Design and Construction Risks For A Shipping Port

Case Study
Design and Construction Risks for a Shipping Port

and Container Terminal: Case Study
F. J. Joubert, Ph.D. 1; and L. Pretorius, Ph.D. 2
Abstract: This paper presents the risk identification process, a checklist of 215 different risks, and an associated risk breakdown structure
(RBS) for the design and construction phases for a shipping port and associated container terminal. The case study project scope for the
research includes a 3,500-m breakwater, 80 ha of reclaimed land, a 1,000-m-long quay wall, port equipment, and buildings. The checklist is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 81.22.46.140 on 11/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
categorized according to the project work breakdown structure (WBS) and includes risks associated with (1) breakwater, (2) reclaimed land,
(3) entrance canal and basin, (4) quay wall, (5) container yard and buildings, (6) power supply, and (7) project management office. Since the
research outcome was developed by subject matter experts during an actual project, it can be used during risk identification, as a completeness
check after risk identification on similar projects, or for individual activities (e.g., quay wall construction) per the required project scope.
The research also includes a list of risks that specifically relate to marine construction. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000537. This
work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/.
Author keywords: Port construction; Container terminal; Project risk management; Risk identification; Checklist.
Introduction (quay wall, dredging, etc.), and (4) it contains various categories
of project risk: technical, delivery/logistics, contractor/supplier,
Although it can be assumed that “design and construction risks” quality, and out-of-area location. The subject matter experts include
are applicable to “design and construction risks for a shipping port personnel who have worked on multiple port and container terminal
and container terminal,” very little peer-reviewed research was projects, such as senior marine design engineers, dredging engi-
found in a literature review regarding the more specific risks asso- neers, senior quay wall construction engineers, project managers,
ciated with the design and construction of shipping ports and as- and so forth.
sociated container terminals. This paper therefore attempts to fill It should be noted that, since the intent of this article is to present
this research gap by presenting a checklist and risk breakdown a checklist that may be used by others during the risk identification
structure (RBS) that can be used in the risk identification process process, its scope is limited to (1) the risk identification process
when designing and constructing a shipping port with an associated that was followed for this project and (2) some lessons learned
container terminal. A RBS is a high-level process map that can be during risk identification. This implies that other parts of the
used to aid risk identification (Chapman 2006). It is hierarchically ISO31000:2009 risk management process (American Society of
organized by risk and risk subcategory and identifies the various Safety Engineers 2011b) are excluded from discussion: (1) risk
areas and causes of potential risks (Project Management Institute analysis, (2) risk evaluation, (3) risk treatment, (4) monitoring
2013). and review, and (5) communication and consultation. Risk sources,
The checklist derived as part of this research contains 215 risks their consequences, and their respective treatment plans are not
related to the design and construction of the following parts of a discussed in any detail.
shipping port and container terminal: (1) breakwater, (2) reclaimed
land, (3) entrance canal and basin, (4) quay wall, (5) container yard
and buildings, (6) power supply, and (7) project management office. Case Study Background
The checklist is useful because (1) it was obtained and refined
during an actual construction project using either one-on-one inter- The context used to identify construction risks is important because
views or structured risk workshops as part of the research process, it explains which risks are included in the paper as part of the cur-
(2) it was developed in collaboration with experienced subject rent research focus and which ones are not. In the research case
matter experts, (3) it may be used in sections as it is broken study, the client appointed an engineering and project management
down into different parts of a shipping port construction project consultant (EPMC), whose scope of services was to manage the
implementation and construction of the shipping port and container
1 terminal. The following facilities were included in the EPMC’s
Extraordinary Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Engineering and Technol-
ogy Management, Univ. of Pretoria, Private bag X20, Hatfield 0028, scope considered in this research case study:
South Africa (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002 • Marine works, which included (1) a 3,500-m breakwater, (2) all
-9871-7442. Email: [email protected] dredging and reclamation, and (3) a 1,000-m quay wall.
2
Professor, Dept. of Engineering and Technology Management, Univ. • Land works, which included (1) container storage yard paving
of Pretoria, Private bag X20, Hatfield 0028, South Africa. works, (2) mechanical/electrical/plumbing works, and (3) con-
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 18, 2018; approved on
April 4, 2019; published online on October 31, 2019. Discussion period tainer gate.
open until March 31, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for in- • Buildings and amenities, which included (among others)
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Waterway, Port, (1) operations and administration building, (2) maintenance
Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-950X. building (offices, warehouse, storage rooms for hazardous
© ASCE 05019003-1 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

