A Framework for Risk-Based Cost–Benefit Analysis for Decision Support on Hydrogeological Risks in Underground Construction
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- The risk of not implementing necessary measures, resulting in damages and damage costs for the project owner, the society, and the environment.
- The risk of implementing measures when not needed, resulting in unnecessary implementation costs.
2. General Methods
2.1. The Risk-Management Process
2.2. Probabilistic Risk Analysis
2.3. Cost–Benefit Analysis
2.4. The Observational Method
2.5. Sensitivity Analysis
3. Results—A Proposed Framework
3.1. Establish the Context and Risk Identification
3.2. Risk Analysis
3.3. Risk Evaluation
3.4. Sensitivity Analysis
3.5. Decision, Risk Treatment and Monitoring and Review
4. Framework application
5. Concluding Remarks
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Huggenberger, P.; Epting, J. (Eds.) Urban Geology: Process-Oriented Concepts for Adaptive and Integrated Resource Management; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2011; pp. 95–191. [Google Scholar]
- Kværner, J.; Snilsberg, P. Hydrogeological impacts of a railway tunnel in fractured Precambrian gneiss rocks (south-eastern Norway). Hydrogeol. J. 2013, 21, 1633–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Fernández, C.; Prieto, D.A.; Fernández-Viejo, G.; Pando, L.; Fernández, E.C. Surface Subsidence Induced by Groundwater Drainage Tunneling in Granite Residual Soils (Burata Railway Tunnel, Spain). J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013, 139, 821–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burbey, T.J. The influence of faults in basin-fill deposits on land subsidence, Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, USA. Hydrogeol. J. 2002, 10, 525–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gustafson, G. Hydrogeology for Rock Engineers; Rock Engineering Research Foundation: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Attanayake, P.M.; Waterman, M.K. Identifying environmental impacts of underground construction. Hydrogeol. J. 2006, 14, 1160–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kværner, J.; Snilsberg, P. The Romeriksporten railway tunnel—Drainage effects on peatlands in the lake Northern Puttjern area. Eng. Geol. 2008, 101, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vatovec, M.; Kelley, P.L. Biodegradation of Untreated Wood Foundation Piles in Existing Buildings. Structure 2007, 54, 15–17. [Google Scholar]
- Elam, J.; Björdal, C. A review and case studies of factors affecting the stability of wooden foundation piles in urban environments exposed to construction work. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2020, 148, 104913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Persson, J. Hydrogeological Methods in Geotechnical Engineering: Applied to Settlements Caused by Underground Construction; Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Boone, S.J. Ground-Movement-Related Building Damage. J. Geotech. Eng. 1996, 122, 886–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindskoug, N.-E.; Nilsson, L.-Y. Grundvatten och byggande. In Byggforskningen; R 20; University of Gothenburg: Gothenburg, Sweden, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Mossmark, F.; Hultberg, H.; Ericsson, L.O. Recovery from groundwater extraction in a small catchment area with crystalline bedrock and thin soil cover in Sweden. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 404, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hernández-Espriú, A.; Reyna-Gutiérrez, J.A.; Sánchez-León, E.; Cabral-Cano, E.; Carrera-Hernández, J.; Martínez-Santos, P.; Marcias-Medrano, S.; Falorni, G.; Colombo, S. The DRASTIC-Sg model: An extension to the DRASTIC approach for mapping groundwater vulnera-bility in aquifers subject to differential land subsidence, with application to Mexico City. Hydrogeol. J. 2014, 22, 1469–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graffner, O. Miljöuppföljning Bergtunnelsprojekt; Banverket: Borlänge, Sweden, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Lewan, E.; Linnér, H. Simulering av Transpiration Från Jordbruksgrödor vid Grundvattensänkning; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Uppsala, Sweden, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Panthi, K.; Nilsen, B. Significance of grouting for controlling leakage in water tunnels: A case from Nepal. In Proceedings of the 31st ITA General Assembly, Istanbul, Turkey, 7–12 May 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Andersson, P.; Sellner, A. Tätning av Bergtunnlar–Förutsättningar, Bedömningsgrunder och Strategi vid Planering och Ut-Formning av Tätningsinsatser; Vägverket: Borlänge, Sweden, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ilsley, R.C.; Powers, J.P.; Hunt, S.W. Use of recharge wells to maintain groundwater levels during excavation of the Milwaukee deep tunnels. In Proceedings of the 10th Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, 16–20 June 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Sundell, J.; Haaf, E.; Tornborg, J.; Rosén, L. Comprehensive risk assessment of groundwater drawdown induced subsidence. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2019, 33, 427–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lundman, P. Cost Management for Underground Infrastructure Projects: A Case Study on Cost Increase and Its Causes. Ph.D. Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kadefors, A.; Bröchner, J. Observationsmetoden i Bergbyggande: Kontrakt och Samverkan; Swedish Rock Engineering Foundation: Stockholm, Sweden, 2008; p. 28. [Google Scholar]
