel con-
struction by considering both ordinary risk factors and
risk events, which facilitates accurate estimation of con-
struction schedule and effective development of sched-
ule plan.
Considering the cyclic construction features of diver-
sion tunnel, the proposed method defines optimal prob-
ability distribution for measurement, blasting, ventila-
tion, and other operations in CYCLONE with BestFit
technology, so as to realize fine and effective analysis
of ordinary risk factors at the operation level of tunnel
construction.
Bayesian network is embedded into simulation pro-
gram to quantitatively analyze the occurrence proba-
bility of potential risk events in each simulation cycle,
taking geology, design, construction, and management
conditions and their mutual dependence into account.
It enables quantitative analysis of risk events from their
768 Yu et al.
underlying causes and facilitates effective analysis of im-
pact that risk events exert on each tunnel excavation
cycle.
The proposed probabilistic risk analysis method of
diversion tunnel construction simulation is applied to
analyze excavation process of pressure pipes, which
are located behind a diversion tunnel to convey the
water from diversion tunnel to the turbine for power
generation. Simulations considering and neglecting risk
events are respectively conducted 10,000 times. The
mean values and standard deviations of construction
durations and completion probabilities of planned du-
ration under the two situations can be obtained. The
results show that risk events will lead to the increase
of mean simulation duration, especially significant in-
crement of duration fluctuation, and decrease of com-
pletion probability. In addition, critical activities can be
found, which need to be attached great importance to
in practical tunnel schedule management. Finally, the
feasibility of the proposed probabilistic risk analysis ap-
proach in comprehensive and effective risk analysis is
validated.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was financially supported by Natural Sci-
ence Foundation of China (51679165), the National
Key Research and Development Program of China
2016YFC0401806, and Innovative Research Groups of
the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(51621092).
REFERENCES
Abimbola, M., Khan, F., Khakzad, N. & Butt, S. (2015), Safety
and risk analysis of managed pressure drilling operation us-
ing Bayesian network, Safety Science, 76, 133–44.
AbouRizk, S.M. & Hague, S. (2009), An overview of the
COSYE environment for construction simulation, in Pro-
ceedings of Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, Texas, pp.
2624–34.
AbouRizk, S.M. & Mohamed, Y. (2000), Simphony—an in-
tegrated environment for construction simulation, in Pro-
ceedings of Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, FL San
Diego, pp. 1907–14.
Adekpedjou, A., De Mel, W. A. & Zamba, G. K. (2015), Data
dependent cells chi-square test with recurrent events, Scan-
dinavian Journal of Statistics, 42(4), 1045–64.
Adeli, H. & Karim, A. (1997), Schedulingcost optimiza-
tion and neural dynamics model for construction, Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(4), 3–
20(18).
Adeli, H. & Karim, A. (2001), Construction Scheduling,
Cost Optimization, and Management-A New Model Based
on Neurocomputing and Object Technologies, Spon Press,
London.
Adeli, H. & Wu, M. (1998), Regularization neural network for
construction cost estimation, Journal of Construction Engi-
neering and Management, 124(1), 18–24.
Al-Bataineh, M., AbouRizk, S. & Parkis, H. (2013), Using
simulation to plan tunnel construction, Journal of Construc-
tion Engineering and Management, 139(5), 564–71.
Aliahmadi, A., Sadjadi, S. J. & Jafari-Eskandari, M. (2011),
Design a new intelligence expert decision making using
game theory and fuzzy AHP to risk management in design,
construction, and operation of tunnel projects (case stud-
ies: Resalat Tunnel), The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 53(5-8), 789–98.
Alvanchi, A., Lee, S. H. & AbouRizk, S. (2011), Modeling
framework and architecture of hybrid system dynamics and
discrete event simulation for construction, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 26(2), 77–91.
Argyroudis, S., Selva, J., Gehl, P. & Pitilakis, K. (2015), Sys-
temic seismic risk assessment of road networks considering
interactions with the built environment, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 30(7), 524–40.
Asgharzadeh, A., Esmaily, L. & Nadarajah, S. (2013), Ap-
proximate MLEs for the location and scale parameters of
the skew logistic distribution, Statistical Papers, 54(2), 391–
411.