materials, workshops), (3) gate building, (4) fuel station, (5) port Literature Review
equipment (ship-to-shore cranes, rubber-tired gantries, reefer
stacks), and (6) backup power generation plant. Checklists as a Valid Risk Identification Technique:
For the facilities just listed, the EPMC was responsible for the Aspects of a Literature Review
following project management disciplines:
• Overall project management; Although there are some limitations in using checklists as a risk as-
• Scope management; sessment technique (Hillson 2002b; Cooper et al. 2014; American
• Project controls (which include risk management); Society of Safety Engineers 2011a), checklists are easy to use and
• Procurement management; remain helpful because they may ensure that common problems
• Contract management; are not forgotten (American Society of Safety Engineers 2011a).
• Site construction management and supervision; As for the term risk, there are various definitions for the term risk
• Health, safety, security, environment, and social performance identification. Cooper et al. (2014) state that risk identification deter-
management; mines what might happen that could have an effect on achieving
• Quality assurance and quality control management; and project objectives, and how these things might happen. Other defini-
• Interface management between the various construction and tions include (1) the process of determining which risks may affect the
consultancy services contracts and client-supplied equipment project and documenting their characteristics as referenced by the
and utilities. Project Management Institute (2009); (2) the process of finding, rec-
The main reason for the construction of the port was limited ognizing, and recording risk (American Society of Safety Engineers
capacity at the West African country’s main commercial port. 2011b); and (3) a very simple definition of finding risks (Hillson 2009).
The project is expected to treble the current port’s annual traffic Risk identification is therefore a clearly defined step, found in
of about 1 million 20-foot equivalent units. the processes described in PMBOK (Project Management Institute
2009) and ISO31000:2009 (American Society of Safety Engineers
2011a). This is an important step in the risk management process
Research Method and Paper Structure because it identifies the sources of risks, which can in turn be used
The research method followed in this paper is exploratory in nature to determine treatment plans.
(Cooper and Schindler 2013), with risk identification methods Numerous risk identification techniques are known and docu-
based on aspects of a literature review. The case study method, mented. The American Society of Safety Engineers’ publication
combined with data collection from a panel or focus group func- Risk Assessment Techniques is the American adaptation of
tioning in a risk workshop context, was then used to establish a ISO31010:2009 (American Society of Safety Engineers 2011a)
checklist containing design and construction risks for the shipping and identifies six different types of risk assessment tool:
port and container. This paper is structured as follows: • Lookup methods: checklists, preliminary hazard analysis;
1. Literature review including discussions on the following topics: • Supporting methods: structured interviews and brainstorming;
• Since the purpose of this paper is to produce a checklist, the • Scenario analysis: root cause analysis, fault tree analysis;
first section deals with some risk identification techniques • Function analysis: failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA),
and the validity of checklists as a risk identification techni- hazard and operability (HAZOP) study;
que. This section concludes with a discussion of some • Controls assessment: layers of protection analysis, bow tie
advantages and disadvantages of checklists. analysis; and
• Published research on risks that can be found on construction • Statistical techniques: Markov analysis, Monte Carlo analysis.
projects. A total of 31 techniques are described for these six types of
2. Results presented in terms of the following: risk assessment tool, each discussed in terms of its application
• Some lessons learned regarding what worked well during in (i) risk identification, (ii) likelihood and consequence estimation,
the risk identification process are presented in terms of (iii) level of risk and (iv) risk evaluation (American Society of
(1) useful checklists employed, (2) how the workshops Safety Engineers 2011a).
were structured as part of the research process, (3) the Lookup methods such as checklists are useful because they may
use of risk management software, (4) naming conventions be used by nonexperts and can help ensure that common prob-
used, and (5) a structured approach to identification of inter- lems are not forgotten. Limitations include their tendency to limit
face risks. imagination and their potential to ignore “unknown unknowns.”
• Some lessons learned regarding where process improve- Checklists are most useful when applied to check that all impor-
ments were required during the risk identification process tant aspects have been covered by more imaginative techniques
are presented in terms of (1) a gap in the initial risk register (American Society of Safety Engineers 2011a). Lyons and Skitmore
where production and placement risks (rock, concrete armor (2004) and (Chapman 1998) have identified checklists as risk iden-
units, caissons) were not included in all packages, (2) risks tification tools. Chapman also discusses the use of checklists in an
related to the management of procurement, and (3) risks re- article dealing with the effectiveness of working-group risk identi-
lated to a mismatch between the production equipment and fication and assessment techniques (Chapman 1998). This supports
the schedule. the use of a literature review to create a checklist of risks related to
• The proposed checklist is presented and discussed in terms the design and construction of a shipping port and container termi-
of the various parts of the work breakdown structure (WBS). nal, and partly supports the case study focus reported in this paper.
• A proposal is made regarding a RBS that can be used on It should be noted that, although checklists are useful, individual
similar projects. projects should still establish their own context-specific risks.
3. Discussion of results in terms of (1) validity of the checklist and
proposed RBS, (2) differences between “generic” construction
Published Research on Construction Project Risks
risks and risks identified during this research, (3) benefits, and
(4) shortcomings of the research results. The design risks associated with the various parts of a port
4. Conclusion, acknowledgements, and references. and container terminal have been widely described and include

(1) breakwater design (Koc 2009), (2) quay wall design (Roubos as the Channel Tunnel, the Concorde, the Sydney Opera House,
et al. 2018), (3) land reclamation (Lendering et al. 2015), and and the German MAGLEV train between Berlin and Hamburg.
(4) dredging (Nebot et al. 2017). When conducting a literature The discussion included problems with these projects, misinforma-
review on peer-reviewed research containing checklists that can tion used to justify project implementation, and the significant
be used in risk identification for construction projects, it appears contribution of inaccurate estimates to project overruns (Flyvbjerg
that publications can be categorized as follows: et al. 2003).
• Geographical location: these checklists relate to risks associated Other sources identified in the literature review contained lists
with construction projects in different countries (e.g., China and of potential risks. Cooper et al. (2014) included a section called
South Africa). “Examples of Risks and their Treatments” drawn from a number
• Project stakeholder perspective: these lists relate to risks asso- of different projects. Kendrick (2003) concluded his book with a
ciated with contractors, designers, project owners, and other list, although not as exhaustive as that provided by Cooper et al.
stakeholders. The paper by Joubert (2016) was also used during these initial risk
• Project scope: these lists contain risks that are more specific to identification sessions.
the scope of the project: railways, power plants, tunnels and Out-of-Area Risks. Since the project team comprised mostly ex-
bridges, ports and container terminals. patriates not always conversant with local customs, the checklist
These categories, together with some research examples and provided by Cooper et al. (2014) on out-of-area risks was used
outcomes, are summarized in Table 1. as input to the risk identification workshops. These risks covered
When specifically searching for articles related to marine project topics such as communications, culture and customs, health,
risks as part of this research, only the article by Tam and Shen language, legal/regulatory, offshore location, politics, religion,
(2012) could be found. The literature review indicated that risk- security, and staffing. The inclusion of local (i.e., nonexpatriate)
related research on marine projects tended to focus on port opera- colleagues proved invaluable during this phase of risk identification
tional safety (Alises et al. 2014; Kim and Kim 2009; Yang et al. as they were far more familiar with the local context and customs
2014; Zheng et al. 2011), environmental risk (Zheng et al. 2011), than their expatriate colleagues.
and investment risk (Kakimoto and Seneviratne 2000). Technical Risks. Regarding technical risks, the book Construction
Risk in Coastal Engineering (Simm and Cruickshank 1998) was
invaluable, as it contains well-structured sets of specific technical
Results risks related to (1) rock works, (2) concrete armor units, (3) caisson
works, (4) navigational dredging works, and (5) beach nourish-
ment. Specific reference is made to the obstacles a project might
Lessons Learned: What Worked Well as Part of the
encounter when interfacing with nature, including geotechnical,
Risk Identification Process
weather, and seawater risks. In each section, risks are discussed
The important lessons learned during the risk identification process in terms of their place in the construction process. For example,
are discussed in this section in terms of (1) useful checklists caisson risks are discussed in terms of (1) fabrication, (2) transport,
employed, (2) workshop structure, (3) naming conventions used, (3) positioning, and (4) backfilling (Simm and Cruickshank 1998).
(4) structured approach for identification of interface risks, and
(5) use of project risk management software. These lessons relate Initial Risk Workshops
to positive research results during the risk identification process. Before the first risk identification sessions in the research case
study commenced, basic risk management and identification train-
Useful Checklists ing was presented. This was done to align participants to the lan-
During the risk identification workshops, several checklists identi- guage and process described by ISO31000:2009. During the initial
fied in the literature review and other relevant sources as part of the risk identification sessions, focus was placed on a particular part of
research process were used and are discussed in terms of lists for the work breakdown structure, with input from the design engineer
(1) megaprojects risks, (2) out-of-area risks, and (3) technical risks. and/or construction manager.
Megaprojects. As preparation for the risk identification sessions, a The first step in these workshops was to set the context by iden-
search for useful checklists was conducted. Several sources, such as tifying the main parts of the construction sequence as laid out in the
reviewed literature on risks identified in megaprojects, were found. WBS. For example, rock supply risks were identified in terms of
Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) dealt with a wide variety of megaprojects the following WBS tasks: (1) quarry mobilization, (2) quarry pro-
(including a large number of public–private partnerships), such duction, (3) rock transport, and (4) on-site delivery.
Table 1. Construction risk checklists

