Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ET DE LESPACE SOUTERRAIN
Organization member of the AFTES
www.aftes.asso.fr
AFTES
Recommendations
Characterisation of
geological, hydrogeological
and geotechnical
uncertainties and risks
GT32R2A1
The work of AFTES on risks relating to underground space has attracted interest on the part of the French Committee for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
(Comit Franais de Mcanique des Sols et de Gotechnique, CFMS), the French Committee for Rock Mechanics (Comit Franais de Mcanique des Roches, CFMR)
and the French Committee of Engineering Geology and the Environment (Comit Franais de Gologie de lIngnieur et de lenvironnement, CFGI). At their request,
these three commissions have also reviewed this recommendation and suggested a number of changes. This is because while they recognise that this text has been
drafted with underground works in mind, they also believe that it may easily be used or adapted for other types of structure for which risks relating to underground
space are a major factor.
The French original of the following text was validated by AFTES Technical Committee on 23/07/12.
AFTES welcomes all suggestions relating to this text.
Summary
1 - Purpose of the Recommendation- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318-
2 - Terminology- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319-
5 - Bibliography- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .333-
6 - Appendices- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .334-
315
Summary
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
Terminology
To minimise all-too-frequent misunderstandings, AFTES has decided to recommend the strict and exclusive use of the terminology defined at the international
level in French and English by two ISO standards:
ISO 31000: 2009 (F) Management du risque - Principes et lignes
directrices.
ISO: Guide 73: 2009 (E / F) Risk Management - Vocabulary.
This vocabulary, which is non-specific to geotechnics, is detailed in chapter 2
of the Recommendation. It includes fifteen or so terms. These may sometimes
differ from what is widely believed to be common usage, but their use makes
it possible to avoid the introduction of new definitions which are liable to
confuse matters further.
316
For instance, risk is defined as the effect of uncertainty on objectives; the level
(seriousness) of this risk is the result of a combination of the likelihood of the
event under consideration and its consequences.
stronger construction solutions, and so on. This analysis will lead to the Register
of Risks being updated.
c) Risk treatment. This sequence involves reducing the level of a risk, or even
eliminating it altogether, by using the following types of means: reducing likelihood by carrying out additional investigations, reducing consequences by
modifying tunnel axis, layout, profile, methods used and so on. Once these
measures have been applied, the level of risk is again evaluated and compared
to the project owners criteria, and so on.
This iterative analysis process involves amending and supplementing Book C
at every stage, particularly if new survey work has been launched in an attempt
to reduce some uncertainties. To ensure study traceability, a Register of Risks
should be established and maintained, in which to log all treatment actions
implemented, along with their expected outcomes.
c) Project phase (PRO). This phase includes an update to the Project Geotechnical Investigation (G2) in order to have a clearly defined project. Issues
to be settled include the investigations to be carried out as works progress,
threshold values appropriate to the construction methods used (convergence,
settlement, vibrations, etc) and the inspection procedures. Since there should
not be any more new surveying, the Register of Risks can be finalised. This
allows the project owner to measure the residual risks, check whether these
are acceptable, and define its definitive risk management strategy.
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
317
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
Since the late 1990s, AFTES has been very concerned with the impact of geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical uncertainties on underground works.
Consequently, it has set up three working groups:
GT1 (Characterisation of rock formations), which has established a method
for semi-quantitative description of rock formations from the point of view
of underground works; its recommendations were published in 2003 1;
GT32, which in its first configuration (known as GT32-1) suggested a methodology for taking into account these uncertainties in Tender Documents
(DCE), in particular by establishing Books A, B and C, the content of which
is set out in 4.6 (Recommendations published in 2004) [2];
Lastly, GT25 (control of risks and contractualisation), which examined everything which could favour good control of project costs and made a recommendation to this end for the attention of all stakeholders (text published in 2007) [3].
In the light of experience however, it appears that the situation is still far from
satisfactory for all aspects relating to the characterisation of uncertainties,
unforeseen circumstances and risks relating to underground space:
The graphical representation of these uncertainties on geological cross-sections is often incomplete, ambiguous or completely lacking;
In reports, the description of uncertainties is often insufficient, whether they
relate to geotechnical properties (natural dispersion), the location of events
(crossing faults), the frequency of unpredictable phenomena (crossing karst
cavities).
Often, the prime contractor of an underground structure project does not
have sufficient geotechnical engineering capacity, despite this being a vital
component for developing and managing a works contract;
There is no recognised, unequivocal methodology for taking these uncertainties into account in so-called Risk analysis reports. These have
become commonplace for tunnel projects and are even virtually mandatory
for international insurance companies (cf. ITIG, 2006) [9];
The new methods of contractualisation, particularly with early contractor
consultation, have sometimes led to the illusion that the contracting authority
could thereby transfer to the contractor most of the risks relating to underground space, and even reduce the investigation efforts incumbent upon it.
In fact this is not the case: even in the event of advance consultation, it is
not possible to proceed with a serious analysis and fair allocation of the risks
other than on the basis of thorough geotechnical investigations.
Faced with these findings, in 2009, AFTES reactivated working group GT32,
with a view to establishing a methodology for properly identifying and representing uncertainties related to underground space, then analysing and dealing
with the risks arising from them for underground projects.
318
The recommendation published in 2003 (TOS No.177) replaced a previous recommendation, of a much more summary nature, published in 1978 (TOS No.28).
2 - Terminology -
The numbers of notes appearing in the ISO standard have been kept, although it has been deemed more logical to alter the order of presentation.
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
319
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
Note 2: Risk treatments that deal with negative consequences are sometimes referred to as risk mitigation, risk elimination, risk prevention and risk reduction.
2.2 - Comments
2.2.1 - An example of risk: the case of a TBM in hard rock
320
The definitions listed in 2.1 above, quoted verbatim from ISO standard 31000,
are not very intuitive and require a certain amount of use to become familiar.
To help with learning these terms, a simplified example of a risk illustrating
the use of the main terms is presented below.
The case is that of a tunnel to be excavated using a TBM in a single geological unit
composed of hard rock with virtually no fractures. The design of the TBM depends
in part on the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) values of the rock matrix;
this is determined by means of laboratory tests conducted on core samples.
One risk source is an under-estimation of unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) values.
The event in question is the occurrence of one or more areas of terrain where
resistance to cutting proves to be much more difficult than expected, due to
uniaxial compressive strength being much higher than expected.
