Risk Assessment in Bridge Construction Projects in Iran

Using Monte Carlo Simulation Technique

Hosein Naderpour 1; Ali Kheyroddin 2; and Seyedmehdi Mortazavi 3

Abstract: Risks are an inseparable part of every project, and risk management must be one of the main requirements of every project.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 08/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

According to risk management experts, risk identification and analysis is the most important part of risk management, and can be called
the core of risk management. True identification and precise analysis of risks and implementation of risk management in a project can reduce
time and cost and improve quality and safety. This research comprehensively and systematically identified and assessed risks in the Iranian
bridge construction industry. Risks were identified during various visits and interviews and through questionnaires, risk factors were
prioritized according to statistical test results, and quantitative analysis of risks by Monte Carlo simulation was implemented on a real project
and its implications on project time and the cost were determined. Financial risk was the most crucial risk factor which negatively influenced
projects. Practical solutions for risk assessment and analysis of bridge construction projects are offered which can be utilized by contractors,
project managers, and project control engineers in bridge construction companies. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000450. © 2019
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Risk analysis; Management; Monte Carlo simulation; Bridge construction.

Introduction
Bridges are considered as one of the most strategic developmental
products in each country. In every country, infrastructure projects
are significantly important for economic and industrial develop-
ment in order to increase the quality of life for people (Etemadinia
and Tavakolan 2016). Generally, infrastructure projects are charac-
terized as being large-scale, long-duration, and high-investment
(Wang and Yuan 2017). Because of the sophisticated and dynamic
nature of projects, a vital decision has to be made by a client
(Choudhry 2016). Making bridges in urban or suburban areas is
especially of great importance in developing countries, including
Iran. Smoothing urban traffic flow and facilitating and shortening
road transportation can reduce cost and time in a variety of ways.
Therefore, accelerating the time, reducing the costs, and exploiting
the projects can be of great help to the macroeconomic environment
of developing countries. A construction project is a set of different
events, expected or unexpected (Asgari et al. 2018). Risks exist in
all projects (Choudhry et al. 2014). Uncertainties that affect the
project are based on two theories: probability and possibility
(Naderpour et al. 2019). In developing countries, including Iran,
risks as a bottleneck in various parts of projects have caused a great
deal of damage to the project scopes. The risks have a significant
impact on the performance, efficiency, and quality of projects
(Akintoye and MacLeod 1997). In many cases, risks can be defined
as uncertainties, and they also can affect at least one of the project
1 risks. Choudhry and Iqbal (2013) argued that risk management was
Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan Univ.,
Semnan 3513119111, Iran (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid
.org/0000-0002-4179-7816. Email: naderpour@semnan.ac.ir
2
Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan Univ., Semnan
3513119111, Iran.
3
Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan Univ., Semnan
3513119111, Iran.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 16, 2019; approved on
June 12, 2019; published online on August 15, 2019. Discussion period
open until January 15, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Struc-
tural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
objectives, including scopes, scheduling, quality, and cost (Naji and
Hussein Ali 2018). The project implementation risks involved
in the process are divided into government risk, market risk, and
project risk (Liu and Sun 2019). Project risks are of two categories,
known and unknown. Known risks are recognized and can be an-
alyzed, which makes planning and preparing response possible. It
is not possible to proactively unravel an unknown risk (Bahamid
and Doh 2017).
Developing countries should examine the risks systematically
and must develop a functional management model for controlling
and responding to potential risks. In evaluating the projects, the
absence of historical information is a disadvantage (Chang and
Ko 2017).
It is necessary to reduce the likelihood of occurrence and the
intensity of the effects of threats in risk management (Schuyler
2001). Various researchers have expressed a variety of views on
risk and risk management. Akintoye and MacLeod (1997) stated
that risk management is a vital necessity for reducing losses and
increasing profits in the construction industry. Williams et al.
(1997) proposed a method for observing the risk management in
the construction projects. Reilly and Brown (2004) studied the im-
plementation of risk management processes in infrastructure and
tunnels, projects which are particularly complex. Raftery (2003)
suggested that the use of expert information and opinions on
risk identification in various projects is essential for saving time.
Farooqui et al. (2007) reported that Pakistan had suffered failures
in bridge construction projects that were related to failing to take
not systematically carried out in Pakistan. Choudhry et al. (2014)
proposed a guideline for risk categories in bridge construction proj-
ects in the construction industry of Pakistan.
The risks can be evaluated from two perspectives: likelihood,
and severity of effects. Risk management is the set of control
processes in a system that predicts the risks and shows the way of
dealing with them (Dikmen et al. 2004).
The complexity of construction projects would cause inference
in work portfolio, and the dynamism of this space and the impact
of environmental factors add to this complexity, accompanied by

© ASCE 04019026-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(4): 04019026