Category Reference Outcome
Geographical location Windapo and Cattell (2013) List of risks based on research done in South Africa
Zou et al. (2007) List of risks based on research done in China
Project stakeholder perspective Chan et al. (2011) Ranked list of risks for client, contractor, and consultants
Karim et al. (2012) Ranked list of risks for contractors
Rezakhani (2012) List of risks broken down into various categories
Zou et al. (2006) List of risks per stakeholder per project phase
Project scope Jergeas (2008) List of risks associated with pipeline project
Lam (1999) List of risks per sector (power, highway, bridges, tunnels, airports,
and rail projects)
Mohan (2017) List of risks associated with offshore construction
Špačková (2012) Dissertation on risks associated with tunneling
Tam and Shen (2012) List of risks associated with marine projects

The prepared checklists were used to check completeness of Risk-Naming Conventions and Categories
the identified risks. The main reason they were not employed as the As the risk identification process continued, the large number of
first step was that they might inhibit imagination, address only the risks identified made it clear that a more structured naming conven-
known knowns, and miss problems not readily visible (American tion was required. A naming convention was then implemented
Society of Safety Engineers 2011a). Checklist preparation was use- where the short risk name was preceded by the associated WBS
ful to the risk workshop facilitator in that it helped to provide in- category. In practical terms, risk names started looking like this:
formation related to similar projects. A total of 151 risks were • Breakwater: rock-loading delays on site; and
identified during these initial sessions, as summarized in Table 2. • Breakwater: concrete armor unit placement.
This approach turned out to be problematic, especially for those
Project Risk Management Software sections of the WBS with many associated risks. It was then
Managing and reporting on a risk register where risks have multiple decided to include a number after the WBS category to indicate
sources, treatment plans, due dates, and treatment plan owners is the sequence in which activities would take place so that the soft-
virtually impossible when using MS Excel only. The risk register ware would list them alphabetically, showing the risks associated
contained 215 risks, allocated to 15 WBS categories, together with with earlier parts of the construction process first. Thus, the first 12
414 treatment plans with different due dates as well as 15 treatment risks for the breakwater were followed by placement risks:
plan owners. Risks were captured in proprietary software that • Breakwater: 01 Concrete armor unit specification;
allowed a single risk to have multiple risk sources, each with an • Breakwater: 01 Design delays;
appropriate treatment plan, plan owner, and due date. The main • Breakwater: 01 Specification compliance;
reason for the use of such software was that spreadsheet-based risk • Breakwater: 01 Surveys delayed;
registers are difficult to use to manage risks and identify outstand- • Breakwater: 02 Deterioration of armor stone rock during
ing tasks and task owners, specifically if multiple risk sources and handling;
treatments are captured in single cells. • Breakwater: 02 Inadequate site rock truck resources;
• Breakwater: 02 Rock-loading delays on-site;
Specific Key Performance Indicators for Project Risk • Breakwater: 03 Concrete armor unit placement;
Management • Breakwater: 03 Construction at beach crossing; and
Risk management activities took place throughout the project life • Breakwater: 03 Loss of material during rock placement
cycle, with at least monthly updates. At the beginning of each This approach was taken in all subsequent risk identification and
month, the risk management software produced various risk regis- review sessions. Additionally, all risks were categorized in terms of
ters, status reports, top-20 lists, and to-do lists for upcoming and (1) extended risk breakdown structure, (2) whether the risk could
overdue tasks. These reports were distributed electronically. The affect the critical path, and (3) whether the particular risk involved
risk manager was responsible for ensuring follow-up on the various an interface with the sea. A total of 80 risks were placed on the
risks and their treatment plans. The monthly risk status report also critical path, and of these 8 had a direct interface with the sea. This
included key performance indicators for the risk management was important, as the treatment options for these risks were in many
process, which included (among others) the following: cases limited to making adequate provision for them in the project
• Number of risks and opportunities and risk status (emerging/ schedule. Examples of this included the following:
realized/closed); • Breakwater: 03 Loss of material during rock placement (due to
• New risks, newly realized risks, and recently closed risks; sea action);
• Number of treatment plans (total/with due tasks/with due tasks • Breakwater: 03 Rock outloading bottlenecks (due to limited
next month); space on the breakwater); and
• Number of risks last updated more than 90 days ago; • Breakwater: 04 Rock core damaged after exposure (due to
• Number of overdue tasks and treatments, including task inclement weather).
owners; and
• Number of updates during the last month (risks/treatment plans/ Structured Approach to Identifying Interface Risks
comments). Identification of interface risks took place a year after the initial risk
These performance indicators gave management and the project workshops were held and mainly dealt with interface risks between
risk manager some confidence that regular risk reviews and (1) quay wall and (2) reclamation and soil improvement; and build-
updates were taking place; they also proved useful in compliance ing packages such as (1) administration buildings, (2) workshops,
audits. (3) customs inspection building, and (4) fuel station. These risks are
important because they relate to risks associated with different
packages, different design engineers, and different construction
Table 2. Risks identified during initial risk workshops companies. The management of interface risks also forms part of
WBS element Number of risks the EPMC’s scope of tasks.
The methodology followed was similar to that for conducting a
Breakwater 24 HAZOP study (International Electrotechnical Commission 2001;
Building and land construction 6
Dunjóa et al. 2010). HAZOP studies are structured and systematic
Building and land design 8
Dredging 16 examinations of a process, procedure, or system. It uses deviation
Engineering and project management 26 guide words (high flow, low flow, reverse flow, etc.) and nodes
General site 3 (which are specific to a design) to identify hazards associated with
Health and safety 10 the operation of machinery or a system. The methodology was
Marine works general 11 adapted by replacing the HAZOP study nodes with combination
Quay 21 pairs of input packages (e.g., quay wall/admin buildings) and by
Rock supply (for breakwater) 11 replacing the normal HAZOP guide words with guide words related
Reclamation and soil improvement 15 to interface types. Four sets of guide words were used:
Total 151
• Design/technical information exchange/approvals;

