Volume 5, Number 1, March 2009, pp.

11-18
[INVITED PAPER]
Application of risk analysis and assessment in tunnel design

Young-Geun KIM*
* General Manager, Ph.D, P.E., Civil Works Division, SAMSUNG C&T Corporation, Seoul, KOREA

Received 06 10 2008; accepted 22 12 2008

ABSTRACT

A new risk analysis system for estimating the risk factors in tunneling is suggested in consideration of the complex effect in
tunnel construction. It is verified that various risk factors can be expressed by stability and environment index using numerical and
statistical analysis. Stability index includes the factors of safety of ground condition, the amount of ground settlement, condition of
inflow and earthquake as a variable, and environment index includes vibration and noise by blasting under construction and train
operation. The risk analysis of geotechnical stability factors were performed by classifying the factor of safety calculated SSR
method, the damage of neighboring structure due to settlement, the groundwater inflow rate into the tunnel and the potential
damage by the certain earthquake. Also, the environmental factors can be grouped into two aspects such as the construction stage
and the operation stage; vibration, noise and the drawdown of the groundwater level caused by tunnel construction. Each risk factor
was evaluated as a classified term to be the fixed quantity based on various probabilistic and statistic technique, then it was
analyzed the distribution characteristic of risk along tunnel line.
Then, the impact was evaluated that how much each risk factor influences on the construction cost with a tunnel construction
period by analyzing social charge, so it is possible to perform reasonable tunnel design which was capable of minimizing the risk in
the construction stage as well as the design stage. Finally, the applicability of quantitative risk assessment method using stability
and environment index are evaluated and utilization method in designing tunnels in Korea is reviewed.

Keywords: Risk analysis, Risk assessment system, Geotechnical stability, Environmental impact, Tunnel design

The concept of safety factor was used mainly in the

1. INTRODUCTION
Tunnel construction have many problems and risks such
as safety, stability and environmental influence in excavation
and operation, because that is generally constructed in the
vicinity of the existing structures and excavated at weathered
soil and rock in shallow depth. Therefore, it is important that
support system and reinforcement method should be
determined reasonably and quantitatively in consideration of
stability of tunnel, the settlement of adjacent structures and
environmental influences such as vibration and noise by
blasting.
However, tunnel design mainly depends on empirical
method due to the absence of quantitative assessment criteria
for the risk factors. It is necessary for the new assessment
method to consider the risk factors including stability and
environmental effect in designing the tunnel at urban region.
In Korea, many subways are planned and constructed in
Metro city, such as Seoul, Daegu, Daejeon and Kwangju, but
the popular complaints are occurred, according to instability
of buildings, noise and vibration by blasting and train
operation. Thus, the various risk factors in tunneling must be
studied at the planning stage for the reasonable construction
of subway.
© JCRM All rights reserved.
design of underground structure. Such safety factor could be
expressed with the ratio of the resistance and the load. It is
the most important disadvantage that the conventional design
must assign the representative value about the design
parameters although the ground itself has the variation and
the uncertainty. Therefore, in the conventional design method,
estimating the relative reliability of the underground structure
is unreasonable. The risk analysis which is referring in this
research is the method to use the various probabilistic
technique and statistical data.
To complement the conventional tunnel design performed
by the analysis of the mean ground behavior, the risk analysis
considers the uncertainty of ground investigation result and
environment element of circumference rationally. Risk factors,
which will be able to occur in the design and construction
stage of the underground structure must be selected, and
quantitative analysis about the risk factors must be performed.
The risk about each risk factor can be represented as follows:
RISK = ∑ Pf × C f (1)
where Pf = the probability of failure; Cf = the cost of failure.
12 Y.G. KIM / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.11-18