 Start

Identify and collect common

and essential risks

Financial Contractual Design Safety Management Construction External Environmental Post-exploitation

risks risks risks risks risks risks risks risks risks

Field research
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 08/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

End
Identify participants in the study
Introducing research and risk
Analysis and
presentation of solutions Distribute and send the questionnaires Name of the company, the name of person,
for the bridge and explanations in person and phone qualification and work experience
construction projects
9 headlines of risk along with 46 risk factors
Yes Statistical analysis by SPSS-17

No Risk analysis using

accepted?
PertmasterV8

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the research.

various risks and uncertainties. Having several factors affecting
the goal of an engineering problem, would make it difficult to
be solved by traditional methods (Naderpour et al. 2018;
Naderpour and Mirrashid 2018). Construction projects are very
complicated because they involve a large number of activities and
workers (Choudhry et al. 2014). Time control is the most impor-
tant determinant of a successful project (Pall et al. 2016).
The critical path method (CPM) has been widely used
for project scheduling (Paz et al. 2018), and various methods have
been developed by researchers for risk analysis. The project evalu-
ation and review technique (PERT) technique, proposed in 1985 by
the US Maritime Academy, is a risk assessment tool (Choudhry
et al. 2014). Risk management is an essential process to reduce
the time and cost and to increase the profit of a project. The ad-
vanced programmatic risk analysis model (APRAM) is a useful
tool for risk management (Dillon and Pate-Cornell 2001). Risk
assessment involves qualitative and quantitative types. Qualitative
risk assessment is generally based on expert experience, and
quantitative evaluation is based on the impact of risks on time
and cost. The analytical model of construction scheduling risks
evaluates construction activities under uncertainty when the op-
eration time and the risk factors are correlated with each other
(Ökmen and Öztaş 2008). Improper estimations of project targets
performed without detailed risk assessment can cause serious
problems in projects (Artan Ilter and Bakioglu 2018).
The experiences of managers and of people in the project in
some cases may reduce the risks locally, but cannot eliminate
risks in future activities, but they should be carefully scrutinized to
provide an appropriate response. In project evaluation, a lack of
historical information on risks is more of a norm than an exception
(Chang and Ko 2017).
As a developing country, Iran has a great deal of construction,
with a massive budget spent annually on the construction and repair
of bridges. Many projects are subject to successive risks, leading to
damage and even closures. Unfortunately, there are many losses to
projects due to the lack of systematic risk management and its
implications.
This study identifies comprehensively the risks influencing the
bridge construction projects, illustrates how risks affect the time
and cost of a running project using Monte Carlo simulation method,
and proposes an application guide for project managers in Iran. The
risk issue is related to variables such as culture, economics, politics,
and management capabilities of each country, and can be a perspec-
tive for the assessment of success in any country, which means that
the lower the number and the likelihood of risks, the more disci-
plined and stable is law and management in that country. System-
atic risk management is not implemented in most projects in Iran,
and many traditional managers are indifferent in these cases, and
thus, unfortunately, projects suffer from many types of risks, and
this leads to lower productivity and low quality, and increases costs
out of the norm of the projects.
Materials and Methods
This study is a systematic investigation of risks in the bridge con-
struction projects and construction workshops, and benefited from
the literature. The principle of this research was based on workshop
and field observations, distribution of questionnaires, face-to-face
interviews, and telephone interviews (Fig. 1). The stages included
identifying and collecting common and essential risks, field
research, identifying participants, distributing the questionnaires,
statistical analysis, risk analysis, and presentation of solutions for
the bridge construction projects.
For this study, a questionnaire based on previous studies
(Etemadinia and Tavakolan 2016) and workshop observations
was prepared (Fig. 2). The questionnaire consisted of three parts.
In Part 1, the research purpose and the fundamentals of risk were
introduced. The second part asked the name and details of the per-
son answering the questionnaire, and their experience. The third

© ASCE 04019026-2 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(4): 04019026