Ashkar, F., Aucoin, F., Choulakian, V. & Vautour, C. (2012),
Cramér-von Mises and Anderson-Darling goodness-of-fit
tests for the two-parameter kappa distribution, Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering, 18(12), 1749–57.
Bhandari, J., Abbassi, R., Garaniya, V. & Khan, F. (2015),
Risk analysis of deepwater drilling operations using
Bayesian network, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Pro-
cess Industries, 38, 11–23.
Bi, L., Ren, B., Zhong, D. & Hu, L. (2014), Real-time con-
struction schedule analysis of long-distance diversion tun-
nels based on lithological predictions using a Markov pro-
cess, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
141(2), 1–16.
Billig, E. & Thrän, D. (2016), Evaluation of biomethane tech-
nologies in Europe – technical concepts under the scope of
a Delphi-survey embedded in a multi-criteria analysis, En-
ergy, 114, 1176–86.
Borrmann, A., Kolbe, T. H., Donaubauer, A., Steuer, H.,
Jubierre, J. R. & Flurl, M. (2015), Multi-scale geometric-
semantic modeling of shield tunnels for GIS and BIM ap-
plications, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engi-
neering, 30(4), 263–81.
Cai, B., Liu, Y., Liu, Z., Tian, X., Zhang, Y. & Ji, R. (2013),
Application of Bayesian networks in quantitative risk as-
sessment of subsea blowout preventer operations, Risk
Analysis, 33(7), 1293–311.
Castillo, E., Calviño, A., Nogal, M. & Lo, H. K. (2014), On
the probabilistic and physical consistency of traffic random
variables and models, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastruc-
ture Engineering, 29(7), 496–517.
Chan, M. H. C. (1981), A geological prediction and updating
model in tunneling, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA.
Chang, D. Y. (1986), RESQUE: a resource based simulation
system for construction process planning, Ph.D. thesis, Uni-
versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Chen, T. T. & Leu, S. S. (2014), Fall risk assessment of can-
tilever bridge projects using Bayesian network, Safety Sci-
ence, 70, 161–71.
Cheng, M. & Hoang, N. (2014), Slope collapse prediction us-
ing Bayesian framework with k-nearest neighbor density
 Probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation
estimation: case study in Taiwan, Journal of Computing in
Civil Engineering, 30 (1), 1–8.
Chung, T. H., Mohamed, Y. & AbouRizk, S. (2006), Bayesian
updating application into simulation in the north Edmon-
ton sanitary trunk tunnel project, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 132(8), 882–94.
Coronel-Brizio, H. F. & Hernandez-Montoya, A. R. (2010),
The Anderson–Darling test of fit for the power-law dis-
tribution from left-censored samples, Physica A: Statistical
Mechanics and its Applications, 389(17), 3508–15.
Edwards, L. (1995), Practical Risk Management in the Con-
struction Industry, Thomas Telford, London, 83 p.
Feng, X. & Jimenez, R. (2015), Predicting tunnel squeezing
with incomplete data using Bayesian networks, Engineering
Geology, 195, 214–24.
Ghomi, S. F. & Teimouri, E. (2002), Path critical in-
dex and activity critical index in PERT networks, Eu-
ropean Journal of Operational Research, 141(1), 147–
52.
Gonzalez Jimenez, J., Arevalo, V., Galindo, C. & Ruiz-
Sarmiento, J. R. (2015), An automated surveying and mark-
ing system for continuous setting-out of tunnels, Computer-
Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 31(3), 219–28.
Grasso, P., Xu, S., Pescara, M., Russo, G. & Repetto, L.
(2006), A methodology for the geotechnical design of long
high-speed rail tunnels under the conditions of uncer-
tainty, in Proceedings of the ITA-Sponsored China Interna-
tional Symposium on High-Speed Railway Tunnels, Beijing,
China.
Hajjar, D. & AbouRizk, S. (1997), Development of an object
oriented framework for the simulation of earth moving op-
erations, in Proceedings of the Intelligent Information Sys-
tems Conference, IEEE, New York, pp. 326–30.
Halpin, D. W. (1977), CYCLONE-method for modeling job
site processes, Journal of the Construction Division, 103(3),
489–99.