In risk analysis, the assessment about the probability of
failure which has the reliability is most important. We
estimated the uncertainty of soil parameter and failure model
using probabilistic techniques. But, risk factors such as
environmental problems are very difficult to be evaluated by
probabilistic techniques, so we evaluated the environmental
risk using verified statistical data within the related laws and
ordinances.
In this study, new risk analysis system for considering the
risk factors in tunneling is developed and suggested to assess
quantitatively the risk in urban subway tunnel such as ground
condition, ground water, adjacent buildings, noise and
vibration. Firstly, considering the stability and environmental
influence in urban subway tunnel, the risk factors are selected
and can be expressed by stability and environmental index
using numerical and multi statistical analysis. Stability index
includes the factors of safety of ground condition, the amount
of ground settlement, and condition of inflow, and
environment index includes vibration and noise by blasting
metro-train under construction and operation.
Also, new risk assessment system is applied to verify the
validity in tunnel design at subway and railway and planed
the excavation, reinforcement and measurement. It is
reviewed that the risk assessment system can be used as a
quantitative index in tunnel design through the application
case of tunnel in subway and railway.
2. RISK ANALYSIS SYSTEM IN TUNNEL
2.1 Selection of Risk Factors
It is necessary for consideration for various factors in
tunnel design because of safety and stability tunnel and
buildings. Especially, importance of environmental factors
such as noise and vibration under tunneling and operating are
increasing. In this study, influence factors are selected
considering stability and environment effect in tunneling. As
shown in Table 1, many risk factors are selected and
evaluated for risk analysis system.
Table 1. Risk factors in risk analysis system.
2.1.1 Risk Factors for Geotechnical Stability
1) Ground condition: Tunnel stability is analyzed by
using shear strength reduction method (SSR), which is
repeatedly calculated the safety factor of tunnel for
quantitative evaluation in according to reduction of shear
strength(c, φ) of soil and rock.
2) Ground settlement: Influence on adjacent buildings in
tunnel excavation is evaluated by numerical analysis. In this
study, maximum strain and settlement of buildings are
analyzed for the stability of adjacent buildings.
3) Groundwater: Ground water flows into tunnel due to
ground excavation and affected the stability of tunnel. In this
study, seepage and flow analysis are conducted for the
evaluation of groundwater inflow into tunnel.
4) Earthquake: It is important of influence of earth-quake
in urban subway. Thus, tunnel stability for earthquake is
evaluated by dynamic analysis using amplification of
earthquake vibration.
2.1.2 Risk Factors for Environmental Impact
1) Vibration and noise by blasting under tunnel
construction: Estimation the compensation amount for mental
and property damage by tunnel blasting and noise.
2) Vibration and noise by train operation: Estimation the
compensation amount for mental damage and property
damage by train operation.
3) Drawdown of groundwater: Estimation the
compensation amount for damaged wells by tunnel
excavation.
2.2 Analysis for Risk Factors for Geotechnical Stability
2.2.1 Analysis for Support Capacity of Ground
The risk for support capacity of ground is analyzed by
evaluating the probability of failure due to uncertainty of
ground characteristics. Although the sufficient site
investigation was performed, the characteristics of the ground
behavior could not be grasped perfectly. Therefore, strength
parameters of the ground include certain level of uncertainty.
The coefficient of variation is the quotient of the
empirical standard deviation and the expected value:

Cv = σ / m (2)
Risk Factors in Tunneling Index
The safety represent support capacity of ground itself is
Ground Condition MF evaluated by using shear strength reduction method. Figure 1
Stability shows the concept for evaluation safety factor by SSR
Ground Settlement MS Stability
and method.
Groundwater MW Index
Safety
Earthquake ME
Vibration and MV1
Noise
by Blasting MN1
Environmental
Vibration and Environment
influence MV2
Noise Index
and impact
by Operation MN2
Drawdown of
Md
groundwater

Figure 1. Evaluation safety factor by SSR method.