• Schedule/sequence/tie-in; • Quay: 02 Caisson semisubmersible barge unavailable; and
• Laydown areas/traffic/site access; and • Rock supply: 02 Insufficient trucks and other equipment.
• Operating facility. These risks can be eliminated by fully visible equipment pro-
In practical terms, a question was formulated as “When looking curement schedules that are discussed in weekly meetings.
at the quay wall and admin building design, are there any design/
technical information exchange/approval risks?” If any were Included Risks: Production Equipment–Schedule Mismatch
identified, the risk was further analyzed. If not, the question would The consequences of mismatches between equipment and schedule
become “When looking at the quay wall and admin building de- involve not maintaining schedule progress because of (1) inappro-
sign, are there any schedule/sequence/tie-in risks?” The process priate and/or insufficient equipment on-site or (2) not being able to
continued until all input package pairs and guide words were cycled translate schedule requirements into appropriate production resour-
through. The process took some time, but helped to identify 24 new ces. This differs from the previous set of risks in that the risks dis-
risks, of which typical examples included cussed here relate to having “correct” equipment on site that cannot
• Land package design: rear crane beam/services alignment; produce at the rate required by the schedule. This can mean either
• Land package design: scanner design unknown; and that the equipment is insufficient or that the schedule is unrealistic.
• Land package design: ship-to-shore crane turnover pits. As with procurement risks, the sources of these risks relate to lack
This process was particularly helpful in identifying design inter- of planning, which in turn translates into (1) not understanding
face risks, of which the majority were treated by simply changing production rates of the available equipment or (2) agreeing to an
the related designs. All such risks were transferred to the risk man- unrealistic schedule. Typical risks are as follows:
agement software and reviewed as part of the normal monthly risk • Rock supply: 02 Insufficient trucks and other equipment;
review. • Breakwater: 03 Rock-outloading bottlenecks (on breakwater);
• Breakwater: 04 Traffic congestion on breakwater;
• Dredging: 02 Cutter suction dredger required and not available;
Lessons Learned: Where Improvement Was Required
• Dredging: 03 Breakdown of dredger;
The risk review revealed some lessons that needed to be incorpo- • Quay: 03 Caisson-casting quality;
rated into the initial risk identification sessions of future projects.
These lessons mainly relate to (1) a gap in the initial risk register
where production and placement risks (rock, concrete armor units, Table 3. Number of risks per WBS element
caissons) were not included in all packages, (2) procurement man-
Level 1: project scope Level 2: design/construction Unique risks
agement, and (3) mismatches between the production equipment
and the schedule. The last two are related, and their combined effect Breakwater Design 6
may severely impact the efforts of any project to meet its schedule Construction 56
objectives. Reclaimed land Site conditions 3
Construction 22
Missing Risks: Production and Placement Risks Entrance canal and Design 3
During the initial risk assessment, several risks related to the supply basin Construction 4
Quay Design 6
and placement of rock on the breakwater were identified, since dis-
Construction 34
cussions with the engineers and input from the client risk register Buildings and Design 15
indicated that this was expected to be problematic. As the project container yard Construction 18
progressed and production of the concrete armor units started, some Power supply Design 5
risks indicated that there was a lack of control over the production Construction 6
of concrete armor units. Project management Permitting and site access 6
The risks related to production and placement of concrete armor office Planning and schedule 6
units were reviewed, and the outcome was used to ensure that each management
of part of the WBS included both production and placement risks. Scope management 7
This lesson was also rolled out to future projects to ensure that con- Commercial management 8
Quality management 2
struction would be covered in terms of production and placement,
Human resource management 4
especially where the placement had a direct interface with the sea. Health, safety, and environment 4
Typical examples of these risk pairs are as follows: management
• Breakwater: 03 Concrete armor unit production delays; Total 215
• Breakwater: 03 Concrete armor unit placement (direct interface
with the sea);
• Land construction package: 03 Paving block production rates;
• Quay: 03 Caisson production rates; and
• Quay: 05 Caisson placement delays at sea (direct interface with Table 4. Breakwater: design risks
the sea).
Level 3: risk
Included Risks: Procurement Management category Level 4: individual risks
Procurement management risks involve not having equipment on Specification • Additional design measures required to treat
site in time to support the schedule. Their sources are mainly lack of compliance long wave action
planning that in turn translates into (1) not ensuring that the correct • Compliance with European design specifications
equipment is ordered, (2) not taking equipment lead times into con- • Concrete armor unit specification compliance
sideration, (3) late start of the procurement process, and (4) customs • Severe long-term beach erosion due to port
delays. Typical risks are as follows: layout and design
• Dredging: 02 Cutter suction dredger required and not available; Completion • Design rework after modeling
delays • Delayed geotechnical and bathymetric surveys
• Quay: 02 Caisson suitability of ordered formwork;

• Quay: 03 Caisson production rates; These risks can be eliminated by thorough interrogation
• Quay: 04 Caisson-loading submersible barge delays; of planned equipment productivity and by fully visible con-
• Quay: 04 Dredger production rates; and tractor procurement schedules that are discussed in weekly
• Quay: 05 Caisson placement delays at sea. meetings.
Table 5. Breakwater: construction risks

Level 3: risk category Level 4: individual risks
Rock supply from quarries • Quarry mobilization delays
• Quarry production delays
• Rock quantity for breakwater underestimated
• Rock specification (hardness and weight) compliance
Transportation of rock to site • Insufficient trucks and other equipment shortfalls
• Rock-loading delays at quarry
• Road traffic congestion

• Road traffic limitations (axle weights)
Placement of rock by split barges, trucks, and cranes • Delays in construction of beach crossing
• Deterioration of armor stone rock during handling
• Excessive loss of material during rock placement
• Reduced space for on-site stockpiles as construction progresses
• Truck-loading delays on-site from stockpiles
• Traffic congestion on breakwater
• Fuel supply interruptions (trucks/dredger/generators)
• Rock loading onto split barges bottlenecks
• Rock-placing delays by cranes on breakwater
• Temporary jetty out of operation (weather/maintenance issues/damage by vessels)
• Breakwater crane accidents
• Offshore barge working problems and delays
Concrete armor units • Concrete armor unit production delays
• Concrete armor unit placement delays
Natural environment • Overtopping of breakwater during construction
• Rock core damaged/exposed after severe storms
• Insurance claims not paid due to concrete armor units not in place to protect breakwater
• Settlement of breakwater requiring more rock
• Geotechnical problems during construction
• Seabed changes during construction (siltation)
Health, safety, and environment Risks at quarry:
• Blasting failures at quarry
• Theft of explosives and blasting caps
• Dust pollution at quarry
Transportation risks to site:
• Rocks falling off trucks during transportation
• Traffic accidents (on-site and public)
Risks at project site:
• Site access accidents and delays
• Traffic accidents at rail level crossing at site
• Damage to railway and level crossings by loaded trucks carrying rock
• Wildlife—sharks and snakes
• Truck and personnel safety/traffic management on site
• Unauthorized discharges/spills by trucks
• Asbestos and other hazardous materials (HAZMAT)
• Waste concrete being dumped on site
• Contractor safety culture
• Potable water availability
• Infectious disease outbreak
• Site security
• Obstructed emergency access during construction
• Safety noncompliance by contractors
• Flooding of active work areas during storms
Marine operational risks:
• Fire at sea
• Unauthorized discharge/spills
• Vessel collision incidents
• Damage to dredger and other vessels during storms
• Vessel groundings
• Storm warning procedure not in place
• Safe human accessibility of marine plant
• Inclement weather