The consequences of this event with respect to expectations are mainly as
follows:
slower rate of progress
greater wear and tear on tools and therefore higher tool consumption
longer completion times
additional costs due to excessive tool consumption and longer completion times.
These consequences are exacerbated when there are many, long areas with
higher uniaxial compressive strength and when the difference between the
actual value and forecast value is large.
The likelihood of risk (the probability that one or more areas have a higher
unconfined compressive strength value than the value used for the project)
depends on several factors:
the number and distribution of core samples along the project,
the number of tests conducted (statistical population),
the uniformity of the material forming the geological unit,
the dispersion of measured values.
Likelihood is all the lower when:
the material forming the geological unit concerned is highly uniform,
there are many surveys, spread adequately along the project,
there is a high number of tests which are also well distributed over all
boreholes,
of GT32-1, AFNOR NF X 50-117, the ITIG Code of Practice, the RFF Book for
risk control and ITA/AITES Guidelines (2004) [6].
Risk treatment
During preliminary study phases, the level of risk is high because the geological
context is known only summarily and there is a very high degree of uncertainty.
At this stage the treatment measures consist in an initial investigation campaign aimed at drawing up a summary geological model.
During the ensuing study phases until the project is finalised, the treatment is
aimed at reducing the likelihood of risk by increasing the number of samples
and strength measurements.
When the works contract is drawn up, the risk treatment may consist, for instance, of the following:
a prudent choice regarding the projected values for the unconfined compressive strength : maximum measured value, mean plus one or two
standard deviations, etc.;
in addition, a prudent TBM design, taking into account an additional margin with respect to the maximum unconfined compressive strength;
possibly, abandoning TBM excavation.
The tables of equivalent terms presented in this appendix indicate fairly good
consistency between the different documents; however, it appears that certain
important terms are sometimes used with different meanings. This has made
it necessary to adopt a single reference, which has led to the choice made in
this Recommendation in favour of strict use of the ISO 31000 terminology [9].
In addition, GT32.R2F1 suggests the use of the term seriousness, which is
not included in the vocabulary suggested by ISO 31000, but is nonetheless
accepted to describe the magnitude of consequences.
Important note
The risk management methodology defined below should be used in
conjunction with the design process for the underground structure in
question to form a single design procedure fully incorporating the issue
of risks.
To conduct such a design procedure, including all the different issues (geometry, geotechnics, construction methods, costs, lead times, planning and
contractualisation, etc.), the following is necessary:
the designer in charge of design studies must be constituted of a multidisciplinary team with all the necessary skills;
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
321
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
to the geotechnical characteristics of the formation which will be encountered throughout the duration of the project.
Any unsuitability of construction methods with regard to the geotechnical
conditions actually encountered may have extremely detrimental consequences. This is the essential reason why, during the studies for a tunnel
project, the civil engineering aspect cannot and must never be disassociated from the geotechnical aspect:
both are necessarily closely intertwined, right from the preliminary studies.
The geotechnical risk management
methodology which AFTES recommends should be applied for studies
comprises three major phases:
Compiling a Knowledge Review
covering geological, hydrogeological
and geotechnical data ( 3.1);
Geotechnical risk assessment based
on the summary of data; this phase
in turn comprises three stages: risk
identification, analysis and evaluation
( 3.2);
Geotechnical risk treatment ( 3.3).
COMPLEMENTARY
INVESTIGATIONS
REVIEW OF KNOWLEDGE
AND UNCERTAINTIES
3.1
ANALYSIS OF RAW DATA
REGISTER OF UNCERTAINTIES
RISK ASSESSMENT
RISK IDENTIFICATION
RISK
TREATMENT
RISK ANALYSIS
DEFINITION
AND UPDATE
DEFINITION OF
RISK MITIGATION
MEASURES
OF THE RISK
RISK EVALUATION
REGISTER
(Appendix 7)
DEFINITION OF
RESIDUAL RISK
Figure 1 - Flowchart summarising risk
management methodology.
322
(Appendix 7)
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
323
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
Uncertainties3. To illustrate this, the non-exhaustive list below sets out the
main uncertainties likely to feature in this register:
uncertainties corresponding to gaps in geological, hydrogeological and
geotechnical knowledge: these relate to areas where the level of knowledge is insufficient to offer a reliable model;
uncertainties relating to the location of certain events, for example
contacts between geological formations or different facies within the
same formation, singular areas such as faults, overlapping, shearing
zones, etc.;
uncertainties relating to geotechnical conditions (extension, nature and
characteristics of component materials, hydrogeology, etc.) associated
with certain events and possibly their location (for example areas that
have been identified as singular in other respects: faults, etc.);
uncertainties as to the occurrence of well-identified uncertain events
(possible or probable), the number, location and related geotechnical
conditions of which are not known, for example: singular areas (faults,
etc.), areas with high water inrush, karst cavities, quartz seams, etc.;
uncertainties due to the natural dispersion (variability) of ground
properties.
This Register of Uncertainties should be limited to a list of the uncertainties
identified, without analysing the consequences. It must relate to the entire
Zone of Geotechnical Influence (ZIG) which is specific to each site and
each planned structure. This zone, defined in NF P 94-500 [8], corresponds
to the volume of terrain within which there is interaction between the structure (due to its construction or operation) and the environment (soil, groundwater, surrounding structures and buildings, etc.). The scope of the ZIG
depends on the geotechnical conditions, the diameter of excavation, depth
and the methods envisaged for construction. This scope is therefore not
intrinsic to the site and is liable to vary according to the different options
envisaged for the construction, so it must be constantly updated.
On completion of this first phase of Review of Geotechnical Knowledge
and Uncertainties, the elements drawn up during the four stages described
above are brought together in a single document including both a report
and diagrams, as well as the Register of Uncertainties. When the works
contract is drawn up, this single document constitutes the Summary
Geological, Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Report (as defined in CCTG
Fascicle 69), or Summary Geotechnical Report (MSG).
324
Risk identification therefore requires the analysis of uncertainties with respect to their effects on expected results. Normally all uncertainties are a
source of risk, but some of them may have virtually no effect at all. One
example is the uncertainty relating to the location of the contact between
two geologically distinct but geotechnically similar formations. This contact
will not therefore require any change in construction plans; the position of
the contact, although uncertain, will have no bearing on the achievement
of objectives.