 section included 9 types of risk along with 46 risk factors. The risks
included in the questionnaire were financial, contractual, design,
safety, management, construction, external, environmental, and
postexploitation risks.
Financial risks included lack of budget, inflation, material price
growth, delays in financial payments, contractor bankruptcy, and
economic losses. Contractual risks included changes in the scope
of work and agendas, contract contradictions, claims and disputes
with the contractor, and incorrect estimation of time and cost. De-
sign changes, incomplete designs, and insufficient inspections on
the project site were considered in design risks. Safety risks in-
cluded accidents, damage to property, and death. Inadequate project
planning, low expertise, poor coordination, poor site monitoring
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 08/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and management, robbery and strike of workers, addicted workers,
and poor-quality second-class contractors were considered as man-
agement risks. Construction risks included delays in construction,
defective work and quality control, technology shortage, low labor
productivity, excess inspection, absent transparency of project
scope, unpredictable site conditions, climatic conditions, work in-
terruptions, and lack of space. Political instability, change in the
behavior of government officials, management change, sanctions,
and delay in budget priorities were categorized as external
risks. Environmental risks included infecting air and soil/water
sources of the project site. Explosion, fire, flood, earthquake, ex-
treme deformity, unpredictable subsidence, and excessive fatigue
were classified as postexploitation risks.
Fig. 2. Details of the distributed questionnaire (main part, including questions).
© ASCE 04019026-3
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(4): 04019026
Before distributing the questionnaires, a meeting was held for re-
view with six experts in bridge construction, each of whom had more
than 20 years of experience in building and managing bridge con-
struction projects, and the questionnaire was reviewed and corrected.
The responses were based on a five-point Likert scale including
insignificant, minor, moderate, major, and catastrophic (Boone and
Boone 2012). The respondents were selected from contractors
and workshop administrators. The questionnaires were distributed
by email, fax, and attendance at bridge construction workshops. A
total of 112 questionnaires were distributed, and 105 respondents
answered; 7 people did not respond to the questionnaires. Pitman
(2018) stated that a 20% response rate is convincing. Black et al.
(2000) noted that a 30% response rate is appropriate for construc-
tion projects. More than 80% of the subjects who completed
questionnaires had more than 10 years of experience in bridge
construction projects. About 10% of them were consultants and
employers, and 90% of the questionnaires were completed by con-
tractor engineers. All respondents had at least a bachelor’s degree in
civil engineering, and 30% had graduate degrees.
The data were analyzed by SPSS version 17 software using pre-
liminary analysis, consistency analysis, and Pearson correlation.
Furthermore, a case study of a bridge project illustrated the impact
of risk on time and cost. The researcher was assisted by a specialist
workshop for doing this, and Monte Carlo simulation techniques
were used to analyze the risks in the case study. The most com-
monly used quantitative risk assessment method for decision
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 making is the use of a decision tree and the Monte Carlo simulation
technique (Liu et al. 2017). This expert team consisted of five mem-
bers (project manager, project control manager, construction and
implementation manager, head of the workshop, and head of the
technical office). All team members had over 20 years of experi-
ence in bridge construction. The risks in this project and their im-
pact on time and cost were determined by the team and applied as
percentages. Probability was determined as optimistic, probable,
and pessimistic activities. This type of possible time and cost al-
lowed the use of the beta distribution function in Pertmaster version
8. Many of the program details and inputs were proposed by the
expert team.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 08/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Results and Analysis
Competency Assessment for Factor Analysis
The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s sphericity tests
were used to guarantee the competency of factor analysis (Ye et al.
2013). The KMO test measures the adequacy of the sample size to
determine if the questions of the questionnaire can be categorized
into subfactors. Typically, the acceptable value should be higher
than 0.5 (George 2011). The sampling adequacy index of the KMO
test is specifically for exploratory factor analysis and shows if data
are adequate for sampling adequacy analysis calculations or not.
The value of KMO must be greater than 0.5; some believe that
the KMO value must be greater than 0.9. Some texts mention that
if KMO is greater than 0.9 it is excellent and if it is less than 0.5 it is
not acceptable. Others believe that if the value of this parameter is
greater than 0.7, existing correlations are well suited for factor
analysis; if it is between 0.5 and 0.69, the researcher must be care-
ful; and if it is less than 0.5 it is not suitable for factor analysis.
The questions of a questionnaire must be correlated with each
other to some determined extent, and too much correlation may
result in multicollinearity, which will stop deriving independent
