Geotechnical Risk Identification: Case Study of Flexible Retaining Walls Installation

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Flexible retaining wall
• technical risk
• cause and effect diagram

Geotechnical Risk Identification: Case Study of Flexible Retaining Walls Installation

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Flexible retaining wall
• technical risk
• cause and effect diagram

Kaynakça

1. [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. [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. [3] ISO 31000:2009(E). Risk management – Principles and guidelines.
4. [4] Duncan, J.M. Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical engineering. J. Geotech. Geoenviron., 126(4), 307–316, 2000.
5. [5] Gibson, W. Probabilistic methods for slope analysis and design. Aust. Geomech. J., 46(3), 1–12, 2011.
6. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [17] Clayton, C.R.I. (ed.) Managing Geotechnical Risk - Improving Productivity in the United Kingdom, 2001.
18. [18] Baynes, F.J. Sources of geotechnical risk. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrog., 43, 321–331, 2010.
19. [19] Sartain, N., Mian, J., Free, M. Presenting uncertainty clearly: challenges in communicating geotechnical risk. Geotechnical Safety and Risk V, 739–751, 2015.
20. [20] Huang, H., Zhang, D. Quantitative geotechnical risk management for tunneling projects in China. Geotechnical Safety and Risk V, 61–75, 2015.
21. [21] Simpson B & Driscoll R, Eurocode 7: A Commentary. CRC Ltd, Watford. 179 p, 1998.
22. [22] EN-1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design – Part 1: General Rules. 168 p.
23. [23] EN-1997-2 Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical Design – Part 2: Ground Investigation and Testing. 196 p.
24. [24] ISO/IEC 31010:2009. Risk Management – Risk Assessment Techniques. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
25. [25] Dikčius, V. Marketing Research. Theory and Practice. Vilnius, Lithuania, 187 p, 2003 [in Lithuanian].