Proposed Checklist breakwater by trucks, cranes, or split barges. Split barges were used
to dump breakwater core rock onto the seabed. When the core was
As part of the research, the identified risks were reviewed and
high enough, trucks placed more rock. Cranes were used to place
reclassified to create a risk breakdown structure (RBS) that can
armor rock. The last step in protecting the breakwater was place-
be used for similar projects. Based on the project context, the
ment of concrete armor units (accropodes). There was an on-site
WBS, and identified risks, the RBS was organized into four levels
batching plant for the more than 30,000 accropodes that had to
(Table 3) as follows:
1. Six main parts of the project scope (breakwater, reclaimed land, be manufactured. The project site was close to the equator with
entrance canal and basin, quay wall, container yard and build- a yearly monsoon season from July to September.
ings, power supply) as well as the project management office Breakwater construction risks involved (1) rock supply,
(PMO); (2) transportation of rock to the site, (3) placement of rock on
2. Risks classified as either design or construction; the breakwater by split barges, trucks, and cranes, (4) manufacture
3. Breakdown of Level-2 risk categories into more discrete parts of and placement of concrete armor units on the breakwater, (5) envi-
the project value chain; and ronment (wind, waves, tides, sea level), and (6) health, safety, and
4. Individual risks. environment (Table 5).
Breakwater: Design Reclaimed Land: Design

Breakwater design risks relate to (1) compliance of designs with Phase 1 of the project required 72 ha of reclaimed land. The re-
operational requirements and international specifications and claimed land would be used for paving the container yard as well
(2) on-time completion of designs. All designs completed by the as for siting all port buildings. Risks related to the layout and design
contractor were verified by a third-party design consultant and of the reclaimed land were identified (Table 6).
are summarized in Table 4.
Reclaimed Land: Construction
Breakwater: Construction Reclaim material was dredged from a sandbank approximately
The breakwater required more than 3.5 million tons of rock to 20 km from the project site. Construction on the reclaimed land
be mined from various quarries and then transported by truck to entailed either dynamic compaction or vibroflotation to prepare
the site. The rock was either stockpiled on-site or placed on the the soil for container yard paving and building construction. Risks
involved (1) dredging and supply of reclaim material, (2) discharge
of reclaim material on-site, (3) soil improvement using dynamic
Table 6. Reclaimed land: design risks compaction, (4) health, safety, and environment (Table 7).
Site conditions • Existing shoreline/underestimation of work to Table 8. Entrance canal and basin: design risks
prepare project site
• Position and extent of existing services for
relocation unknown Dredging design • Dredging depth disagreement
Geotechnical • Unknown geotechnical conditions for • Dredging volume uncertainty
conditions implementation of temporary works Equipment • Navigational aid specifications unclear/late
Table 7. Reclaimed land: construction risks

Dredging of reclaim material • Dredging permitting and approval delays
• Dredging starts late (dredger not available)
• Dredger production rates lower than expected
• Sand borrow royalties exceeding budget
• Contaminated reclaim materials
• Sand location further than planned
• Heritage finds underwater
• Damage to existing underwater pipelines and communication cables
• Disruption of commercial shipping lanes by dredging activities
Discharge or reclaim material • Bund wall collapsing
• Bund weir overflow
• Standing/stinking water onsite
Soil improvement • Ineffective compaction methodology
• Settlement repairs during construction
• Backfill compacting and settlement not in specification
• Compaction rates not sufficient
Health, safety, and environment Same as identified under “Breakwater construction: health, safety, and environment,”
with addition of following land-based risks:
• Safe operation of dynamic compacting equipment
• Impact of reclamation on existing public buildings
• Damages to existing and new infrastructure during compaction
• Unidentified graves on-site
Additional marine risks:
• Turbidity caused by dredging exceeding approval limits
• Dredger damaged by debris/wrecks

Table 9. Entrance canal and basin: construction risks
Dredging of sand and rock Same as identified under “Reclaimed land construction: dredging of reclaim material,” with following additional risks:
• Overdredging (outside specification)
• Cutter suction dredger required and not available
Natural environment Same as identified under “Breakwater construction: natural environment,” with following additional risks:
• Seabed changes (siltation)
• Harder rock requiring underwater blasting
Health, safety, and environment Same as identified under “Breakwater construction: “health, safety, and environment”
Entrance Canal and Basin: Design Entrance Canal and Basin: Construction
The project required extensive dredging (up to −19 CD) to create a Risks related to construction of the entrance canal and basin in-
safe entrance channel, turning circle, and basin inside the break- volved (1) dredging of sand and rock by grab as well as cutter-
water. The risks related to the design of the dredged area are sum- suction dredgers, (2) natural environment, and (3) marine health,
marized in Table 8. safety, and environment (Table 9).
Table 10. Quay wall: design risks Quay Wall: Design

Design of the 1,000-m quay wall called for more than 50 concrete
Level 3: risk category Level 4: individual risks caissons, each weighing more than 2,500 t. The design risks in-
Design • Caisson quay wall design delays volved are summarized in Table 10.
• Capping beam design delays
• Design and construction tolerance alignment Quay Wall: Construction
• Efficiency of concrete plug between caissons After the quay wall trench was dredged to −19 CD, it was leveled
Geotechnical • Stability in design/movement of quay wall to create a stable foundation for the caissons on the prepared
conditions/seabed • Seabed changes requiring design changes
seabed. To place them at sea, individual caissons were rolled onto
Table 11. Quay wall: construction risks