Halpin, D. W. (1990), Micro-CYCLONE User’s Manual, Di-
vision of Construction Engineering and Management, Pur-
due University, West Lafayette, IN.
Halpin, D. W. & Riggs, L. S. (1992), Planning and Analysis of
Construction Operations, Wiley, New York.
Hamidi, J. K., Shahriar, K., Rezai, B. & Rostami, J. (2010),
Performance prediction of hard rock TBM using rock mass
rating (RMR) system, Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 25(4), 333–45.
Holický, M., Marková, J. & Sýkora, M. (2013), Forensic as-
sessment of a bridge downfall using Bayesian networks, En-
gineering Failure Analysis, 30, 1–9.
Hong, E. S., Lee, I. M., Shin, H. S., Nam, S. W. & Kong,
J. S. (2009), Quantitative risk evaluation based on event
tree analysis technique: application to the design of shield
TBM, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
24(3), 269–77.
Huang, R. Y. & Halpin, D. W. (1994), Visual construction op-
eration simulation: the DISCO approach, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(3), 175–84.
Hulett, D. (2009), Practical Schedule Risk Analysis, Gower
Publishing, Ltd., United Kingdom.
Ioannou, P. G. (1989), UM-CYCLONE User’s Guide, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Ar-
bor, MI.
Isaksson, T. & Stille, H. (2005), Model for estimation of time
and cost for tunnel project based on risk, Rock Mechanics
and Rock Engineering, 38(5), 373–98.
769
Jankauskas, L. & Mclafferty, S. (1996), BestFit, distribution
fitting software by Palisade Corporation, in Proceedings of
the 28th Conference on Winter Simulation, IEEE, California
pp. 551–55.
Johnson, D. J. (2002), A spreadsheet method for calculating
work completion time probability distributions of paced or
linked assembly lines, International Journal of Production
Research, 40(5), 1131–53.
Jurado, A., De Gaspari, F., Vilarrasa, V., Bolster, D., Sánchez-
Vila, X., Fernàndez-Garcia, D. & Tartakovsky, D. M.
(2012), Probabilistic analysis of groundwater-related risks
at subsurface excavation sites, Engineering Geology, 125,
35–44.
Kamat, V. R. & Martinez, J. C. (2003), Validating complex
construction simulation models using 3D visualization, Sys-
tems Analysis Modeling Simulation, 43(4), 455–56.
Karim, A. & Adeli, H. (1999a), Conscom: an OO construc-
tion scheduling and change management system, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 125(5), 368–76.
Karim, A. & Adeli, H. (1999b), OO information model for
construction project management, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 125(5), 361–67.
Lau, S. C., Lu, M. & Poon, C. S. (2014), Formalized ap-
proach to discretize a continuous plant in construction sim-
ulations, Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage-
ment, 140(8), 1–9.
Law, A. M., Kelton, W. D. & Kelton, W. D. (2013), Simulation
Modeling and Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Lee, D. E. (2005), Probability of project completion using
stochastic project scheduling simulation, Journal of Con-
struction Engineering and Management, 131(3), 310–18.
Lee, S. J., Kim, M. C. & Seong, P. H. (2008), An analytical
approach to quantitative effect estimation of operation ad-
visory system based on human cognitive process using the
Bayesian belief network, Reliability Engineering & System
Safety, 93(4), 567–77.
Lekomtcev, D. & Marsalek, R. (2014), Evaluation of
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for cooperative spectrum sens-
ing in real channel conditions, in Telecommunications Fo-
rum Telfor (TELFOR), 2014 22nd, IEEE, pp. 557–60.
Likhitruangsilp, V. & Ioannou, P. G. (2003), Stochastic eval-
uation of tunneling performance using discrete-event simu-
lation, in Construction Research Congress: Wind of Change:
Integration and Innovation, HI, pp. 1–8.
Lin, C. T., Hsie, M., Hsiao, W. T., Wu, H. T. & Cheng, T.
M. (2011), Optimizing the schedule of dispatching earth-
moving trucks through genetic algorithms and simulation,
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 26(2),
203–11.