factors. On the other hand, if correlation between questions of ques-
tionnaires is less than a specific amount, an identity matrix issue
will be encountered. In order to test this, Bartlett’s test of sphericity
is used. Significance of the Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicates that
the material matrix has enough correlation for continuing factor
analysis (Cerny and Kaiser 1977). The Bartlett’s sphericity test cre-
ates a matrix union so that sufficient correlation must exist in the
matrix for further factor analysis.
The result of the KMO test was 0.843, and the result of Bartlett’s
sphericity test was 1,568,932.
Internal Consistency Analysis
The internal consistency was calculated for all items to ensure the
reliability of the Cronbach’s alpha (CA) coefficient (Carmines and
Zeller 1979). CA is a statistic that gauges the internal consistency
of survey questions that load into the same factors (Table 1). Ideal
uses for CA involve measuring the internal consistency among sur-
vey questions (Gliem and Gliem 2003).
This calculation was done for the 9 main factors and 47 risk
factors, and ranged between 0.719 and 0.948, so all were higher
than 0.7, indicating that the questionnaire was reliable (Ghosh
and Jintanapakanont 2004). According to the calculations, the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.878.
Prioritization
After distributing the questionnaire among the respondents, risk
prioritization is one of the most critical tasks, and was performed
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(4): 04019026
Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha measurement
Quality Measure
Excellent 0.9 ≤ α
Good 0.8 ≤ α < 0.9
Acceptable 0.7 ≤ α < 0.8
Questionable 0.6 ≤ α < 0.7
Weak 0.5 ≤ α < 0.6
Unacceptable α < 0.5
in accordance with the Friedman test using SPSS version 17
(Arbuckle 2008) software as follows: (1) financial risks, (2) safety
risks, (3) external risks, (4) contractual risks, (5) management risks,
(6) design risks, (7) environmental risks, (8) construction risks, and
(9) postexploitation risks.
Risk prioritization is a type of qualitative analysis that allows the
employer and the contractor to be informed of the risks to which
they are exposed.
Financial risks were at the top of the list. Financial risks mean
that liquidity is not allocated to the projects correctly and at the
right time. It is considered to be a concern for all projects. Financial
risks regarding contracts, financing, and time progress of a project
cause much damage to the project and endanger project success.
Safety risks were in second place, reflecting the importance
of this category for the respondents. Unfortunately, safety in Iran
is not taken into account, and many projects have suffered from
material and life losses due to absent safety factors. Injuries and
deaths of the workforce have been reported in most bridge con-
struction workshops because of nonobservance of safety. Through
familiarization with bridge construction projects, the researcher
noted several deaths (workers, engineers, and heads of workshops)
in different work periods in various projects.
External risks ranked third. These types of risks are more likely
to be found in countries with national and international tensions.
According to many experts, sanctions have hurt all domestic
and international labor relations.
Contractual risks were in fourth place. Contractual problems in
many projects have caused unwanted legal incidents. Several suit-
able contract patterns can be determined due to the variety of bridge
construction and different conditions.
Management risks ranked fifth. This reflects the fact that the
respondent personnel were optimistic about the management of the
workshop and the organization, and there were no particular man-
agement problems in these projects.
Design risks ranked sixth. This rating reflects the relative famili-
arity of the designers with the problems of project implementation.
Often, however, deficiencies in the plans are identified during
execution, which are solved by the consultant team.
Environmental risk was ranked seventh. This rating indicates
that risks of this type do not affect projects negatively.
Construction risk was in eighth place. This position for
construction risks represents the standardization of most of the ac-
tivities of the units in the bridge construction. The dominance of
managers and engineers in the construction and execution proc-
esses makes the training of the units fully operational.
Postexploitation risks were ranked ninth, suggesting that
the respondents did not deal with such issues in their work
experience or that these issues were very restricted in their work
experience.
These results and rankings of factors can be compared between
Iran and Pakistan. According to a study in Pakistan (Choudhry et al.
2014), the order of risks from the greatest to the least was as
follows: financial risks, external risks, engineering (design) risks,
04019026-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 Table 2. Pearson product-moment correlation of risk factor categories
Category Financial Contractual Design Safety Management Construction External Environmental Postexploitation
Financial 1 — — — — — — — —
Contractual 0.593 1 — — — — — — —
Design 0.399 0.535 1 — — — — — —
Safety 0.506 0.341 0.279 1 — — — — —
Management 0.493 0.502 0.547 0.633 1 — — — —
Construction 0.511 0.602 0.574 0.629 0.775 1 — — —
External 0.511 0.638 0.574 0.306 0.558 0.58 1 — —
Environmental 0.306 0.268 0.284 0.435 0.679 0.521 0.377 1 —
Postexploitation 0.437 0.397 0.489 0.55 0.448 0.527 0.596 0.363 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 08/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

