ASSIGNMENT 1

Identification & Registration of Risk in Tunnel/ Underground Civil Engineering works

Introduction
Underground and Tunnel projects have huge risk implications on all the entities involved as well as those not directly involved: public and the environment (Eskesen, et al., 2004). The nature of such construction projects potentially exposes the involved bodies/ parties to a great deal of risks. Despite the fact that a significant number of tunnel and underground works have been completed safely, there have been several instances where such projects have also been delayed, cost increased and in a few cases more significant consequences such as injury and loss of lives (Sousa and Einstein, 2012). It is therefore imperative to as a matter of urgency to assess and manage the risks associated with such construction projects.

Objective of analysis
The objective of this risk management is to ensure smooth construction activities in underground projects; by making sure that:

all associated hazards are identified possible measures have been provided to eliminate or mitigate risks respective risks have been assigned ownership risks have been quantified, to aid the level of threat to project

Risk Identification

Project Phase Feasibility phase

Risk ID a b c

Risk Description Environmental Assessment delays Public acceptability Legal challenges Contractual delays/misunderstanding Inadequate staff-skills and resources Lack of knowledge and understanding of processes Lack of adequate ground studies Ecological and heritage constraints (opposition) Claim disputes between client and contractors Failure of construction machines Unexpected poor ground strata Accidents during construction Poor weather condition Funding availability problems

Risk Detail Not being able to get approval for environmental impact assessments Public opposition/ demonstrations to project due to certain social impacts Delay in getting the required development permits from authorities Disputes between consultants/ Contractors with respect to project demand and specifications Hiring consultants or contractors who are not adequately capable for the project The inability of contractors to fully understand the demands of the project as designed by consultants Inability to adequately study the main characteristics of the project site Presence of ecology and certain cultural remains on project site which could provoke local/ national opposition Payment to involved main and subcontractors, which mostly lead to disputes/ court case, thus delays. Construction machinery being faulty during construction/project activities Encountering high water table, unstable soil strata and other elements Falling from height, failure of excavation, fire outbreak and oxygen supply related problems Excessive snow, heavy rains and other conditions occurring during project activities Client encountering problems with funding due to reasons beyond control of the funding agency Material supply encountering problems due to economic and social factors which will lead to delay Property exchanging hands due to either economic or social factors Changes in local/ national development regulations which will affect maintenance and operation of the property in its life time

Design (pre and detailed)

e f

g h

Constructio n phase

J K L m n

Procurement and supply delays

Maintenanc e phase

p q

Changes to local and other management plans Changes in regulations

Fig.1 Risk identification for underground project

Risk Register The purpose of the below risk register is to critically analyse all the identified risks in figure 1 above, assess the magnitude of the risk considering the respective likelihood and consequences, provide the needed mitigation measures and finally assess the residual risk based on the determined scale detailed below. Due to the scarcity of full probabilistic and market data for assessments, mathematical scales have been defined for the likelihood/probability, consequences and the risk impact/ value. Defined scale for likelihood/ probability of risks

Explanation Frequent

Details Possible to occur many times during project construction Several times during project Schedule Rarely in the duration of the project Unlikely, however possible Highly unlikely/ cannot materialize

Scale used for Assessment

Probable

3 2 1 0

Occasional Remote Improbable

Defined scale for project consequences Explanation Catastrophic Details Total system loss, death, bankruptcy. serious injury, major damage, problem over contingency. Lost time injury, exhaust contingency, calls for insurance. Less damage, injury not serious, less dispute, minimal breakdown. Very low impact, can be ignored Scale used for Assessment

40

Critical

30

Serious

20

Marginal

10 0

Negligible

Risk Impact measurement and meaning- scale Description Unacceptable Meaning Will cause failure of project Must thus be stopped or transferred threatens projects success, must be avoided If possible at a meaningful cost Not good for project but can be accepted Dont have impact on project, can thus be Neglected
Description Initial assessment Mitigation

Residual Risk Impact value

60-100

Undesirable

20-59 5-19

Acceptable Negligible

0-4
Final Assessment owner

-Risk Register continued

Project

phase

ID Prb Con 20 30 30 30 40 RR V 40 30 60 60 80 Prb EIA must be done well Proper public educ. Must be done Necessary permits needed Contract must be clear and binding Experienced contractor needed, train staff. Employ efficient main and subcontractors Experienced consultant must be employed Detail preliminary studies needed Detailed specifications needed in contract Efficient contractor with good machinery Good but detailed geotechnical survey needed to be done Good health and safety standards Contingency in days must be provided for this Adequate funding provisions must be made by owner Experienced subcontractor must be employed Contingencies must be provided for this problem Laws must be carefully studied before commissioning 0 1 1 2 1 Con 20 10 10 10 10 RRV 0 10 10 20 [I] 10 Client client PM PM PM

Feas. Feas. Feas. Design Design

a b c d e

Environmental Assessment delays Public acceptability Legal challenges Contractual disputes/ misunderstandings Inadequate staff-skills and resources Lack of knowledge and understanding of processes Lack of adequate ground studies Ecological and heritage constraints (opposition) Claim disputes between client and contractors Failure of construction machines Unexpected poor ground strata Accidents during construction Poor weather conditions

2 1 2 2 2

Design

30

60

30

PM

Design

40

120

20

40[I/T]

PM Client PM PM

Design Const.

h i

2 4

20 20

40 80

0 2

10 20

0 40 [I/t]

Constr.

30

90

20

40[I/T]

Contr.

Constr.

30

90

20

40[I/T]

Client

Constr. Constr.

l m

4 2

40 20

160 40

2 1

20 20

40[I/T] 20[I]

PM Contr. Client

Constr.

Funding availability problems Procurement and supply delays Changes to local and other management plans Changes in regulations

40

120

30

60[S/T]

Client

Contr.

10

20

10

10

MainContr. Client

Mainten ance Mainten ance

10

20

10

20

10

10

Client

Fig.2- Risk Register for an underground project

PM---Project manager for project Prb.---Probability or Likelihood of a risk materializing Con--- Consequences of a risk ID--- Risk Identification, with reference to figure 1 [I/T]---- Insure or Transfer the risk Contr.--- Contractor RV--- Risk Impact value ( Prb * Con) RRV---Residual Risk Value (RV after mitigation) Feas.--- Feasibility phase of the project [I]---Insure the risk [S/T]---- Stop or Transfer risk

List of References

Eskesen, S.D., et al., 2004. Guidelines for tunnelling risk management: International Tunnelling Association, Working Group No. 2. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology [online] 19 (2004), 217-237. Accessed through: http://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/tonon/Courses_files/Geotech%20seminar_files/David%20H atem/Tust_Vol_19_3_217-237.pdf [Accessed on 4th March 2012]. Sousa, R.L. and Einstein, H.H., 2012. Risk analysis during tunnel construction using Bayesian Networks: Porto Metro case study. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology [e-journal] 19 (2012), 86-100. Accessed through: Science Direct [Accessed on 3rd March 2012].