You are on page 1of 12

DESIGN RISK REGISTER Aberdeen Harbour Extension

STATUS Salalah Concept Design


DATE 3/3/2016
TO BE UPDATED FOR DETAILED
Revision DESIGN

Probability
Probability Impact Risk Matrix Very Low Low
1 2

6 12
Extremely High 6
Very High 5 10
5
High 4 8
4

Impact
Medium 3 6
3
Low 2 4
2
Very Low 1 2
1

RISK DESCRIPTION PRE MITIGATION


REF
TITLE DETAILS CONSEQUENCES Probability Impact
1 Ground investigation Ground investigation for next design Data is not available at this
stage currently being scoped and stage. Design parameters may
tendered by RME be conservative/ optimistic. Very
little information on ground
conditions below proposed
dregdge levels. Weaker rock
may be present at depth

2 Over-dredge Over-dredge affecting stability of works Instability of works 3 3

3 Strength of bedrock Value of rock mass effective stress Potential variability depending 3 4
parameters for wall design sensitive to on location specific conditions.
σ3 max. Very weak rock (Breccia, Overly optimistic values of
Calcisiltite and Mudstone) at most berth effective stress parameters used
locations for design

4 Placement of material below method of placement of fill below water directly feeds into design and 3 3
water affects design parameters and material affects risk of self settlement
behaviour

5 Variable weathering or Retaining walls are embedded in the Risk on capacity of piles, bearing 3 4
localised weathering of rock, weak rock. May determine amout of capacity for gravity structures
particulary the weak dregde and replace of gravity and embedment depth for
calcisiltite structures. embedded walls

6 Cone failure of tension pile Piles supporting suspended deck Failure of pile under tension 2 3
in fractured rock subjected to uplift forces and results in below design load due to cone
cone failure of the rock failure

7 Settlement of reclaimed fill No assessment made at concept design Differential settlements may be 3 3
stage high due to local variations

8 Driveability of piles for Ground stronger than expected Greater amount of pre-drilling
combi-wall required for combi walls 3 1

9 Accurately modelling earth WALLAP not best suited to accurately Earth pressures, bending
pressures for combi wall at model the combi wall with existing moments and shear forces
4 3
Berths 21-23 in WALLAP caisson behind. over/under estimated

10 Modelling of anchor piles at Modelled at king pile wall to allow Underestimated of loads applied
Agricultural and Cement sesimic loads to be added to piles
3 3
Berths in the seismic case
11 Strength of rock at Weak rock at formation level may not Bearing failure, sliding failure,
formation level have sufficient bearing capacity for excessive settlememt
3 4
bearing structures

12 Inclination of weak rock Weak rock, espcecially mudstone is Sliding failure of gravity
strata inclined away from the quay, providing structures. Global instability
3 4
a preferential sliding failure plane

13 Scope of ground Two GI scopes proposed by RME. Lower Over/under estimate ground
investigation level of scope may not provide strengths and thicknesses of
3 3
sufficient detail in all areas weak layers

14 Ground Investigation Results of additional ground Over/under estimate ground


investigation not available by the time strengths and thicknesses of 4 4
preliminary design is required weak layers.
15 Soft marine clay and silt Found across the site Bearing and sliding failure.
Excessive settlements where 3 3
loaded
16 Existing made ground Located behind existing quay wall Potential for excessive
structures. Likely to be variable in settlement of ground and 3 3
strength foundations
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Medium High Very High
3 4 5
18
24 30
15 20 25

12 16 20

9 12 15

6 8 10

3 4 5

TIGATION MITIGATION
Risk RISK
OWNER Measures Probability IMPACT
Score SCORE
Design Ground Model to be updated 0
upon receipt of new GI data.

Over-dredge allowance of 0.5 m in 1 1 1


design. Records of dredge monitoring
to be reviewed during construction.
9

Review design values based on location 1 2 2


specific overburden, rock conditions
12 and rock strength. Sensitivity analysis
to changes in σ3 max values undertaken
at concept stage

Preliminary parameters assume loosely 2 2 4


placed, normally consolidated material.
9

Separate weathered layers of rocks 2 2 4


identified in the ground profile and
lower values attibuted to them.
12 Weathering profile to be verified once
results of additional ground
investigation are available.
Assess cone mechanism but adopt 1 2 2
6 lower partial factor as this is a weight
problem (1.1, and 0.9)
Carry out settlement calculations 2 1 2
9 during preliminary and detailed design

Adidtional ground investigation will


3 give greater detail as to the strength of 1 1 1
the rock with depth

Model in Plaxis if selected for


12 2 2 4
Preliminary Design

Model in Plaxis if selected for


9 2 2 4
Preliminary Design
Additional GI to confirm rock strength.
12 1 2 2
Excavate weak rock and replace with
crushed rock fill where required

Additional GI to confirm rock strength


12 2 2 4
and inclination of weak rock layers

Sensitivity analysis carried out at


Concept stage to show effect of
9 2 2 4
changes in material parameters to
better inform the Client
Adopt conservative ground models
16 until results from additional ground 3 3 9
investigations are available
Removal where possible. Surcharging
9 may be required where it is not 2 2 4
possible to remove.
Use pile foundations. Target ground
9 investigation in areas of known made 2 2 4
ground
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RESIDUAL RISK
DESIGN RISK REGISTER Aberdeen Harbour Extension
STATUS Salalah Concept Design
DATE 3/3/2016
Revision -