It follows that only uncertainties for which the deviations induced with respect to the geological and hydrogeological models (or the provisional longitudinal geotechnical profile) are sufficiently significant to cause notable
consequences, need to be identified as risks. These deviations may be
opportunities if these changes in circumstances are favourable for the project, or risks (in the usual sense of the term) if these changes are detrimental
to the project.
The risk identification stage therefore consists of ascertaining which of the
uncertainties listed are likely to lead to the occurrence of events of which
the consequences would constitute a change of circumstance with respect
to those taken into account in the geological/hydrogeological models and
in the provisional longitudinal geotechnical profile chosen.
For each of the uncertainties identified, several hypotheses may be formed,
e.g.:
for a given event, a variable number of occurrences, different locations
or more or less serious consequences;
In a large number of risk studies, the Register of Geotechnical Uncertainties is often improperly called the Register of Risks.
Risk analysis supplies the data for evaluating risks and taking the
decision to treat them or not, and enables the most appropriate treatment strategies and methods to be chosen. Risk analysis may also
contribute to decision-making when choices must be made and the
options involve different types and levels of risk.
Risk analysis involves risk causes and sources being taken into account,
as well as their positive and negative consequences and the likelihood
of these consequences occurring. The factors affecting the consequences and their likelihood must be identified, as well as other attributes of risk. An event may have a number of consequences and affect
a number of objectives. The existing risk control methods must be taken
into account, as well as their efficiency and performance.
The way in which the consequences and their likelihood are expressed
and the way in which they are combined in order to determine the level
of risk must correspond to the type of risk, the information available
and the risk assessment objective. Consistency with risk criteria must
be ensured. It is also important to take into account the interdependence
of the different risks and risk sources.
The level of confidence in the determination of the level of risk and its
sensitivity to prior conditions and hypotheses should be taken into
account in the analysis. Decision-makers should be informed of this as
well as other stakeholders if necessary. Factors, such as a difference
in expert opinion, uncertainty, the availability, quality, quantity and validity of the relevance of information and the limits of modelling should
be mentioned or even emphasised.
Risk analysis may be conducted to different levels of detail according
to the risk, the purpose of the analysis as well as the information, data
and sources available. This analysis may be qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative type, or a combination of the three, depending on
the circumstances ...
4 In the document Guidelines for tunneling risk management produced by AITES WG2, seven categories of consequence are suggested (cf. 7.3.2), distinguished according to the field concerned.
RFF opts for four categories of consequences (cost, lead time, performance and other).
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
325
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
Matrix
score
Likelihood scale
Indicative probability,
to be adjusted according
to the project being studied
Possible
1/5 = 20%
Unlikely
1/20 = 5%
Highly unlikely
1/50 = 2%
Improbable
1/200 = 0.5%
Several approaches that may be used to determine the likelihood value are
described in appendix 2.
Based on the results of the risk analysis, the aim of the risk evaluation
is to help decision-makers determine the risks requiring treatment and
priority for the implementation of treatments.
Risk evaluation consists of comparing the level of risk determined during
the analysis process with the risk criteria established when the background was established. On the basis of this comparison, the necessity
of treatment can be studied.
In certain cases, risk evaluation may lead to the decision to undertake a
more thorough analysis...
326
Likelihood
Risk matrix
Possible
12
16
Not likely
12
Very Unlikely
Improbable
Slight
Medium
Significant
High
No action required, the risk factors must be subject to specific monitoring by means of procedures.
2 < NR < 5
Construction work may commence; risk factors must be subjected to specific monitoring by means of
procedures and the project may possibly be supplemented by a series of predefined measures which may
undergo adjustments during the execution.
5 < NR < 10
Construction work may not commence until the risk has been reduced or removed. Solutions are possible without
major changes to the project.
Unacceptable risk
Construction work may not commence until the risk has been reduced or removed. If the risk cannot be controlled,
the project may be abandoned or altered.
NR < 2
NR > 10
Table 2 - Illustrative example of definition and qualification of levels of risk (to be adjusted according to each project).
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
Consequences
327
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
versions of the Register of Risks established during the different project phases
must be maintained by the project owner, with the aim of ensuring traceability
of the changes in risk analysis.
It should be noted that during design phases, most treatment actions consist
either in investigations aimed either at reducing uncertainty, or adjusting the
process itself, with the aim of making it as robust as possible with respect to
the consequences of these uncertainties. During the construction phase, residual risk treatment takes the form of anticipatory measures (investigation while
progressing) and predefined specific construction procedures.
In order to ensure the traceability of the entire risk management process, it is
appropriate to establish a Register of Risks, for which a framework is
suggested in appendix 7. This Register must provide a comprehensive list of
all the treatment measures implemented, with their results in terms of risk
reduction, as well as the measures decided during the study phase in progress
and to be implemented during the subsequent design phase. The successive
Geotechnical supervision for the works phase - G 4 - Works supervision phase (e)
a) With respect to Initial Geotechnical Investigation Studies (G1) including the Geotechnical Site Study (G11) and the Preliminary Design Geotechnical Study (G12), the
wording of the standard specifies that These missions exclude any examination of construction quantities, lead times and costs of construction of geotechnical
structures, which form part of a Project Geotechnical Investigation assignment (stage 2). The cost of these is normally incumbent upon the Project Owner. Given
that according to the MOP Public Procurement Law, the provisional cost for works is established on completion of the preliminary design studies, it is appropriate to
conduct a G2 Project Geotechnical Investigation at the time of this MOP law Preliminary Study phase. In the same spirit, as the feasibility of underground works
depends essentially on the geotechnical conditions, it may prove necessary to proceed with a Preliminary Design Geotechnical Study (G12) at the preliminary design
phase.
328
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
e) This supervision mission is similar to an external control, and its cost is borne by the Project Owner.
329
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
The programme must respond to the need, which means accurately describing
the methods and resources to be implemented, best suited to eliminating
uncertainties. After the initial general investigation campaigns, priority must
be given to targeted investigations for identified risks based on the geological
model and the experience feedback from previous works in similar terrains.
The services to be delivered, the procedures to be followed and the reports required must also be described very accurately in the consultation documents, in
order to guarantee that the expected results are achieved. When the service providers bids are examined, checks must be made to ensure that the references
and human and material resources featuring in the bid enable quality of the service to be guaranteed. Control of execution also ensures procedures are adhered
to and that the services are indeed performed in accordance with the order.