Liu, D., Xuan, P., Li, S. & Huang, P. (2014), Schedule risk
analysis for TBM tunneling based on adaptive cyclone sim-
ulation in a geologic uncertainty–aware context, Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering, 29(6), 1–12.
Liu, D. H., Zhou, Y. Q. & Jiao, K. (2010), TBM construction
process simulation & performance optimization, Transac-
tions of Tianjin University, 16(3), 194–202.
Liu, L. Y. (1991), COOPS: construction object-oriented sim-
ulation system, Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI.
Lu, M., Lam, H. C. & Dai, F. (2008), Resource-constrained
critical path analysis based on discrete event simulation and
particle swarm optimization, Automation in Construction,
17(6), 670–81.
770
Martinez, J. C. & Ioannou, P. G. (1994), General purpose sim-
ulation with stroboscope, in Proceedings of the 26th Con-
ference on Winter Simulation, Society for Computer Simu-
lation International, FL, pp. 1159–66.
Martinez, J. C. & Ioannou, P. G. (1999), General-purpose sys-
tems for effective construction simulation, Journal of Con-
struction Engineering and Management, 125(4), 265–76.
Mu, H. Q. & Yuen, K. V. (2016), Ground motion prediction
equation development by heterogeneous Bayesian learn-
ing, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
31(10), 761–76.
Neapolitan, R. E. (2004), Learning Bayesian Networks, Pear-
son Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Nývlt, O., Prı́vara, S. & Ferkl, L. (2011), Probabilistic risk as-
sessment of highway tunnels, Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, 26(1), 71–82.
Rahm, T., Scheffer, M., Thewes, M., König, M. & Duhme, R.
(2016), Evaluation of disturbances in mechanized tunneling
using process simulation, Computer-Aided Civil and Infras-
tructure Engineering, 31(3), 176–92.
Rostami, J., Farrokh, E., Laughton, C. & Eslambolchi, S.
S. (2014), Advance rate simulation for hard rock TBMs,
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 18(3), 837–52.
Rostami, N.K. (2012), Dynamic safety analysis using advanced
approaches, Ph.D. thesis, Memorial University of New-
foundland., St. John’s, Canada.
Ruwanpura, J. Y., AbouRizk, S. M., Er, K. C. & Fernando,
S. (2001), Special purpose simulation templates for tunnel
construction operations, Canadian Journal of Civil Engi-
neering, 28(2), 222–37.
Ruwanpura, J. Y. & Ariaratnam, S. T. (2007), Simulation
modelling techniques for underground infrastructure con-
struction processes, Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 22(5), 553–67.
Satorra, A. & Bentler, P. M. (2001), A scaled difference chi-
square test statistic for moment structure analysis, Psy-
chometrika, 66(4), 507–14.
Senouci, A. B. & Adeli, H. (2001), Resource scheduling us-
ing neural dynamics model of Adeli and Park, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 127(1), 28–34.
Shahriar, K., Sharifzadeh, M. & Hamidi, J. K. (2008),
Geotechnical risk assessment based approach for rock
TBM selection in difficult ground conditions, Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology, 23(3), 318–25.
Shi, J. (1999), Activity-based construction (ABC) modeling
and simulation method, Journal of Construction Engineer-
ing and Management, 125(5), 354–60.
Sousa, R. L. (2010), Risk analysis for tunneling projects, Ph.D.
thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA.
Sousa, R. L. & Einstein, H. H. (2012), Risk analysis during
tunnel construction using Bayesian networks: Porto Metro
Case Study, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technol-
ogy, 27(1), 86–100.
Špačková, O., Sejnoha, J. & Straub, D. (2013), Probabilistic
assessment of tunnel construction performance based on
data, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 37,
62–78.
Špačková, O. & Straub, D. (2011), Probabilistic risk assess-
ment of excavation performance in tunnel projects using
Bayesian networks: a case study, in Proceedings of the 3rd
International Symposium on Geotechnical Safety and Risk,
Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau, München, pp. 651–60.
Yu et al.
Špačková, O. & Straub, D. (2013), Dynamic Bayesian net-
work for probabilistic modeling of tunnel excavation pro-
cesses, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineer-
ing, 28(1), 1–21.