Fabrication of caissons • Cranes for caisson fabrication arrive late
• Late start of caisson casting
• Suitability of ordered caisson formwork
• Caisson concrete mix design confirmation delays
• Caisson-casting quality
• Caisson production rates
Dredging and preparation of quay wall trench • Trench-leveling machine late
• Trench tamping and leveling quality problems
• Dredging of quay wall trench starts late
• Dredging of quay wall trench taking longer than planned
Placement of caissons • Caisson semisubmersible barge not on-site in time
• Caisson semisubmersible barge stability during loading
• Quay trench filled by sand from reclamation activities
• Caisson-loading delays onto semisubmersible barge
• Caisson abortive work/placed caisson needs to be repositioned
• Caisson placement delays at sea (wave action/inclement weather)
• Caisson settlement and displacement
• Caisson backfilling quality
• Quay wall stability after dredging
• Late completion of breakwater
Geotextile • Backfill geotextile specification and placement method
• Damage to geotextile during piling
Capping beam • Improper concrete curing
• Position of cast-in items
• Pouring risks
• Corroding rebar
Crane rails • Crane rail steel pile load capacity
• Crane rail steel pile position
• Delays in unloading of cranes
• Crane rails not ready when cranes arrive
with addition of following land-based risks specific to construction of quay wall:
• Caisson crane accidents
• Safety supervision during moving of caissons
Additional marine risk:
• Ship-to-shore crane delivery ship draught too deep

a semisubmersible barge that moved them close to their placement Container Yard and Buildings: Design
position; the barge then submerged, allowing each caisson to float. The entire 80 ha of reclaimed land was designed to be paved.
The floating caissons were positioned by tugboats and filled with Three major buildings (port authority, port management, and port
water to make them sink. They were then backfilled with sand. equipment workshop) as well as other structures (port access
To prevent reclaimed land from leaking through gaps between gates, interchange, and power supply) were part of the project
the caissons back into the sea, a geotextile was placed between the scope. As mentioned earlier, extensive risk identification work took
reclaimed land and the caissons. place regarding design and operational interfaces between various
The risks related to quay wall construction involved (1) fabricat- parts of the WBS. The risks identified are summarized in Table 12.
ing the caissons, (2) dredging and preparing the quay wall trench,
(3) moving the caissons onto the semisubmersible barge and plac- Container Yard and Buildings: Construction
ing them in the prepared trench, (4) placing the geotextile between Container yard and building construction involved (1) procurement
the reclaimed land and the quay wall, (5) installing the quay wall and logistics, (2) paving-block manufacture and installation,
capping beam, (6) installing crane rails, and (7) health, safety, and (3) commissioning and operational readiness, and (4) land-based
environment (Table 11). and health, safety, and environment (Table 13).
Power Supply: Design

Part of the design of the port included a separate power plant that
Table 12. Container yard and buildings: design risks could be used if the bulk power supply were delayed, and
deployed during power failures. The design risks are summarized
Level 3: risk in Table 14.
category Level 4: individual risks
Scope definition • Seismic design requirements Power Supply: Construction
• Container terminal design assumptions Power supply construction risks involved (1) procurement and lo-
• Scope definition clarity gistics, (2) commissioning and operational readiness, and (3) land-
• Late design changes by client and port authorities based health, safety, and environment risks (Table 15).
• Military/Coast Guard requirements and approvals
• Pavement design rework due to incorrect rainfall Project Management Office
data
Several categories of risk were identified that could be grouped
Design interfaces • Admin building/services design alignment
• Port gate/road interchange alignment
as project management office risks. They involved (1) permitting
• Communication systems alignment
• IT-ducting design delays/changes
• Scanner and other electronic equipment alignment Table 14. Power supply: design risks
• Unknown electrical loading requirements of
container-handling equipment
• Pavement stormwater pipe alignment with quay wall Equipment design • Equipment design and specification clarity
design • Electrical loading interface mismatch
• Rear crane beam/services alignment • Power supply late design changes
• Ship-to-shore crane power supply turnover pits • Transformer oil sump design
alignment Civil design • Concrete plinth weight-bearing capacity
Table 13. Container yard and buildings: construction risks

Procurement and logistics • Building, pavement contractor award delays
• Ineffective procurement/logistics plan management
• Cable and ducting materials availability and supply delays
• Pavement material availability and supply delays
• Contractor cashflow management
• Steel and electrical equipment availability and supply delays
Paving block manufacturing and installation • Paving block production and placement delays
• Equipment breakdown during construction
• Construction quality/rework
• Incorrect ducting installed
Commissioning and operational readiness • Ship-to-shore cranes late
• IT infrastructure installation delays
• Late start to commissioning and operational readiness plans
• Operational readiness delays
• Late completion of public-access roads to new terminal
• Construction and container traffic interaction during commissioning (port goes live
when construction is not complete)
with addition of following risks specific to construction of container yard and buildings:
• Commissioning safety
• Fire during construction of pavement and buildings
• Damage to completed buildings and other assets during construction

and site access, (2) planning and schedule management, (3) scope Discussion
management, (4) commercial management, (5) quality manage-
ment, (6) human resource management, and (7) health, safety, Checklist and Proposed RBS Validity
and environment management (Table 16).
The checklist of 215 risks is deemed appropriate and valid because
(1) it was obtained and refined during an actual construction project
Proposed Risk Breakdown Structure case study using either one-on-one interviews or structured work-
Based on the checklist derived from this research, the RBS depicted shops, (2) it was developed in collaboration with experienced sub-
in Fig. 1 is proposed for similar port and container terminal design ject matter experts, and (3) it contains various categories of project
and construction projects. risks, such as technical, delivery/logistics, contractor/supplier,
Table 15. Power supply: construction risks


Procurement and logistics • Power supply equipment availability
• External power late
• Standby generators late
Commissioning and operational readiness • Power tie-in delays between construction phases
• Power supply–commissioning delays
Health, safety, and environment • Same as identified under “Breakwater construction: health, safety, and environment,” with
addition of following risk specific to construction of container yard and buildings:
• Commissioning safety
Table 16. Project management office risks

Permitting and site access • Site access at project start
• Construction traffic congestion
• Sufficient site access for construction traffic
• Building permit delays
• Building plan approval delays
• Certificate and permit requirements incomplete
Schedule management • Late start of near-critical path activities
• Marine contractor ambitious schedule
• Marine contractor schedule dependencies
• Misaligned schedule and equipment
• Late handover by marine contractor to land contractor
• Project phasing not aligned with client go-live and operational requirements
Scope management • Design interface management
• Design and cost estimate not aligned
• Design reviews late
• Uncoordinated design changes
• Bulk services (sewerage, water, electricity) late for terminal operations
• Design changes required due to owner requirements
• Construction site layout and capacity
Commercial management • Contractor tax exemption compliance
• Corruption in supply chain
• Delayed payments
• Large contractor liquidation
• Small contractor liquidation
• Project owner cashflow
• Local content plan compliance
• Incorrect measurement of rock and reclamation sand before payment
Quality management • Insufficient contractor quality control
• Specialized testing and laboratory equipment availability
Human resource management • Labor force/strikes
• Community objections/complaints
• Project team continuity
• Contractor underestimating site supervision requirements
Health, safety, and environment management • Compliance with environmental protection agency requirements
• Compliance with international financier environmental management requirements
• Compliance with report submission dates to international financier
• Incomplete wording of environmental management plan