 Y.G. KIM / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.11-18 13

In the case of normal distribution, the probability of the method in consideration of the corresponding RMR value of
failure may be expressed by the central safety factor vc, as the phase which is good. As the rating is continuously
shown in Equation (3). charged by the stage, the continuous RMR value against the
parameter value is expressed as shown Figure 3.
The continuous RMR graph of groundwater parameter
= 1 − Φ[(vc − 1) / vc2CvR + CvQ ]
2 2
Pf (3)
represent the rating to zero, but in the case which the inflow
quantity is large, the rating has a negative value.
where CvR and CvQ are the coefficient of variation of the The continuous RMR rating for tunnel inflow can be
resistance and the load respectively. expressed by numerical equation as like Equation (5).
The corresponding relationship for the lognormal
distribution is as follows: Reduction rating = -8×(Inflow quantity-0.125) (5)

⎡ 2 2 ⎤ The probability density of an each interval in Figure 2

⎢ ln vc (1 + CvR ) /(1 + CvQ ) ⎥ can be evaluated as shown in Table 4 and the probability
Pf = 1− Φ ⎢ ⎥ (4) density of RMR reduction rating can be expressed in normal
⎢ 2 2
ln(1 + CvR )(1 + CvQ ) ⎥ distribution as shown in Figure 3.
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ The probability of failure for each RMR reduction rating
is represented in Table 5. The risk for groundwater is
The risk is evaluated by multiplying the unit cost of evaluated by multiplying the unit cost of tunnel construction
tunnel construction with the probability of failure obtained by with the probability of failure obtained.
Equation (4).

2.2.2 Analysis for Ground Settlement Table 3. Groundwater parameter in RMR rock classification
criteria.
The damage of the structure in proximity, which is
happens to the ground settlement due to tunnel excavation is
Parameter Range of values
important factor in risk analysis. The equal settlement and the
inclination of the structure are computed by the numerical Inflow per 10m
0 <10 10~25 25~125 >125
analysis and empirical equation, and the damage degree of tunnel length(ℓ /min)
each structure is estimated. The risk of ground settlement can Joint water
be evaluated from the damage degree and the unit cost of pressure
Ratio 0 <0.1 0.1~0.2 0.2~0.5 >0.5
construction. Major
principal stress
Table 2. Assessment criteria for the inclination and damage. Rating 15 10 7 4 0

Deg. of
Grade Management Inclination
damage
A normal maintenance < 1/750 0%
when the continuous careful observation
> 1/750
B is needed, normal maintenance after 5~10%
< 1/500
simple repairing.
partial repairing, reinforcement ; the >1/500
C 20~40%
continuous observation <1/300
judgment of the utility limit ; overall >1/300
D 40~60%
large scale reinforcement <1/200
the utility prohibition, emergency
E reinforcement; the dismantle and >1/200 60~100%
reconstruction
Figure 2. The continuous graph for RMR rating.

Table 4. The probability density for RMR rating.

2.2.3 Analysis for Inflow of Groundwater

As the failure probability according to the reduction Inflow 0~10 10~25 25~125
rating from a groundwater inflow at the tunnel face is Rating 10~15 7~10 0~4
computed, uncertainty of rock classification is considered in
risk analysis. RMR rock classification is computed to the sum
total of the assignment rating to be composed of five
Probability
parameters. Because the rating to be assigned is represented
density
by a unity rating about the case of the schedule range of the
graph
parameter, the assignment of continuous rating is impossible
and the assessment rating is overestimated or underestimated
about a specific parameter.
Charging the rating against the center-value vicinity for
the groundwater parameter is performed using interpolation
14 Y.G. KIM / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.11-18

where D = damage, Cst = estimated cost of structure, Vc =

vibration contribution, Vo = operation vibration level, Sst =
status estimation of structure, Vpr = presumption value of
vibration, Vcr = vibration velocity criterion.
2.3.2 Analysis for Noise by Blasting

The risk of mental damage by blasting noise is evaluated

with deductive equation (Equation (10)) through regression
analysis based on the cases of actual damage compensation.