Sun, H. & Betti, R. (2015), A hybrid optimization algo-
rithm with Bayesian inference for probabilistic model up-
dating, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineer-
ing, 30(8), 602–19.
Teimouri, M. & Nadarajah, S. (2013), Bias corrected MLEs
for the Weibull distribution based on records, Statistical
Methodology, 13, 12–24.
Tondini, N., Bursi, O. S., Bonelli, A. & Fassin, M. (2015), Ca-
pabilities of a fiber Bragg grating sensor system to moni-
tor the inelastic response of concrete sections in new tunnel
linings subjected to earthquake loading, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 30(8), 636–53.
Touran, A. (1987), Simulation of tunnel operation, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 113(4), 554–68.
Ueda, K. & Yamashita, N. (2010), On a global complex-
ity bound of the Levenberg-Marquardt method, Jour-
nal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 147(3),
443–53.
Vargas, J. P., Koppe, J. C. & Pérez, S. (2014), Monte Carlo
simulation as a tool for tunneling planning, Tunnelling Un-
derground Space Technology, 40, 203–09.
Vargas, J. P., Koppe, J. C., Pérez, S. & Hurtado, J. P. (2015),
Planning tunnel construction using Markov chain Monte
Carlo (MCMC), Mathematical Problems in Engineering,
2015, 1–8.
Wang, C., Zeng, B. & Shao, J. (2011), Application of bootstrap
method in Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, in 2011 International
Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance,
and Safety Engineering (ICQR2MSE), IEEE, Xi’an, pp.
287–91.
Wang, H., Jia, Y. & Cao, L. (2012), Cause analysis and preven-
tion of road tunnel collapse in complex soft strata, Energy
Procedia, 16, 259–64.
Wang, H., Yajima, A., Liang, R. Y. & Castaneda, H. (2015),
Bayesian modeling of external corrosion in underground
pipelines based on the integration of Markov chain Monte
Carlo techniques and clustered inspection data, Computer-
Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 30(4),
300–16.
Wang, M. S. (2004), Tunnel Boring Machine Construc-
tion Technology and Practices, China Railway Publishing
House, Beijing (in Chinese).
Wu, X., Liu, H., Zhang, L., Skibniewski, M. J., Deng,
Q. & Teng, J. (2015), A dynamic Bayesian network
based approach to safety decision support in tunnel con-
struction, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 134,
157–68.
Yuen, K. V. & Mu, H. Q. (2015), Real-time system identi-
fication: an algorithm for simultaneous model class selec-
tion and parametric identification, Computer-Aided Civil
and Infrastructure Engineering, 30(10), 785–801.
Zhang, G. H., Jiao, Y. Y., Chen, L. B., Wang, H. & Li, S.
C. (2015), Analytical model for assessing collapse risk dur-
ing mountain tunnel construction, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 53(2), 326–42.
Zhang, L., Wu, X. & Skibniewski, M. J. (2015), Simulation-
based analysis of tunnel boring machine performance in
tunneling excavation, Journal of Computing in Civil Engi-
neering, 30(4), 1–14.
 Probabilistic risk analysis of diversion tunnel construction simulation
Zhang, L., Wu, X., Skibniewski, M. J., Zhong, J. & Lu, Y.
(2014), Bayesian-network-based safety risk analysis in con-
struction projects, Reliability Engineering & System Safety,
131, 29–39.
Zhang, S., Du, C., Sa, W., Wang, C. & Wang, G. (2014),
Bayesian based hybrid simulation approach to project com-
pletion forecasting for underground construction, Jour-
nal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(1),
1–9.
Zhong, D., Bi, L., Yu, J. & Zhao, M. (2016), Robustness anal-
ysis of underground powerhouse construction simulation
771
based on Markov chain Monte Carlo method, Science
China: Technological Sciences, 59(2), 252–64.
Zhong, D. & Liu, D. (2003), Construction System Simulation
Theory and Application Study of Large Scale Underground
Cavern Group, China Water & Power Press, Beijing (in
Chinese).
Zhong, D. H., Li, J. R., Zhu, H. R. & Song, L. G. (2004),
Geographic information system-based visual simulation
methodology and its application in concrete dam construc-
tion processes, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 130(5), 742–50.