Lastly, presentation of the results must highlight the uncertainty margins.
330
In order to ensure consistency with the vocabulary recommended by standard ISO 31000, the term event replaces the term unexpected event used in standard NFP 94-500.
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
Secondly, since the MOP law specifies that the provisional cost of works must
be established on completion of the Preliminary Design survey, at this phase
the G12 mission should be followed by a Project Geotechnical Investigation
(G2), leading to a design which is sufficiently thorough to enable an estimation
of this nature. This G2 mission is distinct from the previous ones due to the
clearly higher level of knowledge (specific surveying has already been carried
out), taking into account the construction methods which have already been
defined, dimensioning of structures and the identification of major events and
measures planned to reduce their consequences (cf. note a of 4.1).
Documents to be supplied. As for the previous phase, standard NFP 94-500
lays down very specifically (cf. 7.2 of the standard) the content of the Preliminary Design Geotechnical Study necessary for compiling the Preliminary
Design file (AVP) as specified by the MOP law. Similarly, in addition to the services laid down by 7.2.2. of the standard, the Preliminary Design file (AVP)
must include a formalised presentation of the same documents as the Preliminary Survey file, including of course, a greater degree of detail using the
information gathered during the investigation and treatment works conducted
between the two phases.
The risks not fully treated at the end of this phase are therefore all residual
risks, the level of which must be brought to the attention of the project owner
to check their acceptability. To do this, for this final study phase a summary
table of all the risks examined is recommended (Register of Risks) such as the
one presented in appendix 7, setting out in detail the likelihood and consequence for each of the project owners objectives. The project owner should
use this table as a basis for the Risk Management Plan to be drawn up for
the finalisation of the DCE and contract.
NB: As already stated (cf. 4.1, note c), the Project Geotechnical Survey defines
the additional geotechnical investigations to be conducted during the construction phase, the different threshold values associated with the methods (convergence, settlement, vibration velocities, etc.) as well as the necessary inspection
procedures to ensure measures are monitored and to check adherence to
threshold values.
Lastly, at this stage, it may be desirable for the project owner to involve its
insurers (if this has not already been done).
331
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
332
tain information does not allow the project owner to ensure the compatibility
of possible risks and compliance with its objectives.
Furthermore, project owners can sometimes erroneously believe that involving
the construction company in the design will make the contractor liable for all
risks inherent in the construction of the project. In fact, it is not possible to
contractually transfer risks which have not been defined, at least in the form
of potential events, just as an insurance firm will insure only clearly defined
risks (events, consequences, and likelihoods). To enable a stakeholder (project
owner or construction company) to bear or transfer a risk in any manner whatsoever, they must have the information enabling potential events and their
consequences to be identified, and therefore an appropriate level of knowledge of the situation. If, on occurrence of a risk, it is proven that the information
available did not allow this risk to be identified and defined, the consequences
of this unforeseeable event will be borne by the project owner.
Given this state of affairs, some project owners may envisage transferring all
possible, imaginable risks, defining these them very broadly, aiming to cover
all eventualities. However, to do so they must then check beforehand that the
occurrence of these risks remains compatible with their objectives; in actual
fact, this will rarely be the case. In addition, they may not formally transfer
these risks, since bidders do not have the information enabling them to define
these risks and will therefore be incapable of defining their level of cover. As
a result, bidders who decide to respond to calls for tender will take gambles
which they are not really in a position to shoulder. This leads to unfair, unhealthy
contracts between stakeholders, and therefore to unmanaged risks.
Lastly, it is important to note that these non-conventional processes for assigning contracts have been designed for specific situations which must have
proper grounds and be legally valid. They do not provide solutions or improved
risk management for a project in and of themselves. On the contrary, it may
even be considered that operations with high levels of uncertainty (with high
risk) are unsuited to this type of approach and contract. This is for the above
reasons and also due to the following factors:
Construction companies cannot be asked to manage the project owners
risks, in the sense of identifying them, evaluating their consequences, choosing the means of treating them and/or covering them: the normal, legitimate interests of construction companies are not those of the project owner;
If each bidder offers its own analysis and risk cover, the principles of equality
and fairness of bids are very difficult to observe in the case of structures
with high levels of uncertainty, leading to very high legal risks, unless the
financial criterion is made the main criterion. If it is, this will mean choosing
the bid involving the least risk, which in turn will lead to risks not being
managed by the project owner, and thus to uncontrolled drift in costs and
lead times.
If the project owner has to choose this type of procedure for unavoidable reasons, the risk management principles developed in this Recommendation
remain relevant. To carry through the process described, the project owner
must ensure it benefits from a high level of competence in geotechnics and
underground works, so that the following can be achieved:
5 - Bibliography-
AFTES Recommendations
Other publications
[13] Piraud, J. (1996) Vers une meilleure matrise de lincertitude propre aux
coupes gologiques prvisionnelles. AFTES study days, Chambry, pp.
245-250. Editions Spcifique.
[14] Lombardi G. (2002) Les risques gotechniques dans lvaluation financire des tunnels non urbains. Revue Tunnels & Ouvrages souterrains, no.
173, pp. 321-325.
[15] Bianchi, G.W, Perello P, Venturini G., Dematteis A. (2009) Determination
of reliability in geological forecasting for tunnel projects: the method of
the R-index and its application on two case studies. Proc. ITA-AITES World
Tunnel Congress, Budapest, pp. 23-28.
[16] Bieth, E., Gaillard C., Rival F., Robert, A. (2009) Geological Risk: a methodological approach and its application to 65 km of tunnels under the
French Alps AITES/ITA World Tunnel Congress, Budapest.
[17] Robert, J. (2009) Laccompagnement gotechnique indispensable pour
la russite dun projet 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria, vol. 3, pp. 2711-2714.
[18] Gaillard C., Humbert E., Rival F., Robert A., (2011) Le management des
risques gotechniques est-il toujours pertinent ? - AFTES International
congress, Lyon 17-19 October 2011.
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
b) during the consultation process: being able to judge the relevance of the
risk management process implemented by the designer and construction company, and more particularly assess the treatment measures adopted or
planned, as well as the seriousness of the consequences of residual risks with
respect to its objectives.