© ASCE
Shipping Port &
Container
Terminal
Project
Entrance Canal Container Yard
Breakwater Reclaimed Land Quay Wall Power Supply Management
and Basin & Buildings
Office
Permitting &
Design Construction Design Construction Design Construction Design Construction Design Construction Design Construction
site access
Planning &
Specification Rock supply Dredging of Dredging of Fabrication of Procurement & Procurement &
Scope definition Schedule
compliance from quarries reclaim material sand and rock caissons Logistics Logistics Management
Discharge of Dredging and Paving block Commissioning

Completion Transportation Natural Design Scope
reclaimed preparation of manufacturing & Operational
delays of rock to site material environment quay trench interfaces and installation readiness Management
Marine Health, Commissioning

Placement of Soil Placement of Health, Safety Commercial
05019003-11
Safety & & Operational
rock Improvement Environment caissons readiness & Environment Management
Concrete Health, Safety Casting of Health, Safety Quality

armour units & Environment capping beam & Environment Management
Human
Natural
Crane rails Resource
environment Management

Health, Safety Health, Safety Health, Safety
& Environment & Environment &
Environmental
Management
Fig. 1. Proposed risk breakdown structure for shipping port and container terminal project.
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

quality, and out-of-area location. Although not at the level of detail in preparing for initial risk identification sessions, (2) initial risk
described in this research, similar risks can be found in research workshop structure, (3) risk-naming conventions, (4) shortcomings
published by Chan et al. (2011), Karim et al. (2012), Rezakhani of MS Excel for managing project risks, and (5) structured
(2012), Zou et al. (2006), and Tam and Shen (2012). This should identification of interface risks between parts of the WBS.
promote confidence in the checklist because it is at least in part Shortcomings in initial risk identification relate to (1) a gap in
based on reviewed literature. the initial risk register where production and placement risks (rock,
concrete armor units, and caissons) were not included in all pack-
ages, (2) missing risks related to procurement management, and
Differences between Construction Project and Port
(3) mismatches between equipment and schedule. The case study
Project Risks
supports Hillson (2002a) in that there is no “best method” for risk
When reviewing the list of 215 risks, it was possible to identify 83 identification and that an appropriate combination of methods
(38.6%) generic design and construction risks specifically related should be used.
to the Table S1, Shipping port and container terminal: specific Using checklists (megaprojects, construction projects, out-of-
design and construction risks, in the Supplemental Data. These are area risks, and technical risks), initial risk identification sessions,
risks that generally have some kind of interface with the sea and and subsequent risk reviews, the case study produced a valid list of
related marine conditions. 215 design and construction risks for a shipping port and container
terminal project.
Benefits Since the checklist of 215 risks (1) was obtained and refined
The benefits and applications of the checklist of 215 risks and the during an actual construction project using either one-on-one inter-
RBS include the following: views or structured workshops, (2) was developed in collaboration
• Since the checklist covers breakwater, reclaimed land, entrance with experienced subject matter experts, and (3) contains various
canal and basin, quay wall, container yard and buildings, and categories of project risks (technical, delivery/logistics, contractor/
power supply, it can be used for projects with similar scope supplier, quality, and out-of-area location), it represents an appro-
or during the risk identification process in projects with smaller priate, valid set of risks that may be used in risk identification
scope, where, for example, only a breakwater is constructed. for similar projects. The RBS created as an outcome of this research
• The RBS may be useful in risk identification, risk assessment, can be useful in risk identification, assessment, and reporting as
and risk reporting for similar shipping port projects. According well as in postproject reviews on similar projects.
to Hillson (2002b), it can be used (1) in the tender phase for
similar projects to present risks in a consistent format and (2) in
the analysis of risk-related information in port project reviews. Acknowledgments
• The list of risks created here relates to marine construction. It
can be be used in risk identification to ensure that the appropri- The contributions made by the following colleagues were invalu-
ate risks are identified. able in identifying risks and helping to continuously review the risk
register: Daniel Asah, Alan Clarke, Richard Coxe, Samuel Dapaah,
Shortcomings Martin de Beer, David Hanley, Rajesh Kochuparambil, Clement
The main shortcoming of the checklist is that, for the following Lai, MS Lee, Johan Nasmark, Francis Ofori-Darko, Prince Okae,
reasons, it makes no claim to completeness: Andre Olivier, Ralph Panford-Quainoo, Andrew Pratt, Morgan
• Since the risk register is limited to the scope of the EPMC’s Sadler, David Simpson, Jerry Teeler, and Vernon Wykeham.
tasks, it excludes the project owner’s commercial, project, Gratitude to David Hanley for giving the first author of this paper
and operational risks. the opportunity to work on the project.
• The risk register used in creating the checklist was developed
only after appointment of the EPMC by the port project manage-
ment team and therefore excludes some design and execution Supplemental Data
risks identified by other parties and dealt with before the EPMC
appointment. Table S1 is available online in the ASCE Library (www
• The checklist excludes risks from the EPMC’s project imple- .ascelibrary.org).
mentation risk register. These risks mainly relate to the EPMC’s
commercial objectives, which include issues such as (1) addi-
References
tional specialist contractor costs, (2) staff mobilization costs,
and (3) continuity of project staff until project completion. Alises, A., R. Molina, R. Gomez, P. Pery, and C. Castillo. 2014. “Over-
Many of these are included in a list of out-of-area risks (Cooper topping hazards to port activities: Application of a new methodology
et al. 2014). to risk management.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 123 (Mar): 8–20.
• Although the risk register includes project-specific external https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.09.005.
natural events, such as wave action and inclement weather, it American Society of Safety Engineers. 2011a. American national stan-
contains no similar risks (earthquakes/tsunamis) that might dards: Risk assessment techniques. Des Plaines, IL: American Society
be associated with building a port and container terminal of Safety Engineers.
elsewhere. American Society of Safety Engineers. 2011b. American national stan-
dards: Risk management principles and guidelines. Des Plaines, IL:
• The checklist excludes any opportunities that were subsequently
American Society of Safety Engineers.
identified but which were highly context-specific. Chan, D. W. M., A. P. C. Chan, P. Lam, J. Yeung, and J. H. L. Chan. 2011.
“Risk ranking and analysis in target cost contacts: Empirical evidence
from the construction industry.” Int. J. Project Manage. 29 (6):
Conclusions 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.08.003.
Chapman, R. 1998. “Effectiveness of working group risk identification and
This paper presented positive lessons learned from risk identifica- assessment techniques.” Int. J. Project Manage. 16 (6): 333–343.
tion. These lessons mainly relate to (1) use of appropriate checklists https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00015-5.