M = 12.5D - 102.5 (10)

Figure 3. The probability density for RMR reduction rating. where M = damage amount per a person, D = value in
damage conversion table. The noise by excavation blasting
can be estimated as follows:
Table 5. The probability of failure for RMR reduction rating.

Probability Probability
( )
dB ( A ) = -16.02 log d/W 1/3 + 95.195 (11)
Rating Rating
of failure of failure
where d = distance of the object point, m; W = charging
12 8.91% 6 0.93%
amount of the explosive, kg/delay.
11 7.04% 5 0.65%
The noise by blasting can be predicted by Equation (11)
10 5.12% 4 0.42% based on the charging amount of general blasting in tunnel.
9 3.47% 3 0.22% And, the compensation amount by general blasting method
8 2.62% 2 0.22% can be estimated by multiplying the unit compensation cost
7 1.76% 1 0.07% from Equation (10) with the number of residents.

2.3.3 Analysis for Vibration and Noise by Operating Train

2.2.4 Analysis for Earthquake
The noise by operating train can be calculated by Lange
At the sections where the computed earthquake Equation (11) assuming the design life of the tunnel in 30
acceleration exceed the acceleration criteria based on the years.
coefficient of the earthquake area, it is assumed structures in
that dangerous area are collapsed when the earthquake occurs.
La = 59 - 20 log d [dB ( A ) ] (12)
There, the risk for earthquake is evaluated by considering the
damage repair cost for the structure which the collapse is
predicted. where d=distance of the building in tunnel.
The vibration by operating train can be calculated by
2.3 Analysis of Risk Factors for Environmental Impact Tokita Equation (13) through the correction of the vibration
level, the transfer characteristic of the vibration wave and the
correction about the interaction with structures, etc.
2.3.1 Analysis for Vibration by Blasting
Lv = Lo - [ A1 log ( r / ro ) + A2r ] (13)
The estimation criteria of compensation follow the related
laws and ordinances and the risk (social cost) by the vibration
It is assumed that the noise increases as shown in
is divided by mental and property damage. The compensation
Equation (14) than the initial value as the period to be
amount for mental damage can be represented as follows:
happened the noise increases.
D = Evt × P (6)
ΔL = 5 / log 3 × log T [dB ] (14)

Evt = ∑ (Ve - Vt ) × T (7) Because the damage by the operating train has many
continuance periods relatively, the risk by the operating train
where D = damage, P = unit compensation cost, Evt = total has very big value than the risk by the blasting.
over exposure of vibration(dB·day), Ve = evaluated vibration
level, Vt = threshold vibration level, T = exposure time, day. 2.3.4 Analysis for Drawdown of Groundwater
The compensation amount for damage of property can be
represented as follows: The risk against wells of the neighborhood area which is
caused by the tunnel excavation is evaluated. Groundwater
D = Cst × Vc (8) levels at each bore hole are measured by groundwater flow
analysis before and after the excavation, the influence range
which the drawdown of the groundwater is happened is
1.5
Vo V pr computed. And, the damage compensation cost is estimated
Vc = , Cv = ×4 (9)
(15 − Sst ) + Vo Vcr by grasping the number of wells in the range of the damage
influence.
 Y.G. KIM / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.11-18 15

3. APPLICATION OF RISK ANALYSIS SYSTEM IN

SUBWAY TUNNEL DESIGN

3.1 The Outline of Subway Tunnel

This project is one of the extensions of Line 3 at Seoul (a) Risk for the ground condition - MF .
subway, from Garak-dong to Ogum-dong. Total length is
1577m including two stations. The tunnels consist of 2-Arch
tunnel at Station 302 and 303, main tunnels with double and
three tracks. The geological longitudinal profile of this
subway is shown in Figure 4, the deep layer of alluvial soil
at beginning zone and the faults at terminal region are
investigated . (b) Risk for the ground settlement - MS .