333
6 - Appendices-
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
1 - GT32-1 recommendation
Published in 2004 [Ref. 2], Recommendation GT32-1, Prise en compte des
risques gotechniques dans les dossiers de consultation des entreprises pour
les projets de tunnels, (Taking into account geotechnical risks in tender documents for tunnel projects) took into account only the drafting of tender documents (DCE), as its name indicates. This Recommendation was applied
immediately on publication and is currently widely used in the profession. In
order to preserve the benefit of this Recommendation, it should be revised in
terms of both form and content, in order to make it consistent with this Recommendation, GT 32.R2F1.
The application of the strict terminology selected for standard ISO 31000
involves rewording certain terms and expressions. Examples:
unforeseen event should be replaced by risk or event
uncertainty should usually be replaced by risk,
difficulties should be replaced by consequences or events,
probability of occurrence should be replaced by likelihood.
Lastly, revision of Recommendation GT32-1 is an opportunity to rectify a number of copywriting issues, including the following:
In 1 Purpose of the recommendation, the note discusses specific terminology for natural risks (including the term unforeseen event (ala)),
which, apart from this specific term, is never used in the text.
In the same note cf. 1 Purpose of the recommendation, the following
is stated: the term geological accident should not be used to refer to,
whereas in 5.2 section 3, Description of persistent uncertainties, this
exact term is used; it also features in the legend for a figure entitled Collapse
of the cutting face. AFTES confirms that this term is ambiguous and should
be avoided.
334
AFTES GT32.R2F1
project risk
risk
seriousness
Magnitude of consequences
criticality
level of risk
probability of occurrence
likelihood
risk estimation
risk analysis
risk evaluation
risk evaluation
residual risk
residual risk
unexpected
Identifiable
Non-quantifiable
unforeseen event
Identifiable
Quantifiable
Risk
problem
It should be emphasised that the acceptance of risk adopted in recommendation GT32 R2F1 differs from this classification to the extent that it also deals
with identified events of which the consequences are very difficult to quantify,
and for which it is necessary to envisage multiple scenarios corresponding to
consequences with varying degrees of seriousness.
RFF Manual
AFTES GT32.R2F1
acceptability
acceptability
treatment action
treatment action
unexpected event
event in question
cause
risk source
consequences
consequence
criticality
level of risk
probability
likelihood
seriousness
Magnitude of consequences
AFTES GT32.R2F1
risk
level of risk
consequence
consequence
probability
likelihood
peril or danger
risk source
risk evaluation
risk analysis
risk evaluation
ITA-AITES Guidelines
AFTES GT32.R2F1
hazard
risk source
risk analysis
risk analysis
risk evaluation
risk evaluation
risk assessment
risk assessment
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
direct project ownership. Although it uses different terms (or the same terms
with differing definitions), its vocabulary is very similar to that of the GT32.R2F1
recommendation and it is relatively simple to establish correlation between
terms:
335
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
336
of investigation and survey work and the methods used to carry these out.
In order to assess the resulting data quality, the various types of investigations used must be described and classified. The main types of investigation
are described in brief below:
Surface geological mapping: in this case, data quality is determined by
the size of zone investigated, the scale of the mapping, the percentage
of outcrops, and the type of measurements taken (lithological, structural,
etc.);
Boreholes: data quality is here defined by the type of borehole (full or
partial core sampling or destructive), the depth compared to that of the
project, the distance from the axis of the project, location with respect to
critical zones, the nature of structural measurements (reoriented or
not), the occurrence of in situ tests in boreholes, etc;
Geophysical investigations: quality here depends on the length of the
profiles investigated, the distance from the project alignment, the depth
of the investigation and the method used;
Existing underground structures: if such structures exist, the distance
from the projected structure must be appraised, as must the availability
of data carried out during the excavation, similarities with the geological
context of the project, etc;
Exploratory shafts and galleries: in complex geological contexts, this
type of structure (which sometimes forms part of the final main structure)
may be the only method enabling geological uncertainties to be significantly reduced.
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
R-Index
Reliability
Value
7,5 - 10
5 - 7,5
Description
Good to
very good
Average to
good
2,5 - 5
Poor to
average
0 - 2,5
Unreliable
or not at
all reliable
337
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
338
E. Investigation planning.
Once again, the extremely important nature of investigation works carried
out right at the beginning of design work is emphasised, in order to have
time to optimise the project, particularly by modifying the alignment or
layout of the project.
Some 100 questions have been developed using a checklist type approach,
specifically with regard to surveying underground works. The aim is to provide
assistance in the conduct and assessment of investigations campaigns, from
establishment of the programme and site monitoring through to the procedures used to analyse the results. More pragmatically, this sheet can serve
as a reminder, destined mainly to ensure that no major technical elements
have been forgotten and that procedures for monitoring and analysing investigation work are in line with established best professional practice.
The Quality of Investigation sheet is qualitative in nature, and should be used
very early in a project where investigations are required. It may be completed
several times during the development and progress of a single project. The
investigation results may then be the subject of a quantitative estimation of
their reliability, for instance using analysis such as the R-Index (cf. Appendix 1).
On this sheet, each line corresponds to a question; ideally, it should be possible to answer each question in the affirmative. However, some questions
are highly dependent on the survey phase under consideration; as a result,
no answer may be possible for some questions, particularly during the preliminary study phase. Nevertheless, especially during preliminary design
and project phases, explanations of points that remain unanswered or with
a negative answer should be provided (for instance, deferred to a subsequent phase, deemed non appropriate for the site, etc.)
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
339
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
340
In the mind of the geologist, the geological model is necessarily threedimensional. In order to represent it, a series of cross-sections have been
often used, or sometimes even models. Today, computer technology makes
it possible to create a virtual model and visualise it from any angle. This
also makes it easier to achieve geometrical consistency between investigation data, outcrops and interpretative vertical or horizontal cross-sections.
Realistic
Pessimistic
Optimistic
Realistic
Pessimistic
}
}
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
341
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
3 - General recommendations
Maps and geological cross-sections are designed to provide a continuous
representation of the geological nature of underground space on the basis
of discontinuous observation and data available in varying degrees of abundance and density. They are therefore interpreted documents or models
providing a two-dimensional representation of the most likely geology. 3D
models are constructed on the same basis; they will be dealt with subsequently, due to the fact that they are more complex.