managerial risks, construction risks, contractual risks, and safety
risks.
Pearson Correlation
The Pearson correlation indicates a linear relationship between two
variables. It is not difficult to determine the correlation coefficient
using statistical software. This coefficient is usually between þ1
and −1. The sign reveals the direction of the correlation between
these variables. A positive coefficient means that if a variable is
increased, the other variable also will increase. A negative coeffi-
cient means that if the first variable is decreased, the other variable
will increase. A larger number indicates a stronger correlation; for
example, r ¼ 0.6 indicates a stronger correlation than r ¼ 0.5.
The correlation coefficient r ¼ 0 indicates a lack of linear correla-
tion between the two variables, and coefficients r ¼ þ1 and −1
represent a complete linear correlation (Field 2000).
Pearson correlations were calculated for the risk factors
(Table 2). The most significant correlation (r ¼ 0.775) was related
to construction and management risks, highlighting that manage-
ment and construction risks are changed directly by altering each
other, and the rate of this change is relatively steady. Another
Pearson correlation coefficient with a high value was related to
management and environment risks (r ¼ 0.679), underlining a
strong correlation between these two risks. A different correlation
coefficient, which was ranked next, was related to external and con-
tractual risks (r ¼ 0.638), indicating direct changes between these
two risks. The next rank for the magnitude of the correlation co-
efficient was related to safety and management risks (r ¼ 0.633),
which reflects the value of management discussion following
changes in safety risks.
Case Study of Bridge Construction Project
The project under investigation is a concrete bridge near the city
of Tehran. This project is under construction to improve traffic
and access to surrounding streets. The bridge construction method

Fig. 3. Images of bridge case study. (Images by Seyedmehdi Mortazavi.)