- Aven, T. Foundations of Risk Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Sundell, J. Risk assessment of groundwater drawdown in subsidence sensitive areas. In Architecture and Civil Engineering; Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Sturk, R. Engineering geological information: Its value and impact on tunnelling. In Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics; Royal Institute of Technology: Stockholm, Sweden, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Einstein, H.H.; Baecher, G.B. Probabilistic and statistical methods in engineering geology. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 1983, 16, 39–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garshol, K.F. Pre-Excavation Grouting in Rock Tunneling; MBT International Underground Construction Group: Zurich, Switzerland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Werner, K.; Onkenhout, J.; Löv, Å. Effects on Hydrogeological and Hydrological Conditions Due to Groundwater Diversion from Rock Facilities. Step 1—Pre Study; Swedish Rock Engineering Research Foundation: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012; p. 117. [Google Scholar]
- Beitnes, A. Lessons to be Learned from Long Railway Tunnels; Norwegian Tunneling Society: Oslo, Norway, 2002; pp. 51–57. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, L.; Bohne, R.A.; Bruland, A.; Jakobsen, P.D.; Lohne, J. Life cycle assessment of Norwegian road tunnel. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 20, 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilchrist, A.; Allouche, E.N. Quantification of social costs associated with construction projects: State-of-the-art review. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2005, 20, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeze, R.A.; Massmann, J.; Smith, L.; Sperling, T.; James, B. Hydrogeological Decision Analysis: 1. A Framework. Ground Water 1990, 28, 738–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansson, P.-O.; Kristrom, B. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Project Appraisal; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Boardman, A.E.; Greenberg, D.H.; Vining, A.R.; Weimer, D. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Peck, R.B. Advantages and Limitations of the Observational Method in Applied Soil Mechanics. Géotechnique 1969, 19, 171–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choi, H.-H.; Cho, H.-N.; Seo, J. Risk Assessment Methodology for Underground Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 258–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nývlt, O.; Prívara, S.; Ferkl, L. Probabilistic risk assessment of highway tunnels. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2011, 26, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spross, J.; Stille, H.; Johansson, F.; Palmstrøm, A. Principles of Risk-Based Rock Engineering Design. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2019, 53, 1129–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sundell, J.; Schweckendiek, T. A Framework for Risk Assessment of Groundwater Drawdown Induced Subsidence. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geotechnical Safety and Risk (ISGSR2015), Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 12–16 October 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Risk Management: Principles and Guidelines; ISO 31000; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
- Lindley, D.V.; Bedford, T.; Cooke, R. Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods. Math. Gaz. 2002, 86, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, S.; Garrick, B.J. On The Quantitative Definition of Risk. Risk Anal. 1981, 1, 11–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, B.R.; Freeze, R.A. The worth of data in predicting aquitard continuity in hydrogeological design. Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29, 2049–2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Back, P.-E. Value of Information Analysis for Site Investigations in Remediation Projects; Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Zetterlund, M.S.; Norberg, T.; Ericsson, L.O.; Norrman, J.; Rosén, L. Value of information analysis in rock engineering: A case study of a tunnel project in Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory. Georisk Assess. Manag. Risk Eng. Syst. Geohazards 2015, 9, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundell, J.; Norberg, T.; Haaf, E.; Rosén, L. Economic valuation of hydrogeological information when managing groundwater drawdown. Hydrogeol. J. 2019, 27, 1111–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McNulty, G.; Deshler, B.; Dove, H. Value of Information Analysis-Nevada Test Site; IT Corp: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Zetterlund, M.; Norberg, T.; Ericsson, L.O.; Rosen, L. Framework for Value of Information Analysis in Rock Mass Characterization for Grouting Purposes. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 486–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powderham, A.J. The observational method? Learning from projects. Geotech. Eng. 2002, 155, 59–69. [Google Scholar]
- Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design—Part 1: General Rules; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
- Holmberg, M.; Stille, H. Observationsmetodens Grunder och Dess Tillämpning På Design av Konstruktioner i Berg; Swedish Rock Engineering Research Foundation: Stockholm, Sweden, 2007; p. 80. [Google Scholar]