342
The geological map constitutes the foundation document for any geological
study. It is vital in order to establish geological profiles and 3D models.
For underground works, the geological map is an intermediate document
that will be little used by the civil engineer. However, it is worth observing
a number of rules when drawing up these maps, particularly in order to
avoid any information loss in the event of a change in the geologist responsible for the project.
The outcrop map should also show superficial loose soil that may have an
impact on the project (alluvial deposits, landslips, active soil movements,
alteration facies, etc.); many urban tunnels are excavated entirely in socalled superficial formations (loose or cohesive) that should be dealt with
like any other geological formation. For deep structures, representing
outcrops for superficial formations is important when these are thick enough
to completely conceal the bedrock (in this case, representing them indicates
that no direct observation of the bedrock has been possible from the
surface).
4.3.1 - Representation
Care must be taken when choosing representations on a map or geological
cross-section:
anisotropic representation may be used to represent the anisotropy of
rocks (alternating sedimentary beds, the principal schistosity, etc.), but this
is only worthwhile if there is a clear idea of the actual orientation of this
anisotropy. Indicating a potentially erroneous orientation on a cross-section
may lead the engineers that will be using the cross-section into error;
representing multiple folds of the terrain by a representation of folds probably has fewer implications, but clarification is required as to whether
this is a symbolic representation showing the repeated existence of
folding, or if it concerns actual folds that have been observed on site;
in the event of a non-uniform formation, heterogeneous aspects such
as enclaves of varying sizes, major beds, lateral variations in facies, karst
cavities and so on should only be shown if their presence is proven or
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
343
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
highly likely at the location at which they are indicated. If this is not the
case, the presence of these heterogeneous aspects should be indicated
in the legend, and perhaps by an unambiguous, symbolic representation
(and, locally, by a warning signal, see below).
More generally, rather than using potentially ambiguous representations,
geological formations should be differentiated by plain colours (or shades
of grey), with representations being reserved for highly specific cases. An
alternative solution involves representing the detailed tectonic style in
close-ups, surrounded by circles, as if a magnifying glass was being placed over a particular area.
4.3.2 - Legends
Legends are extremely important on maps and geological cross-sections.
They must be complete, sufficiently detailed, meticulous, and above all
consistent with the text of the report. Explanatory notes and comments may
also be of use.
On geological cross-sections (and in some cases on maps), it may be worth drawing attention to the rock characteristics using a warning sign similar to that
shown above (in this case, highly folded rock with poorly determined geometry).
This type of warning sign may be used to indicate the local presence of a
highly fractured or extremely karstic zone (in addition to the information
supplied in the legend). This data must also feature on the horizontal lines
located beneath the longitudinal geotechnical profile, with large dots or red
stars to alert readers.
It may also be worth introducing additional graphical representations on
the geological cross-sections (or on a separate document), for instance in
the form of miniatures (close-up windows centred on key sectors) or perpendicular cross-sections. References to other written or graphical documents are also encouraged.
344
It is true that representing extreme scenarios does not allow the varying
degrees of uncertainty along the profile to be catered for, and means that the
geologist has made a restricted choice. However, making such a choice has
the major advantage of being simple, very easy to understand, and immediately attracting attention. In most cases, it is virtually impossible to represent
the plethora of potential scenarios on a single geological cross-section.
It is highly difficult, and probably illusory, to imagine that probability can be
quantified any better than as falling between two extremes, except if a simple geological context and an abundance of data make it possible to carry
out a geo-statistical estimation based on meticulous calculations. In this
case, the extreme scenarios are equivalent to the bounds of the confidence
interval comprised between (m + ) and (m - ), where m is the estimated
mean and the standard error. The probability that reality will lie in this
interval is equal to 68% for a standard deviation distribution; if the bounds
are (m 2), this probability rises to 96%. This approach was used to automatically calculate and design the most probable longitudinal geological
profile along the axis of the Channel Tunnel (cf. figure 4).
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
The thickness of the damage zones associated with faults crossed by a tunnel project is a variable which is of considerable interest to engineers. Hatching is commonly used and indeed appropriate to represent these damage
zones, if they have actually been observed (and if the hatching is appropriate
to the scale of the document). However, in most cases these fractured zones
are not observable from the surface, since they are covered by shallow deposits. In this case, they are best characterised by means of cored boreholes.
345
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
Representation 1: The uncertainty range is shown on the whole of the longitudinal profile for each contact or fault (fig. 5). The resulting uncertainty range
may be shown as a line, both on the surface (outcrops) and at depth (for instance, at a borehole which has passed through a clear contact point between
formations A and B).
Representation 3: Here, the extreme locations of the contact points are not
shown by their actual geometry on the vertical longitudinal profile, but by standard symbols indicated on a strip located beneath the principal cross-section.
Two types of symbol may be used (fig. 7):
Type 3a: the uncertainty bar. The strip features a bar centred on the most
probable location of the contact point. This method allows uncertainty to be
shown even in the event of close contact points, by slightly offsetting the
various bars so that they do not overlap (enlarging the strip if necessary).
This form of representation may be simplified if the thickness of successive
layers is well known and the uncertainty relates only to their location. In this
case, only one uncertainty bar is shown for the entire stratigraphic series.
Tunnel axis
346
Type 3b: oblique line. At the top and bottom of the strip, the extreme positions
of the contact point are shown for the project, connected by an oblique line:
the steeper its gradient, the lower the degree of uncertainty. The advantage of
this method is that it clearly visualises the contrasting uncertainty along the
cross-section, and it can be applied to successive geological contact points
even when these are very close together (cf. fig. 8).
3b type representations must however be clearly explained in the legend,
because they are less intuitive than 3a. Experience has shown that the uninitiated often confuse the uncertainty range with a horizontal geological crosssection at the tunnel depth, which is not the case. For instance, the following
diagram (fig. 8) shows part of a provisional geological cross-section that indicates uncertainties using oblique lines.
Together, compared to a single longitudinal profile, these crosssections constitute a more complete representation of the projects
geological model. However, these cross-sections cannot be anything more than a discontinuous representation of 3D geology. In
such a model, uncertainties relating to contacts may be represented on each of the geological cross-sections, following the procedures set out above.
Figure 8 bis - Diagram showing a formation that may or may not be crossed
(oblique line style).