© ASCE 04019026-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(4): 04019026

 Table 3. Probability at start of project
Activity Baseline start
Site preparation September 22, 2017
Phase 1 (piers) October 22, 2017
Phase 2 (slab, and so forth) May 30, 2018
Table 4. Probability at the end of the project
Activity Baseline finish
Site preparation October 21, 2017
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 08/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Phase 1 (piers) June 18, 2018
Phase 2 (slab, : : : ) December 03, 2018
Table 5. Project possible costs (IRR)
Activity Baseline cost P80 cost P100 cost Actual cost
Site preparation 2.42 × 1010 2.49 × 1010 2.61 × 1010 2.58 × 1010
Phase 1 (piers) 2.93 × 1011 3.05 × 1011 3.27 × 1011 3.18 × 1011
Phase 2 2.21 × 1011 2.32 × 1011 2.55 × 1011 — The maximum time to complete the project was 542 days. The most
(slab, and so forth)
is top-down. The concrete deck slab length is 350 m. The deck
slab area is 11,500 m2 . The traffic lane width is composed of
two 11-m lanes. Furthermore, 750 piles with diameters of 1.1 m
to 1.2 m and heights of 20–32 m were used. Fig. 3 shows photos
of the project.
After the necessary examinations, the project schedule was pre-
pared. Then the project team, including project manager, site man-
ager, technical office manager, project planning control manager,
and site inspector, were selected. Following various meetings with
the project team and explaining the research objectives and the
topic of risk analysis with the help of the project team, the time
and cost of (optimistic, probable, and pessimistic) activities were
determined. Subsequently, the most critical risks were selected
by the project team according to the qualitative assessment and risk
prioritization, prepared as questionnaires. After this stage, the prob-
ability of risks and their effects on the activities were examined
during the meeting, and the necessary steps were taken to record
the numbers proposed by the project team in Pertmaster. Input data
to the program included risk numbering, threat-opportunity, risk
explanation, probability of risk, correlation of risk and activity,
distribution type of time, and risk type (time-cost).
The quantitative analysis of the risks was performed in Pertmas-
ter using the Monte Carlo simulation method (Williams 2012).
This method provides approximate answers for quantitative
problems by statistical sampling. In general, it is a simulation that
explicitly and quantitatively represents uncertainties; thus the
whole system is simulated a large number of times (e.g., 1,000).
Each simulation is called a realization of the system. For each reali-
zation, all the uncertain parameters are sampled. Then the system is
simulated over time so that the system performance can be calcu-
lated. This leads to a large number of independent and separate
results, each of which represents a possible future for the system
(Castro-Santos and Diaz-Casas 2015). The results of the autono-
mous system realizations are in the form of probability distributions
of possible outputs. Hence, the outputs are not single, but proba-
bility distributions (Tables 3, 4 and 5).
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(4): 04019026
P80 start P100 start Actual
September 22, 2017 September 22, 2017 September 22, 2017
October 24, 2018 October 28, 2018 September 18, 2018
June 24, 2018 August 25, 2018 —
P80 finish P100 finish Actual
October 21, 2017 October 27, 2017 October 21, 2017
July 19, 2018 September 15, 2018 July 20, 2018
January 06, 2019 March 17, 2019 —
To check the scheduling, initially the schedule was calculated
without taking into account the risks with probabilistic time and
beta distribution function. The estimated values were as follows
(Fig. 4). The minimum time to complete the project was 388 days.
probable time to complete the project was 452 days, with a prob-
ability of 80% that the project would be completed in 472 days.
Similarly, there was a probability of 50% that the project would
be completed in 450 days. There was a probability of 30% that
the project would be completed in 437 days. According to the site
schedule approved by the consultant and the employer, the total
time of the project is considered to be 438 days.
Concerning the possible project costs, the calculated items in
Fig. 4 were as follows (Fig. 5). The maximum estimated cost
for the project was IRR 590 billion (USD 16.8 million). The mini-
mum estimated cost for the project was IRR 494 (USD 14.11 mil-
lion). The most likely estimated cost for the project was IRR
542 billion (USD 15.5 million). There was a probability of 48%
that the project would cost IRR 541 billion (USD 15.4 million).
There was a probability of 50% that the project would cost IRR
543 billion USD 15.51 million). There was a probability of
80% that the project would cost IRR 557 billion (USD 15.91 mil-
lion). According to the project schedule, the final cost of the project
will be IRR 541 billion.
Quantitative Analysis of Risk
As explained previously, the project team selected the most criti-
cal risks for the project. The selective risks included (1) lack
of budget, (2) inflation, (3) incorrect estimated time and cost,
(4) claims, (5) incomplete design, (6) accidents, (7) incomplete
planning, (8) poor-quality second-class contractors, (9) low exper-
tise, (10) delays in construction, (11) low labor productivity,
(12) sanctions, and (13) delays in financial payments.
After selecting the preceding risks, the probability of risks and
the effect of time-cost with the uniform distribution function were
assigned to the selected activities, and Pertmaster recalculated the
time and cost. The results of the calculations are as follows.
The minimum probable project completion time was 484 days
(Figs. 6 and 7). The maximum probable project completion time
was 788 days. However, the most probably project completion
time was 608 days. There was a probability of less than 1% that
the project would be completed in 438 days (March 21, 2018).
There was a probability of 50% that, the project would be
completed in 608 days (May 22, 2019). There was a probability
04019026-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 08/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Pert technique (duration).