Chapman, R. 2006. Simple tools and techniques for enterprise risk Lendering, K., S. Jonkman, P. Van Gelder, and D. Peters. 2015. “Risk-
management. Chichester, UK: Wiley. based optimization of land reclamation.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
Cooper, D., P. Bosnich, P. Grey, G. Purdy, G. Raymon, P. Walker, and 144 (Dec): 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.07.025.
M. Wood. 2014. Project risk management guidelines. Chichester, Lyons, T., and M. Skitmore. 2004. “Project risk management in the
UK: Wiley. Queensland engineering construction industry: A survey.” Int. J. Project
Cooper, D., and P. Schindler. 2013. Business research methods. New York: Manage. 22 (1): 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00
McGraw-Hill. 005-X.
Dunjóa, J., V. Fthenakis, J. Vílcheza, and J. Arnaldosa. 2010. “Hazard and Mohan, A. 2017. “Risk management in offshore construction.” Int. J. Eng.
operability (HAZOP) analysis: A literature review.” J. Hazard. Mater. Technol. Sci. Res. 4 (10): 1163–1171.
173 (1–3): 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.08.076. Nebot, N., C. Rosa-Jimenez, R. Ninot, and B. Perea-Medina. 2017.
Flyvbjerg, B., N. Bruzelius, and W. Rothengatter. 2003. Megaprojects and
“Challenges for the future of ports. What can be learnt from the Spanish
risk: An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Mediterranean ports?” Ocean Coastal Manage. 137 (Mar): 165–174.
Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.12.016.
Hillson, D. 2002a. “Extending the risk process to manage opportunities.”
Project Management Institute. 2009. Practice standard for project risk
Int. J. Project Manage. 20 (3): 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263
-7863(01)00074-6. management. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Hillson, D. 2002b. “Use a risk breakdown structure (RBS) to understand Project Management Institute. 2013. A guide to the project management
your risks.” In Proc., Project Management Institute Annual Seminars body of knowledge (PMBOK). Newtown Square, PA: Project Manage-
and Symp. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. ment Institute.
Hillson, D. 2009. Managing risk in projects. Farnham, UK: Gower Rezakhani, P. 2012. “Classifying key risk factors in construction projects.”
Publishing. Bull. Polytech. Inst. Jassy Constr. Archit. Sect. 65 (2): 27–38.
International Electrotechnical Commission. 2001. Hazard and operability Roubos, A., R. Steenbergen, T. Schweckendiek, and S. Jonkman. 2018.
(HazOp) studies-application guide. IEC (2001) IEC 61882. Geneva: “Risk-based target reliability indices for quay walls.” Struct. Saf.
International Electrotechnical Commission. 75 (Nov): 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2018.06.005.
Jergeas, G. 2008. “Analysis of the front-end loading of Alberta mega oil Simm, J., and I. Cruickshank. 1998. Construction risk in coastal engineer-
sands projects.” Project Manage. J. 39 (4): 95–104. https://doi.org/10 ing. London: Thomas Telford.
.1002/pmj.20080. Špačková, O. 2012. “Risk management of tunnel construction projects.”
Joubert, F. 2016. “Risk simulation in a portfolio of port and rail capital Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Mechanics, Czech Technical Univ. Prague.
projects.” Ph.D. thesis, Graduate School of Technology Management, Tam, V., and L. Shen. 2012. “Risk management for contractors in marine
Univ. of Pretoria. projects.” Organ. Technol. Manage. Constr. 4 (1): 403–410. https://doi
Kakimoto, R., and P. Seneviratne. 2000. “Financial risk of port infrastruc- .org/10.5592/otmcj.2012.1.5.
ture development.” J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 126 (6): Windapo, A., and C. Cattell. 2013. “The South African construction indus-
281–287. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(2000)126:6(281). try: Perceptions of key challenges facing its performance, development
Karim, N., I. Rahman, A. H. Memmon, N. Jamil, and A. Azis. 2012. and growth.” J. Constr. Developing Countries 18 (2): 65–79.
“Significant risk factors in construction projects: Contractor’s percep-
Yang, Z., A. Ng, and J. Wang. 2014. “A new risk quantification approach in
tion.” In Proc., 2012 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and
port facility security assessment.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract.
Engineering Research (CHUSER). New York: IEEE.
59 (Jan): 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.025.
Kendrick, T. 2003. Identifying and managing project risk. New York:
American Management Association. Zheng, L., B. Zhaob, H. Wang, and H. Liu. 2011. “Environmental risk iden-
Kim, D., and S. Kim. 2009. “Multi criteria decision on selecting optimal tification of port construction project.” In Proc., 2011 3rd Int. Conf. on
ship accident rate for port risk mitigation.” Asian J. Shipping Logist. Environmental Science and Information. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
25 (1): 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2092-5212(09)80009-6. Elsevier.
Koc, M. 2009. “Risk assessment of a vertical breakwater using possibility Zou, P., G. Zhang, and J. Wang. 2006. “Identifying key risks in construction
and evidence theories.” Ocean Eng. 36 (14): 1060–1066. https://doi.org projects: Life cycle and stakeholder perspectives.” In Proc., 12th Pacific
/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2009.07.002. Rim Real Estate Society Conf., 61–77, Auckland.
Lam, P. 1999. “Sectoral review of risks associated with major infrastructure Zou, P., G. Zhang, and J. Wang. 2007. “Understanding the key risks in
projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 17 (2): 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016 construction projects in China.” Int. J. Project Manage. 25 (6):
/S0263-7863(98)00017-9. 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.03.001.

Design and Construction Risks For A Shipping Port

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Construction Risks For A Shipping Port

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Construction Risks For A Shipping Port

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study

Design and Construction Risks for a Shipping Port

© ASCE 05019003-1 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

© ASCE 05019003-2 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

Table 1. Construction risk checklists

© ASCE 05019003-3 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

© ASCE 05019003-4 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

© ASCE 05019003-5 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

Table 5. Breakwater: construction risks

• Road traffic congestion

© ASCE 05019003-6 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

Breakwater: Design Reclaimed Land: Design

Table 7. Reclaimed land: construction risks

© ASCE 05019003-7 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

marized in Table 8. safety, and environment (Table 9).

Table 10. Quay wall: design risks Quay Wall: Design

Table 11. Quay wall: construction risks

© ASCE 05019003-8 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

Power Supply: Design

Table 13. Container yard and buildings: construction risks

© ASCE 05019003-9 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

Table 15. Power supply: construction risks

Level 3: risk category Level 4: individual risks

Table 16. Project management office risks

© ASCE 05019003-10 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

Discharge of Dredging and Paving block Commissioning

Marine Health, Commissioning

Concrete Health, Safety Casting of Health, Safety Quality

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

© ASCE 05019003-12 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

© ASCE 05019003-13 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2020, 146(1): 05019003

You might also like