- Saltelli, A.; Ratto, M.; Tarantola, S.; Campolongo, F. Sensitivity analysis practices: Strategies for model-based inference. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2006, 91, 1109–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burgman, M. Risks and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Management; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Lewis, J.; Sjöström, J.; Höök, M.; Sundström, B. The Swedish model for groundwater policy: Legal foundations, decision-making and practical application. Hydrogeol. J. 2013, 21, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merisalu, J.; Rosén, L. Formulation of Terms and Condition for Groundwater Diversion When Constructing Below the Ground Surface; Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Wladis, D.; Rosén, L. Riskhantering för att Undvika Driftstörningar i Byggskedet i Stora Infrastrukturprojekt i Urban Miljö; Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Panthi, K.K.; Nilsen, B. Uncertainty Analysis for Assessing Leakage Through Water Tunnels: A Case from Nepal Himalaya. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2009, 43, 629–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Franklin, J. Prediction of water flow into rock tunnels: An analytical solution assuming an hydraulic conductivity gradient. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Géoméch. Abstr. 1993, 30, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitterød, N.-O.; Colleuille, H.; Wong, W.; Pedersen, T. Simulation of groundwater drainage into a tunnel in fractured rock and numerical analysis of leakage remediation, Romeriksporten tunnel, Norway. Hydrogeol. J. 2000, 8, 480–493. [Google Scholar]
- Raposo, J.R.; Molinero, J.; Dafonte, J. Quantitative evaluation of hydrogeological impact produced by tunnel construction using water balance models. Eng. Geol. 2010, 116, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molinero, J.; Samper, J.; Juanes, R. Numerical modeling of the transient hydrogeological response produced by tunnel construction in fractured bedrocks. Eng. Geol. 2002, 64, 369–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, C.; Lee, Y.; Kim, S.-H.; Kim, H.-T. Tunnelling-induced ground settlements in a groundwater drawdown environment—A case history. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2012, 29, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundell, J.; Haaf, E.; Norberg, T.; Alén, C.; Karlsson, M.; Rosén, L. Risk Mapping of Groundwater-Drawdown-Induced Land Subsidence in Heterogeneous Soils on Large Areas. Risk Anal. 2019, 39, 105–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Griffiths, D.V.; Fentont, G.A. The Random Finite Element Method (RFEM) in Steady Seepage Analysis. In Probabilistic Methods in Geotechnical Engineering; Springer: London, UK, 2007; Volume 491, pp. 225–241. [Google Scholar]
- Mortellaro, S.; Krupa, S.; Fink, L.; Van Arman, J. Literature Review on the Effects of Groundwater Drawdowns on Isolated Wetlands; South Florida Water Management District: West Palm Beach, FL, USA, 1995.
- Merisalu, J.; Sundell, J.; Rosén, L. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Safety Measures for Management of Hydrogeological Risks When Constructing Below Ground—Case Study Förbifart Stockholm; Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, A.M.; Herriges, J.A.; Kling, C.L. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Analysmetod och Samhällsekonomiska Kalkylvärden för Transportsektorn; ASEK 6.1.; Swedish Transport Administration: Borlange, Sweden, 2018.
- Boyle, K.J.; Bergstrom, J.C. Benefit transfer studies: Myths, pragmatism, and idealism. Water Resour. Res. 1992, 28, 657–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boutwell, J.L.; Westra, J.V. Benefit Transfer: A Review of Methodologies and Challenges. Resources 2013, 2, 517–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rolfe, J.; Johnston, R.J.; Rosenberger, R.S.; Brouwer, R. Introduction: Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values; Springer: London, UK, 2015; Volume 14, pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
- O’Hagan, A.; Buck, C.E.; Daneshkhah, A.; Eiser, J.R.; Garthwaite, P.H.; Jenkinson, D.J.; Oakley, J.E.; Rakow, T. Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts’ Probabilities; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Gosling, J.P. SHELF: The Sheffield Elicitation Framework. In International Series in Operations Research & Management Science; Springer: London, UK, 2018; pp. 61–93. [Google Scholar]
- Hamby, D.M. A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models. Environ. Monit. Assess. 1994, 32, 135–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iman, R.L.; Conover, W.J. The use of the rank transform in regression. Technometrics 1979, 21, 499–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Steps in the Framework | Application |
---|---|
Establish the context | The aim is to identify the socioeconomically most profitable measures for groundwater control. The legal requirements for the project states that the leakage into the tunnel can cause a maximum-allowed groundwater drawdown in the lower aquifer of 1 m below the yearly average. The requirements also state that buildings classified as cultural heritage must not be damaged. Only measures that fulfill these criteria can thus be implemented. |
Risk identification | There are two main risks identified for the project:
|
Define risk-reducing measure alternatives | The reference alternative is defined as building the tunnel without any strategy for groundwater control. The risk-reducing measure alternatives reasonable to consider for implementation are:
|