Fig. 5. Pert technique (cost).

© ASCE 04019026-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(4): 04019026

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 08/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Monte Carlo simulation result.
of 80% that the project would be completed in 660 days (July 21,
2019).
The calculation of the project cost was verified by taking
into account the risk (Fig. 8). The maximum estimated cost
for the project was IRR 691 billion (USD 19.7 million). The mini- 2.
mum estimated cost for the project was IRR 510 billion (USD
14.57 million). The most likely estimated cost for the project
was IRR 614 billion (USD 17.54 million). There was a proba-
bility of 4% that the project would cost IRR 541 billion (USD
15.45 million). There was a probability of 50% that the project
would cost IRR 620 billion (USD 17.71 million). There was a
probability of 80% that the project would cost IRR 642 billion
(USD 18.34 million). 3.
Important Strategies for Risk Analysis
By considering the scientific and practical research in the discus-
sion of risk analysis in the bridge construction, the following issues
were investigated:
1. The knowledge of bridge construction companies regarding the 4.
concepts of risk analysis—field studies, project site observa-
tions, and attendance at various bridge construction workshops,
should consider that the risk category is not explored in a stan-
dardized and systematic manner in contracting companies in
Iran, and management teams are working to create a contract
and implement the project with a limited knowledge of the 5.
nature and categorization of risks and their consequences, so
that in many cases the project experiences various problems.
© ASCE 04019026-8
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(4): 04019026
The researcher’s suggestion is to create a risk management
option (RMO) in contractor companies and state agencies and
to submit monthly codified risk analysis reports to upstream
managers.
Abandoning unprofessional timetables—in some of the work-
shop meetings and observations, it was found that the timeline
was often unrealistic, and the project significantly deviated from
the schedule. This is a severe risk to a project. Improper plan-
ning and mismatching of activities with time will cause inaccu-
rate estimates in the macroscale of the project, and the risks
involved in the project at random times will cause severe
damage to the project.
The correct estimation of the risk effects on the activities and the
project—failure to accurately estimate the impacts and probabil-
ities of risks can lead to significant mistakes in project manage-
ment. Incorrect estimates will directly affect the time and cost of
the project, may cause waste of project resources, and may lead
to further decisions with many problems. It is recommended to
use expert groups in this field.
Utilization of standard risk simulation techniques—there are
many techniques for quantitative analysis of the risks, but the
Monte Carlo simulation method is one of the easiest and
best techniques, and Pertmaster software with a professional
and appropriate structure can provide a proper analysis to
project decision makers.
Description of the output tables of Pertmaster—one of the
most critical parts of risk analysis is the use of multiple charts
in Pertmaster. With the application of the correct interpretation
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 08/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Monte Carlo simulation finish date.
of the various types of graphs (time, cost, sensitivity, scatter, and
so forth), a comprehensive assessment of the project can be
made that which would be effective in decision making process
of projects.
Conclusion
Because of the strategic importance of bridges in suburban and
urban roads and the specific conditions of Iran, politically and
economically, risk assessments were conducted. Identification
and prioritization of risks were based on questionnaires in bridge
construction workshops and on the opinion of engineers and
experts in bridge construction in various interviews and meetings
using statistical software, resulting in prioritization of risks as
follows: (1) financial risks, (2) safety risks, (3) external risks,
(4) contractual risks, (5) management risks, (6) design risks,
(7) environmental risks, (8) construction risks, and (9) postexploi-
tation risks. A case study investigated the effect of risks and their
quantitative analysis using workshop schedules, expert opinions,
the Monte Carlo simulation method, and Pertmaster software; es-
sential tables regarding the impact of risks on time and cost were
calculated, and general and specific solutions were presented that,
according to the researcher, can be implemented in bridge construc-
tion projects in Iran. The researcher attempted to compile a com-
prehensive framework for information on existing risks in the
present circumstances of Iran, but a specific project at a particular
site may be defined for specific purposes without evaluating all the
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(4): 04019026
cases mentioned in this research. Regarding data tables and
calculations which were based on project scheduling, based on
expert’s ideas, projects risks and their quantities were entered in
Pertmaster 8; considering time and cost calculations, the following
estimates are presented. In project schedules, range of time change
risk for minimum probability regarding the project completion
would increase the project time by 24%, and in an extreme case
increased project time by 45%; the most probable project comple-
tion time increased the project time by 34%. The calculation of risk
effects on project costs indicated that a range of 3%–17% in the
most probable state will increase project costs by 13%.
Project managers, contractors, and anyone involved in project
risk management must note that risks and their impacts should
be assessed in different phases of a project and the risk management
team should constantly audit risks and report their impacts to man-
agers. In most projects in Iran, the identified framework can solve
the problems of and help the plans for bridge construction projects.
Modeling and exploiting the experiences from past projects can in-
crease the potential for project success, resulting in more accurate
and transparent forecasts for the future of the project, more efficient
use of existing resources, and reduction in the losses. The results of
this study can help project managers to enter projects with open
eyes and celebrate the successful opening of the project. This is
probably the only real and systematic research on the risks involved
in bridge construction projects in Iran, the trends and outcomes of
which can be considered suitable technical and managerial guide-
lines for bridge construction companies.
04019026-9 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 08/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Monte Carlo simulation cost result.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study
appear in the paper.
References
Akintoye, A. S., and M. J. MacLeod. 1997. “Risk analysis and management
in construction.” Int. J. Project Manage. 15 (1): 31–38. https://doi.org
/10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00035-X.
Arbuckle, J. 2008. Amos 17.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Artan Ilter, D., and G. Bakioglu. 2018. “Modeling the relationship between
risk and dispute in subcontractor contracts.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Res-
olut. Eng. Constr. 10 (1): 04517022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
LA.1943-4170.0000246.
Asgari, M., A. Kheyroddin, and H. Naderpour. 2018. “Evaluation of project
critical success factors for key construction players and objectives.” Int.
