Ioannou, P G (1988) Geologic exploration and risk reduction in underground construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 114(4), pp. 532-547. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Geologic uncertainty in underground construction promotes design and construction conservatism and has a significant effect on project cost. Site investigation can reduce this uncertainty and decrease costs by reducing the contingency amounts included in bids. This paper presents research findings that provide a better understanding of how subsurface exploration and improved contractual risk sharing can decrease the cost of underground projects. Issues discussed include: the methodology used by tunneling contractors to estimate geologic profiles given a set of available geologic information; the geologic classification methods used to associate the expected profile with acceptable construction alternatives; the spatial prediction of ground classes and the extents over which different excavation and support methods will be necessary; the factors involved in selecting the initial support, the excavation round length and the estimation of the advance rate; the relationship between exploration, risk allocation, and bidding behavior; the impact of changed conditions clauses in underground construction contracts; the merits of using well-defined geologic conditions as a basis in unit price contracts; and the magnitude of bid contingencies that are actually used in practice.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | project cost, risk reduction, bidding, methodology, exploration, excavation, estimation, underground construction, estimate, site investigation, design and construction, risk allocation |
| Subjects: | financial risk, research methods, economics, geotechnical engineering, bidding, contractual arrangements, construction operations, financial and cost management, environmental resource management |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Cost Management, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here