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
the project area to be clearly displayed, and the geometric consistency of the setting to be ensured. Ideally, each project should be
illustrated by the longitudinal geological profile, one or more transverse cross-sections and a horizontal cross-section at the elevation
of the project.
347
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
To become more aware of these risks, a detailed study of the water resource
should be planned from the design stage (including a water sampling campaign
for chemical analysis, monthly monitoring of physical characteristics such as
flow rate, temperature and conductivity at water
Permeability (AFTS classes)
Occurrence of dissolution phenomena and karst
points) as well as systematic control of water chaLow - Medium Medium - High High - Very high Low Medium High Low Medium High
racteristics during the construction phase. It should
be possible to adjust construction methods in due
time and plan preventive measures to be implemented to minimise impacts; in some cases, compensatory measures need to have been studied
beforehand so that they can be implemented as
quickly as possible in the event of proven disruption
of the water resource.
Unit 5
Variation of permeability
Lateral variations of permeability due to variation of fracture degree (rock mass) or of granulometry (deposits).
348
Various methods are available to estimate values of flow rate. These depend
mostly on the permeability of the formation, the hydraulic head and to a lesser
degree the cross-section of the excavation.
This information must be clearly indicated on the horizontal lines of the
longitudinal geotechnical profile ( Appendix 3). The following information is
also worth supplying:
estimated momentary inflow rates at the cutting face;
estimated specific, stabilised flow rates to the rear of the cutting face (expressed, for instance, in l/s/100 m of tunnel or l/min/10 m of tunnel);
clearly indicating critical points (zones with very high flow rates and high
gradient or hydraulic charge);
estimating aquifer recharging conditions (perennial water ingress or progressively draining the rock mass).
3 - Hydraulic head
Hydraulic head values at the elevation of the structure may be one of the most
important data with regard to the design of the structure itself.
In the event of shallow tunnels (defined as tunnels with an overburden, and
thus a hydraulic head, of less than 20 m), the impact of uncertainty relating to
the water head may be considered as minor. However, for deep tunnels, this
aspect is of major importance. Determining the hydraulic head may be one of
the main scopes of survey work.
Uncertainties with regard to the hydraulic head are mainly linked to the following factors:
Uncertainty relating to defining structural characteristics of the rock mass,
particularly the hydraulic characteristics of discontinuities and the degree
to which these are interconnected;
Variations in permeability within the rock mass, particularly due to occurrence
of fault and/or fracture zones.
To reduce the degree of uncertainty, a specific survey campaign must be planned in order to determine the hydrogeological characteristics of the rock mass
and terrains, particularly as regards the following:
- Setting up a network to monitor the surface water resource, including
tracing tests to model the underground water flows;
- Quantifying permeability and hydraulic head values for the rock formation
using Lugeon tests or slug testing between packers;
- Installing piezometric cells at various depths to measure the water head
in the formation at different levels and establish whether there are
different aquifers.
In terms of risk analysis, water is rarely a crucial problem in and of itself. Its
impacts are confined to disruption to works, payment of compensation if water
sources dry up, the installation of additional conduits, pumping, dealing with
discharge water, and so on. These impacts are more significant if a major karst
conduit is intercepted and/or in the event of downward excavation.
Lastly, the adverse effects of water may be considerably magnified in the event
of unfavourable geotechnical conditions, such as loose soil that may be
washed away, highly permeable formation beneath a thin overburden, etc...
5 - Environmental aspects
There are many risks to the environment relating to the management of discharge water during the excavation of tunnels. However, the purpose of this
Recommendation is not to describe or analyse these in detail. Nonetheless, it
should be emphasised that these risks must be clearly analysed and taken
into account during the various stages of the project, specifically as regards
the following:
the impact of works and final structures on springs and other water
points used to supply the area with water (the risk draw-down of
sources) ;
the impact of structures on superficial watercourses (risk of pollution).
4 - Flow rates
Given the impact of water ingress at a high rate and/or pressure on excavation
works, as well as on the management of discharge water (momentary, temporary and permanent rates) uncertainties relating to this factor may be at the
origin of significant risks.
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
349
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
As for geological cross-sections, geological uncertainties may also be transposed onto the longitudinal geotechnical profile by showing a number of alternative profiles incorporating different scenarios that are favourable or
unfavourable in geotechnical terms. This type of approach is of interest because
it makes it possible to develop the subsequent analysis stages (risk analysis,
analysis of the costs of the project using probabilistic analysis such as the DAT
system, etc.) for each of the identified scenarios. This means the technical and
economic impacts of the various hypotheses can be compared. However, as
has already been seen, the drawback of this type of representation is that it
cannot take into account the multiple combinations of interpretative scenarios
concerning the geology.
Tunnel axis
Uncertainty bar about the
position of A/B contact
Geotechnical
characteristics :
Representation 1
Representation 2
350
Firstly, it should be noted that geotechnical parameters (or at least the principal
ones) should be represented by mean values and values that are representative
of their dispersion, and also by a characteristic value that must be determined
for each geotechnical unit (cf. GT1, GT7 and GT32.1). Consequently, there is
a variety of ways in which uncertainty relating to geotechnical parameter values
may be illustrated on longitudinal profile horizontal lines:
Indication of the characteristic value
Possible upward or downward variations compared to the characteristic value: such variations may be expressed in absolute terms (for
instance, 25 5 MPa) or as a percentage (25 MPa 20%);
By a range of values, if it is not possible to estimate the characteristic
value or if this is not considered as being sufficiently reliable;
By supplementary indications in the summary report, particularly
concerning the number and statistical distribution of the values measured, the dispersion from the mean value, and so on.
After due consideration, AFTES has decided that it would be illusory and
even dangerous to seek to establish a virtually exhaustive list of all possible
risks relating to underground space and liable to affect projects of underground structures. Indeed, the danger is that any such list might be used
mechanically as a checklist, thereby dispensing project designers from
fully considering the geotechnical conditions of the project and obscuring
the fact that each underground structure is in some sense a prototype.
However, in the following table, which is of course not comprehensive, we
have listed the most frequent sources of geotechnical risk for tunnels. This
table is based on the description of rock formations recommended by AFTES
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
351
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
Field of
investigation
Risk sources
Parameters
Examples of events
Strength
Cohesion
Cohesionless facies in a coherent formation (sandy lens in sandstone), karst void filled with clay,
ash/tuff within indurate volcanic soil, etc.