J. Eng. 31 (2): 228–240.
Bahamid, R. A., and S. I. Doh. 2017. “A review of risk management
process in construction projects of developing countries.” Mater. Sci.
Eng. 271 (1): 012042.
Black, C., A. Akintoye, and E. Fitzgerald. 2000. “An analysis of success
factors and benefits of partnering in construction.” Int. J. Project Man-
age. 18 (6): 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00046-0.
Boone, H. N., and D. A. Boone. 2012. “Analyzing Likert data.” J. Exten-
sion 50 (2): 1–5.
Carmines, E. G., and R. A. Zeller. 1979. Reliability and validity assess-
ment: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
© ASCE 04019026-10
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(4): 04019026
Castro-Santos, L., and V. Diaz-Casas. 2015. “Sensitivity analysis of float-
ing offshore wind farms.” Energy Convers. Manage. 101: 271–277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.05.032.
Cerny, B. A., and H. F. Kaiser. 1977. “A study of a measure of sampling
adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices.” Multivariate Behav.
Res. 12 (1): 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1201_3.
Chang, C.-Y., and J.-W. Ko. 2017. “New approach to estimating the stan-
dard deviations of lognormal cost variables in the Monte Carlo analysis
of construction risks.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 143 (1): 06016006.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001207.
Choudhry, R. M. 2016. “Appointing the design consultant as supervision
consultant on construction projects.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng.
Constr. 8 (4): 04516005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-41
70.0000195.
Choudhry, R. M., M. A. Aslam, J. W. Hinze, and F. M. Arain. 2014.
“Cost and schedule risk analysis of bridge construction in Pakistan:
Establishing risk guidelines.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (7):
04014020. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000857.
Choudhry, R. M., and K. Iqbal. 2013. “Identification of risk management
system in construction industry in Pakistan.” J. Manage. Eng. 29 (1):
42–49. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000122.
Dikmen, I., M. T. Birgonul, and A. E. Arikan. 2004. “A critical review of
risk management support tools.” In Proc., 20th Annual Conf. of Asso-
ciation of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM), 1–3.
Chennai, India: ARCOM.
Dillon, R. L., and M. E. Pate-Cornell. 2001. “APRAM: An advanced
programmatic risk analysis method.” Int. J. Technol. Policy Manage.
1 (1): 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2001.001744.
Etemadinia, H., and M. Tavakolan. 2016. “Fuzzy weighted interpretive
structural modeling: A new method for risks path identification of
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 the infrastructure projects.” In Construction Research Congress 2016,
2841–2850. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Farooqui, R. U., S. H. Lodi, and F. Saleem. 2007. “Risk management per-
ceptions and trends among construction contractors in Pakistan.” In
Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Construction in the 21st Century: Accelerating
Innovation in Engineering, Management and Technology (CITC IV
2007), Gold Coast, Australia.
Field, A. 2000. Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows: Advanced
techniques for beginners (Introducing Statistical Methods series).
London: SAGE.
George, D. 2011. SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and
reference, 17.0 update, 10/e. Chennai, India: Pearson Education India.
Ghosh, S., and J. Jintanapakanont. 2004. “Identifying and assessing the
critical risk factors in an underground rail project in Thailand: A factor
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 08/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
analysis approach.” Int. J. Project Manage. 22 (8): 633–643. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.05.004.
Gliem, J. A., and R. R. Gliem. 2003. “Calculating, interpreting, and report-
ing Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales.” In
Midwest Research-to-Practice Conf. in Adult, Continuing, and Commu-
nity Education. Columbus, OH: Ohio State Univ.
Liu, B., and F. Sun. 2019. “Research on the risk assessment method of PPP
project based on the improved matter element model.” Sci. Iranica. Ac-
cessed August 08, 2018. http://scientiairanica.sharif.edu/article_20820
.html.
Liu, J., F. Jin, Q. Xie, and M. Skitmore. 2017. “Improving risk assessment
in financial feasibility of international engineering projects: A risk
driver perspective.” Int. J. Project Manage. 35 (2): 204–211. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.004.
Naderpour, A., J. Majrouhi Sardroud, M. Mofid, Y. Xenidis, and T. Pour
Rostam. 2019. “Uncertainty management in time estimation of con-
struction projects: A systematic literature review and new model devel-
opment.” Sci. Iranica 26 (2): 752–778.
Naderpour, H., and M. Mirrashid. 2018. “An innovative approach for com-
pressive strength estimation of mortars having calcium inosilicate min-
erals.” J. Build. Eng. 19 (Sep): 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe
.2018.05.012.
Naderpour, H., O. Poursaeidi, and M. Ahmadi. 2018. “Shear resistance pre-
diction of concrete beams reinforced by FRP bars using artificial neural
© ASCE 04019026-11
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(4): 04019026
networks.” Measurement 126 (Oct): 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.measurement.2018.05.051.
Naji, H. I., and R. Hussein Ali. 2018. “Risk response selection in construc-
tion projects.” Civ. Eng. J. 3 (12): 1208.
Ökmen, Ö., and A. Öztaş. 2008. “Construction project network evaluation
with correlated schedule risk analysis model.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
134 (1): 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:
1(49).
Pall, G. K., A. J. Bridge, M. Skitmore, and J. Gray. 2016. “Comprehensive
review of delays in power transmission projects.” IET Gener. Transm.
Distrib. 10 (14): 3393–3404. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-gtd.2016.0376.
Paz, J. C., D. Rozenboim, Á. Cuadros, S. Cano, and J. Escobar. 2018. “A
simulation-based scheduling methodology for construction projects
considering the potential impacts of delay risks.” Constr. Econ. Build.
18 (2): 41. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v18i2.5842.
Pitman, E. J. G. 2018. Some basic theory for statistical inference:
Monographs on applied probability and statistics. London: Chapman
and Hall/CRC Press.
Raftery, J. 2003. Risk analysis in project management. London: Routledge.
Reilly, J., and J. Brown. 2004. “Management and control of cost and risk
for tunneling and infrastructure projects.” In Tunneling and Under-
ground Space Technology. Underground Space for Sustainable Urban
Development. Proc., 30th ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress Singa-
pore, 22–27 MAY 2004. Geneva, Switzerland: ITA-AITES.
Schuyler, J. R. 2001. Risk and decision analysis in projects. Newton
Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Wang, J., and H. Yuan. 2017. “System dynamics approach for investigating
the risk effects on schedule delay in infrastructure projects.” J. Manage.
Eng. 33 (1): 04016029. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000472.
Williams, D. L. 2012. Oracle primavera P6 Version 8: Project and
portfolio management. Packt.
Williams, R. C., J. A. Walker, and A. J. Dorofee. 1997. “Putting risk man-
agement into practice.” IEEE Software 14 (3): 75–82. https://doi.org/10
.1109/52.589240.
Ye, K., B. Li, and L. Shen. 2013. “Key factors considered in compiling
tender prices for China’s public works projects.” J. Manage. Eng.
29 (3): 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000153.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.