3.2 Risk Analysis in Subway Tunnel

The risk factors of the risk assessment index are selected

for influence of stability and environment for tunnel. Also,
the value for the factors were calculated from numerical
analysis at 20m intervals and showed the distributions of
value of risk value for all tunnel sections in Figure 5 and (c) Risk for the groundwater - Mw .
Figure 6.
As shown in Figure 5, MF is showed the low values at the
section with weathered soil and rock and faulted zone. MS,
that is, stability for adjacent buildings is the low grade at
main tunnel sections because of shallow depth to buildings.
Also, inflow of ground water at 302 tunnel sections is greatly
increased and MF is showed the low values. The influence of (d) Risk for the earthquake - ME .
earthquake for tunnel, ME is showed the low values at faulted
Figure 5. Distribution of the geotechnical risk grades at
zone in terminal section.
the subway tunnel.
The results of vibration and noise by blasting and metro
train under construction and operation are shown in Figure 6.
The effects of noises by blasting and metro train are greatly
increased at cut and cover section in shaft and station. Also,
the effects of vibration by blasting are greatly increased at
Station 302 section that many buildings are located at near
distance.
Finally, the distribution of risk index, stability index and
environment index are obtained from these analyses for the (a) Risk for the vibration by blasting - MV1.
tunnel stability and environmental effect, as shown in Figure
7. The classes of stability index are high ranked at Station 302
section and faulted zone in terminal because of ground
condition and large cross section. The class of environment
index is high ranked at main tunnel section with double track
cross section due to near excavation.
(b) Risk for the noise by blasting - MN1.

(c) Risk for the vibration of operating train - MV2.

Figure 4. Geological longitudinal profile of extension of Line

3 at Seoul subway.

(d) Risk for the noise of operating train - MN2.

Figure 6. Distributions of the environmental risk grades
at the subway tunnel.
16 Y.G. KIM / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.11-18

3.3 Application of Risk Assessment System in Subway Tunnel

Risk assessment system is applied to the optimum design

of subway tunnel, such as the selection of excavation,
reinforcement, grouting and measurement. For total section of
tunnel, the value and class of stability index and environment
index are evaluated and compared to the class of rock mass,
such as RMR and Q-system. The case of application for risk
assessment system for subway tunnel is shown in Figure 8.
In this case, mechanical excavation is designed at the
section of the class of stability index S5 and the class of Figure 9. The overview of the railway tunnel.
environment index E5. Blasting excavations are applied at the
others. Ground grouting for preventing inflow of groundwater
is applied at the section of the class of stability index S5. Also,
measurements of vibration and noise are planned at the tunnel
section of the class of environment index E4-E5 for
minimizing the environmental influence in tunneling at urban
region.

4. APPLICATION OF RISK ANALYSIS SYSTEM IN (a) Risk for ground condition.

RAILWAY TUNNEL DESIGN

4.1 The Outline of Railway Tunnel

This project is one of railway line from Seongnam to

Yeojoo. The length of tunnel is 3,515m. The tunnels consist
of inclined shafts for excavation under construction and exit (b) Risk for ground settlement.
in emergency. The overall view of this tunnel is shown in
Figure 9, a road tunnel under this tunnel at center region is
constructed and rock mass at tunnel site is evaluated as good
condition.

(c) Risk for groundwater.

(a) Stability index.

(d) Risk for earthquake.
Figure 10. Distributions of risks for geotechnical stability.

4.2 Risk Analysis in Railway Tunnel

(b) Environment index. As it is explained from the preceding paragraph, from the
risk assessment for risk factors, the relative distribution of the
Figure 7. Distributions of risk index at the subway tunnel.
risk in tunnel can be obtained as shown in Figure 10 and
Figure 11. Tunnel engineers can select relative dangerous
zones and consideration items in the design stage.
And, the risk to be inverted to the cost of the failure or the
compensation can be expressed as shown in Figure 8 and
Figure 9. The risk amount is very high at the tunnel portals
and at the vicinity of tunnel section with shallow soil-depth.
Therefore, various design solutions to lower the risk amount
were examined in such danger zones.

