Geotechnical Risk Identification: Case Study of Flexible Retaining Walls Installation

Year 2020, Volume: 31 Issue: 4, 10085 - 10111, 01.07.2020

Danute Slızyte , Natalija Lepkova Rimantas Mackevıcıus

https://doi.org/10.18400/tekderg.459316

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The analysis of scientific literature has demonstrated that the risk of
the collapse or deformations of flexible retaining walls has not been the
object of in-depth examination so far. The article presents geotechnical risks
falling into five categories considering their origin. A case study was
conducted to identify the risks of flexible retaining walls. In order to
determine the risk of installation flexible retaining walls, the authors of the
article referred to the personal interview approach, brainstorming and the
cause and effect diagram. The novelty of the article is focused on investigating
identification possibilities of the risk of installation flexible retaining
walls and suggests risk identification in the risk management flow of the
flexible retaining wall installation process.

Keywords

Flexible retaining wall, technical risk, cause and effect diagram

Geotechnical Risk Identification: Case Study of Flexible Retaining Walls Installation

Abstract

The
analysis of scientific literature has demonstrated that the risk of the
collapse or deformations of flexible retaining walls has not been the object of
in-depth examination so far. The article presents geotechnical risks falling
into five categories considering their origin. A case study was conducted to
identify the risks of flexible retaining walls. In order to determine the risk
of installation flexible retaining walls, the authors of the article referred
to the personal interview approach, brainstorming and the cause and effect
diagram. The novelty of the article is focused on investigating identification
possibilities of the risk of installation flexible retaining walls and suggests
risk identification in the risk management flow of the flexible retaining wall
installation process.

Keywords

Flexible retaining wall, technical risk, cause and effect diagram

References

• [1] Lacasse, S. Hazard, Reliability and risk assessment – research and practice for increased safety. NGM 2016 Reykjavik Proceedings. Paper presented at the 17th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting. Challenges in Nordic Geotechnics, 25–28 May 2016.
• [2] Flage, R., Aven, T. Emerging risk – Conceptual definition and relation to black swan type of events. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe., 144, 61–67, 2015.
• [3] ISO 31000:2009(E). Risk management – Principles and guidelines.
• [4] Duncan, J.M. Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical engineering. J. Geotech. Geoenviron., 126(4), 307–316, 2000.
• [5] Gibson, W. Probabilistic methods for slope analysis and design. Aust. Geomech. J., 46(3), 1–12, 2011.
• [6] Brown, E.T. Risk assessment and management in underground rock engineering—an overview. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng, 4(3), 193–204, 2012.
• [7] Swannell, N., Palmer, M., Barla, G., Barla, M. Geotechnical risk management approach for TBM tunnelling in squeezing ground conditions. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Tech., 57, 201–210, 2016.
• [8] Mishra, R.K., Janiszewski, M., Uotinen, L.K.T., Szydlowska, M., Siren, T., Rinne, M. Geotechnical Risk Management Concept for Intelligent Deep Mines, Procedia Eng, 191, 361–368, 2017.
• [9] Xia, Y., Xiong Z., Dong, X., Lu, H. Risk assessment and decision-making under uncertainty in tunnel and underground engineering. Entropy, 19(10), 549, 2017.
• [10] Haddad, A., Eidgahee, D.R., Naderpour, H. A probabilistic study on the geometrical design of gravity retaining walls. World J. Eng., 14(5), 414–422, 2017.
• [11] Zou, Y., Kiviniemi, A., Jones, S.W. A review of risk management through BIM and BIM-related technologies. Safety Sci., 97, 88–98, 2017.
• [12] Li, Z., Xue, Y., Qiu, D., Xu, Z., Zhang, X., Zhou, B., Wang, X. AHP-ideal point model for large underground petroleum storage site selection: an engineering application. Sustainability, 9(12), 2343, 2017.
• [13] Xue, Y., Cao, Z., Du, F., Zhu, L. The influence of the backfilling roadway driving sequence on the rockburst risk of a coal pillar based on an energy density criterion. Sustainability, 10(8), 2609, 2018.
• [14] Ahmadi, M.; Behzadian, K.; Ardeshir, A.; Kapelan, Z. Comprehensive Risk Management Using Fuzzy FMEA and MCDA Techniques in Highway Construction Projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 2017, 23 (2), 300-310, DOI: 10.3846/13923730.2015.1068847.
• [15] Valipour, A.; Yahaya, N.; Md Noor, N.; Antuchevičienė, J.; Tamošaitienė, J. Hybrid SWARA-COPRAS Method for Risk Assessment in Deep Foundation Excavation Project: An Iranian Case Study. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management2017, 23(4), 524–532, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2017.1281842
• [16] SGF (Swedish Geotechnical Society). Risk Management in Geotechnical Engineering Projects – Requirements: Methodology. Report 1:2014E. 2nd ed. Linköping: Swedish Geotechnical Society. 2017. Available online: http://www.sgf.net/web/page.aspx?refid=4567 (accessed on 5 March 2018).
• [17] Clayton, C.R.I. (ed.) Managing Geotechnical Risk - Improving Productivity in the United Kingdom, 2001.
• [18] Baynes, F.J. Sources of geotechnical risk. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrog., 43, 321–331, 2010.
• [19] Sartain, N., Mian, J., Free, M. Presenting uncertainty clearly: challenges in communicating geotechnical risk. Geotechnical Safety and Risk V, 739–751, 2015.
• [20] Huang, H., Zhang, D. Quantitative geotechnical risk management for tunneling projects in China. Geotechnical Safety and Risk V, 61–75, 2015.
• [21] Simpson B & Driscoll R, Eurocode 7: A Commentary. CRC Ltd, Watford. 179 p, 1998.
• [22] EN-1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design – Part 1: General Rules. 168 p.
• [23] EN-1997-2 Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical Design – Part 2: Ground Investigation and Testing. 196 p.
• [24] ISO/IEC 31010:2009. Risk Management – Risk Assessment Techniques. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
• [25] Dikčius, V. Marketing Research. Theory and Practice. Vilnius, Lithuania, 187 p, 2003 [in Lithuanian].