Probability
Probability Impact Risk Matrix Very Low Low
1 2

6 12
Extremely High 6
Very High 5 10
5
High 4 8
4

Impact
Medium 3 6
3
Low 2 4
2
Very Low 1 2
1

RISK DESCRIPTION PRE MITIGATION


REF
TITLE DETAILS CONSEQUENCES Probability Impact
1 Ground investigation Ground investigation for next design Data is not available at this
stage currently being scoped and stage. Design parameters may
tendered by RME be conservative/ optimistic. Very
little information on ground
conditions below proposed
dregdge levels. Weaker rock
may be present at depth

2 Over-dredge Over-dredge affecting stability of works Instability of works 3 3

3 Strength of bedrock Value of rock mass effective stress Potential variability depending 3 4
parameters for wall design sensitive to on location specific conditions.
σ3 max. Very weak rock (Breccia, Overly optimistic values of
Calcisiltite and Mudstone) at most berth effective stress parameters used
locations for design

4 Placement of material below method of placement of fill below water directly feeds into design and 3 3
water affects design parameters and material affects risk of self settlement
behaviour

5 Variable weathering or Retaining walls are embedded in the Risk on capacity of piles, bearing 3 4
localised weathering of rock, weak rock. May determine amout of capacity for gravity structures
particulary the weak dregde and replace of gravity and embedment depth for
calcisiltite structures. embedded walls

6 Cone failure of tension pile Piles supporting suspended deck Failure of pile under tension 2 3
in fractured rock subjected to uplift forces and results in below design load due to cone
cone failure of the rock failure

7 Settlement of reclaimed fill No assessment made at concept design Differential settlements may be 3 3
stage high due to local variations

8 Driveability of piles for Ground stronger than expected Greater amount of pre-drilling
combi-wall required for combi walls 3 1

9 Accurately modelling earth WALLAP not best suited to accurately Earth pressures, bending
pressures for combi wall at model the combi wall with existing moments and shear forces
4 3
Berths 21-23 in WALLAP caisson behind. over/under estimated

10 Modelling of anchor piles at Modelled at king pile wall to allow Underestimated of loads applied
Agricultural and Cement sesimic loads to be added to piles
3 3
Berths in the seismic case
11 Strength of rock at Weak rock at formation level may not Bearing failure, sliding failure,
formation level have sufficient bearing capacity for excessive settlememt
3 4
bearing structures

12 Inclination of weak rock Weak rock, espcecially mudstone is Sliding failure of gravity
strata inclined away from the quay, providing structures. Global instability
3 4
a preferential sliding failure plane

13 Scope of ground Two GI scopes proposed by RME. Lower Over/under estimate ground
investigation leve of scope may not provide sufficient strengths and thicknesses of
3 3
detail in all areas weak layers

14 Ground Investigation Results of additional ground Over/under estimate ground


investigation not available by the time strengths and thicknesses of 4 4
preliminary design is required weak layers.
15 Soft marine clay and silt Found across the site Bearing and sliding failure.
Excessive settlements where 3 3
loaded
16 Existing made ground Located behind existing quay wall Potential for excessive
structures. Likely to be variable in settlement of ground and 3 3
strength foundations
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Medium High Very High
3 4 5

18
24 30
15 20 25

12 16 20

9 12 15

6 8 10

3 4 5

TIGATION MITIGATION
Risk RISK
OWNER Measures Probability IMPACT
Score SCORE
Design Ground Model to be updated 0
upon receipt of new GI data.

Over-dredge allowance of 0.5 m in 1 1 1


design. Records of dredge monitoring
to be reviewed during construction.
9

Review design values based on location 1 2 2


specific overburden, rock conditions
12 and rock strength. Sensitivity analysis
to changes in σ3 max values undertaken
at concept stage

Preliminary parameters assume loosely 2 2 4


placed, normally consolidated material.
9

Separate weathered layers of rocks 2 2 4


identified in the ground profile and
lower values attibuted to them.
12 Weathering profile to be verified once
results of additional ground
investigation are available.
Assess cone mechanism but adopt 1 2 2
6 lower partial factor as this is a weight
problem (1.1, and 0.9)
Carry out settlement calculations 2 1 2
9 during preliminary and detailed design

Adidtional ground investigation will


3 give greater detail as to the strength of 1 1 1
the rock with depth

Model in Plaxis if selected for


12 2 2 4
Preliminary Design

Model in Plaxis if selected for


9 2 2 4
Preliminary Design
Additional GI to confirm rock strength.
12 1 2 2
Excavate weak rock and replace with
crushed rock fill where required

Additional GI to confirm rock strength


12 2 2 4
and inclination of weak rock layers

Sensitivity analysis carried out at


Concept stage to show effect of
9 2 2 4
changes in material parameters to
better inform the Client
Adopt conservative ground models
16 until results from additional ground 3 3 9
investigations are available
Removal where possible. Surcharging
9 may be required where it is not 2 2 4
possible to remove.
Use pile foundations. Target ground
9 investigation in areas of known made 2 2 4
ground
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RESIDUAL RISK