Hardness
Abrasiveness
Extreme rock abrasiveness: Quartzite, very hard sandstone, quartz-rich granitoid, isolated seams, etc.
Changes
Changeable material
Swelling or spalling of materials after excavation (swelling clay), minerals of hydrothermal origin, etc.
Miscellaneous
...
...
Change in geometry of discontinuities, of tectonic or sedimentary origin (tilted block, slip, folds, etc)
(changes in stratification, etc.)
Density of
discontinuities (ID)
...
...
Permeability
Major water ingress up to and including flooding, hydraulic clearing, springs drying up
Hydraulic head
Grading
Block of rock within a loose formation, erratic block in fluvioglacial landforms, etc.
Stress
Variation classes CN1 - CN3, stress anisotropy in the rock formation, decompression, convergence, etc.
Variation in layer thickness, fossil valley, empty or filled karst cavity, deeper level of meteoric alteration,
up-swelling of bedrock beneath loose surface formations, etc.
Contrast
Matrix
Discontinuities
Miscellaneous
Contrast
Formation
(Soil or Rock)
Variation
Physical and chemical Aggressivity of groundwater, chemical clogging phenomena, bacterial development,
characteristics of water surface water pollution, etc.
Miscellaneous
...
...
Gas
Emission of harmful gases (H2S, CO2) and/or consumption of oxygen (pyrites) liable to cause asphyxia,
presence of explosive gases (CH4), etc.
Contrast
Cohesion/
Surface settlement, damage to built structures on the surface
permeability/granularity
Safety
and environmental
considerations
Miscellaneous
352
Changes
Specific materials
subject to change
(dealing with muck)
Miscellaneous
Anthropic origin
...
...
...
1 - Quantifying consequences
It is recommended that for each of the objectives of the project owner, the
impact of the consequences should be ranked on a scale of 1 to 4, as shown
in the table below:
Delay (1-2),
Cost (2), expressed
Image (2),
Risk matrix
Scale of
expressed in terms in terms of the
expressed in terms of
score
consequences
of the overrun
overrun
media impact
4
Very high
t > 3 months
C > 50%
Worldwide
High
Continental
Medium
Countrywide
Low
t < 1 week
C < 5%
Local
(1) deadline overruns are indicated for a project lasting approximately one year
(2) indicative values: to be adjusted depending on the project
Other
2 - Quantifying likelihood
In practice, as for the consequences, and as shown in the table below, likelihood
may be ranked into 4 classes, ranked from 1 to 4 and corresponding to 4
ranges of probability.
Matrix
score
Likelihood scale
Indicative probability, to be
adjusted according to the project
being studied
Possible
1/5 = 20 %
Unlikely
1/20 = 5 %
Highly unlikely
1/50 = 2 %
Improbable
1/200 = 0,5 %
Likelihood
Risk matrix
Possible
12
16
Unlikely
12
Highly unlikely
Improbable
Slight
Medium
Significant
Highly significant
Consequences
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
353
In addition to the risk matrix and its coloured boxes to represent the level
of risk, this may also be represented in graphic form on a summary diagram
showing the statistical distribution of possible costs and delays for completion of the structure. This representation is one of the most explicit results
provided by the DAT (Decision Aid for Tunnelling) method, a system originally
developed by MIT and EPFL, and subsequently by Geodata in Turin. This
gives the project owner a visual representation of a range of costs/delays
for completion of its structure, on the basis of the determined variability for
each of the geotechnical parameters selected.
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
Then, for each possible event that has been identified, a realistic estimation
of its financial consequences is made, based on a detailed description of
the event itself. The level of risk for each analysis step is determined by
summing the multiples (likelihood x consequence) of all the events.
The suggested mode of representation makes it easy to highlight the most
striking results. For instance, on figure 12, it is immediately obvious where
in the tunnel the extent of knowledge NC (represented by a curve) is poor and
where the provision for risks PR (shown as a histogram) is high. These summary charts offer a good representation of the risk management approach,
and should be read taking into account both parameters, NC and PR. This
makes it easy to locate the principal risks on the scale of the project.
354
Extent of knowledge
Design phases
Date:
Risk
Identification
Preliminary Studies
Preliminary Design
Risk source
Likelihood
When the Risk Management Plan is drawn up, the table must be completed
by additional columns (not shown here) relating to the assignment of risks to
the contracting parties, as well as to the mode of remuneration chosen for
their treatment and their consequences.
Project Studies
DCE
Level of
Preventive
Consequences
risk
treatment
Method of
detection
Compensation
treatment
Risk 1
Risk 2
The design phase is specified by ticking the appropriate box. The contents of the table, to be completed during each risk analysis, are detailed below with explanations of the title of each column.
Identification: Free text that should provide the best possible description of the identified risk after the specific context of the structure and consideration
has been analysed: geology, hydrogeology, geotechnics, environment, surroundings, etc.
Risk source: Reference to one or more types of event including those defined in the table in Appendix 6
Likelihood: Qualitative expression using 4 levels.
Consequences: Detailed description of the possible consequences if the event in question occurs, in the form of several scenarios relating to the construction
conditions that may be encountered, with the possible inclusion of an index of seriousness for each scenario, expressed qualitatively with 4 levels.
Level of risk: The result of combining the likelihood and the seriousness of the consequences with the possible addition of a significance index expressed
quantitatively (a score of between 1 and 16).
Preventive treatment: Measures planned to reduce or eliminate the risk: abandonment of the solution, altering the location, changing the alignment and/or
longitudinal profile, survey and study programme to clarify the likelihood and/or consequences - selection of methods minimising the consequences if the
event in question occurs, etc.
During construction: Surveys as works progress, inspections, etc.
Level of residual risk: the level of risk after preventive treatment, accepted by the project owner or the contractor if there has been an express transfer of the risk
Curative treatment: Appropriate construction measures and/or adjustment of initial methods with a view to reducing the seriousness of the consequences
if the event in question occurs.
All reproduction, translation and adaptation of articles (partly or totally) are subject to copyrigth.
One possible presentation of the summary table of the risk management process is shown below. For each individual risk (represented by a line), the various
columns representing the successive tasks in the process should be completed. Such a table is by nature subject to change. A given risk may be eliminated
during the project due to construction measures being adopted to manage it.
355
Notes :
www.aftes.asso.fr
All rights for reproduction or adaptation in whatever format are expressly reserved