Risk estimation | The economic risk of subsidence damages, Rs, is estimated based on the probability of damage induced by subsidence, fs, and the economic consequence, Cs, of that damage, for the reference alternative and all measure alternatives (see Section 2.2). The probability of damage is determined in several steps. First, the leakage into the tunnel for the various alternatives is assessed by eliciting experts on the hydrogeological conditions in the area as well as expected outcomes of pregrouting and concrete lining. All expert assessments include uncertainty. Second, the impact on groundwater levels as a function of the assessed leakage and artificial recharge is determined for all measure alternatives by stochastic groundwater modeling. Third, the magnitude of subsidence induced by groundwater drawdown is calculated based on data on geotechnical properties of the clay in the area, thickness of the clay based on drillings, and the simulated groundwater drawdown. The subsidence calculations are carried out for each node in a 20 × 20 m resolution grid for the area covered with clay. Fourth, damage models describing the relationship between subsidence and damage for the objects at risk are developed by eliciting experts. The economic consequence of subsidence damage is determined by valuation models describing the relationship between damage and costs. The valuation models are developed based on data on reimbursement costs for subsidence damages. References providing examples of all these models are provided in Section 3.2. The economic risk of subsidence is finally calculated by coupling all these models and running Monte Carlo simulations (see Section 2.1). The risk of delays, Rd, is estimated based on the probability of violating the legal terms, fd, and the economic consequence, Cd, of that violation. The probability of violating the terms is determined in the same manner as the first two steps of the subsidence calculations, thus using the leakage assessments and stochastic groundwater modelling. The cost of violating the terms is determined from valuation models. The valuation model for penalties is developed based on historical records of penalties for similar project. The valuation models for delays are developed based on standard values applicable for the given context. |
CBA | The benefits of the risk-reducing measure alternatives constitute the reduced economic risk, Ri, of implementing a measure and are estimated by comparing the economic risk of the measure alternatives with the reference alternative in accordance with Equation 4. The costs of the measure alternatives are estimated by expert elicitation and from data on costs from previous underground projects. The costs include investment costs, operation and maintenance costs, costs for reinvestment in the measure after its lifespan, and costs for air emissions. All measure alternatives have longer expected construction periods compared to the reference alternative. The costs of these longer construction times are estimated by using standard values applicable for the given context. The result from the CBA is shown as bar charts. The four bars represent the 50th percentile (median) for the measure alternatives, the error bars represent the 5th and 95th percentile, and the two bars for each alternative represents the NPV calculated with two different discount rates (1.4 and 3.5%, respectively). The NPV is highest for measure alternative 3, which makes this alternative the most profitable to society. |
Sensitivity analysis | A sensitivity analysis was carried out for both the risk analysis and the risk evaluation in accordance with the example provided in Section 3.4. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the cost estimates for sealing strategies (grouting and concrete lining) together with the valuation of damage costs for buildings had the largest impact on the NPV. Reducing uncertainties on these variables would thus increase the reliability of the risk evaluation. |
Decision | Measure alternative 3 is the most profitable according to the CBA followed by alternative 1, 4, and 2. The result from the risk analysis indicates that alternative 1 has a high probability of not meeting the legal requirements of a maximum-allowed drawdown and of not causing any damage to cultural heritage. Alternative 4 also has a high probability of not meeting the legal requirement of a maximum-allowed drawdown in a few parts of the influence area. Based on the CBA and the sensitivity analysis, it is decided that more data need to be collected and the models in the risk assessment should be updated before any final decision is made regarding what risk mitigation strategy to apply. The data collection would focus on reducing the uncertainties of the cost estimates for the sealing strategies in order to reduce the overall uncertainty in the risk evaluation. |
Risk treatment | After updating the models with new data, the decision makers decide to design the risk-reducing measures in accordance with alternative 3. |
Monitoring and review | As the construction of the tunnel starts and the project progresses, more data are collected. The data collection focuses on information that can be of use in the design and implementation of the risk-reducing measures. Once the measures have been implemented, the data collection focuses on monitoring and reviewing the effects of the implemented measures. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Merisalu, J.; Sundell, J.; Rosén, L. A Framework for Risk-Based Cost–Benefit Analysis for Decision Support on Hydrogeological Risks in Underground Construction. Geosciences 2021, 11, 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11020082
Merisalu J, Sundell J, Rosén L. A Framework for Risk-Based Cost–Benefit Analysis for Decision Support on Hydrogeological Risks in Underground Construction. Geosciences. 2021; 11(2):82. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11020082
Chicago/Turabian StyleMerisalu, Johanna, Jonas Sundell, and Lars Rosén. 2021. "A Framework for Risk-Based Cost–Benefit Analysis for Decision Support on Hydrogeological Risks in Underground Construction" Geosciences 11, no. 2: 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11020082
APA StyleMerisalu, J., Sundell, J., & Rosén, L. (2021). A Framework for Risk-Based Cost–Benefit Analysis for Decision Support on Hydrogeological Risks in Underground Construction. Geosciences, 11(2), 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11020082