Figure 8. Applications of risk assessment system at the

subway tunnel design.
 Y.G. KIM / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.11-18
(a) Risk for the vibration by blasting.
(b) Risk for the noise by blasting.
(c) Risk for the vibration of operating train.
(d) Risk for the drawdown of groundwater.
Figure 11. Distributions of risks for environmental impact.
Figure 12. The result of the construction cost analysis for
geotechnical risks
Figure 13. The result of the construction cost analysis for
environmental risks.
17
5. CONCLUSION
As the tunnel construction increases, there have been
risen many environmental issues as well as the stability of the
tunnel itself caused by the tunnel excavation. Because
tunneling works have many risk factors in both design and
construction stage due to the uncertainty characteristics of the
ground, the risk assessment and its control is very important
for the tunnel construction. There are many risk factors in
tunneling in urban region.
In this study, a new risk analysis system is suggested to
assess quantitatively the risk factors in subway and railway
tunnel, such as ground condition, groundwater, adjacent
buildings, noise and vibration. The factors are selected
considering the stability and environment and graded through
numerical analyses and empirical equation, thus two groups
are classified using statistical analysis, that is, the index for
the tunnel stability and the index for environmental influence.
The index is divided by the 5 classes and evaluated the stable
and risky grades.
Also, each risk factor was evaluated as a classified term to
be the fixed quantity based on various probabilistic and
statistic technique, then the distribution characteristic of the
risk along tunnel line was analyzed. The impact was
evaluated that how much each risk factor influences on the
construction cost with a tunnel construction period by
analyzing social cost, so it is possible to perform reasonable
tunnel design which is capable of minimizing the risks in the
construction stage as well as the design stage.
Risk assessment system is applied to verify the validity in
tunnel design at subway and railway in Korea and planed
reasonably the excavation method, reinforcement type and
measurement. It is showed that the risk assessment system
can be used as a quantitative index in tunnel design through
the case of subway and railway tunnel. But the criteria and
the evaluation method for the risk factors must be reviewed
through the verification and application in tunnel design and
construction.
With applying the assessment technique for the risk to the
conventional tunnel design which is dependent on the class of
rock mass preponderantly, we attempted the rational design
for tunnel which considers both the geotechnical stability and
the social environment. Then, it is needed that the difference
between the predicted risks in design stage and the actual
risks during tunnel construction will be studied in detail
including the risk management for optimizing the risks.
REFERENCES
D.H. Kim, Y.G. Kim, C.S. So, S.J. Oh, K.B. Kim and J.K.
Park. 2006. Risk analysis and evaluation considering
geotechnical stability and environmental effect in tunnel
design; The Proceedings of Korean Society for Rock
Mechanics and Engineering: 21-38.
C.R. Choi, J.K. Park, D.U.You, Y.G. Kim and D.H Lee.
2003. Development and Application MI System for
Tunnel Design; The Proceedings of Korean Tunneling
Association: 260-261.
Y.G. Wye, J.K. Park, S.K. Jwun and Y.G. Kim. 2002.
Development and Application Multiple Index for
Reasonable Tunnel Design; The Proceedings of Korean
Society for Rock Mechanics and Engineering: 31-42.
18 Y.G. KIM / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.11-18

Y.G. Kim, 2005, Tunnel Design for Seongnam-Yeojoo
Double Track Railway; The Report for Construction
Lot-5. Korea Rail Network Authority.
László Rétháti. 1988. Probabilistic solutions in geotechnics,
Developments in Geotechnical Engineering 46: Elsevier.
Milton E. Harr. 1996. Reliability-based design in civil
engineering: Dover Publications, INC.
E.M. Dawson et al. 1999. Slope Stability Analysis by
Strength Reduction; Geotechnique Vol. 49, No. 6:
835-840.