|
|
TC32 RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEEMinutes |
Fourth Meeting of the ISSMGE-TC32 ?Risk Assessment and Management
Istanbul, August 26, 2001, 5 p.m., ICEC, Sultan 4 meeting room
|
Name |
e-mail |
|
Albert Bolle |
|
|
Aysen Akkaya |
|
|
Baris Trak |
|
|
Bo Berggren |
|
|
Erik H. Vanmarcke |
|
|
Gordon Fenton |
|
|
Kaare Hoeg |
|
|
M. Semih Yücemen |
|
|
Marcus Pacheco |
|
|
Suzanne Lacasse |
|
|
Victor F. B. de Mello |
|
|
Waldemar Hachich |
|
|
Wilson Tang |
Prof. John Christian (USA) and Prof. Bergado (Thailand) were accepted as members. Prof. Vanmarcke proposed a geophysicist from Kuwait University, Prof. Firyal Bou-rabee (address to be supplied in the near future), for membership. Since Kuwait does not host a member society, Prof. de Mello suggested that she be accepted as a corresponding member. Zenon Cetina-Medina of Mexico, active in geostatistics at UNAM, was also accepted as a corresponding member. Prof. Vrijling of Delft University, The Netherlands, accepted the request of the chairman to join the committee as a regular member.
Prof. Vanmarcke reported that the satellite short course scheduled to take place during the week before the XII ICSMGE, at Izmir, was canceled by the organizing committee. No one had been able to enroll in the short course because of improperly presented information in the conference bulletin and registration form. (a similar workshop in Seattle, Washington, held in 1998, on probabilistic site characterization, was highly successful).
The committee decided not to offer a similar workshop at the 14th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, in Hong Kong, in December 2001, as had been considered, since many from the original "team of lecturers" will not be able to attend that conference.
A version of the short course will be offered at the 4ICEG (Rio de Janeiro, August 2002) and, if successful in Rio, as well in Prague, 2003 (13th European Regional Conference).
Most members present agreed that TC32 is, in fact, offering "short courses", rather than "workshops", and should perhaps name those events accordingly. Most attendants are professionals involved in day-to-day practice that seek practical information, examples, and case studies on how to implement risk analysis and risk management into their projects. Upcoming short courses should focus on those needs. In Rio, in particular, the organizers should focus in particular on geoenvironmental applications.
Suzanne Lacasse suggested that certificates be issued to attendants (with logos of the ISSMGE and of the Conference), but V. de Mello dissented, seeking to discourage attempts at application of probability in geotechnical engineering based on only cursory knowledge.
?SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> IWS Kamakura 2002, International Workshop on Foundation Design Codes, April 2002, organized by Honjo and Matsuo, TC23 - Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering. TC32 is co-sponsor and is organizing a session on reliability-based Load and Resistance Factor Design for Foundation Engineering.
?SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> 4ICEG (Rio de Janeiro, 2002) ?as discussed above
?SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> 13th European Regional Conference (Prague, 2003) ?as discussed above
?SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> 16th ICSMGE (Osaka, 2005). Workshop or special session planned.
a) Create a glossary of Risk Terms and Definitions (as per Olsson-Berggren´s suggestions: memos appended). Berggren, Olsson, Höeg, Roberds, and Pacheco will work on a single document for discussion through the Internet, combining and editing (draft) lists available in Sweden, ICOLD, Geo-Institute, IUGS, etc.. List to be mailed to members (and/or posted on the TC32 Web site) for discussion by the end of this year.
b) Probabilistic site characterization, paralleling and extending a similar project in the United States: correlation distances and functions for typical soils. Study group coordinated by Yücemen. Deadline: to be established.
c) Implementation of Bill Roberds' suggestion (memo appended) of collecting case studies for "selling" Risk Assessment and Management to civil engineers and to society at large. TC32 members present felt it would be easier to contribute their own experience in the area if certain formats for presentation are suggested. Bill Roberds will be asked to propose such formats, perhaps using several of his own case studies as examples. Secretary shall provide help as requested. Tentative deadline for proposed formats: next December.
d) Guidelines for risk assessment and management (Roberds-Olsson-Berggren´s suggestions). To get this project going, Secretary will ask all committee members to submit the guidelines in use in their respective countries (or organizations). Deadline for submission: next October.
?SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> Aforementioned cooperation with TC-23 (Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering)
?SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> International Committee on Large Dams (ICOLD): activities in risk assessment for dams
The need to make the work of the Committee visible to the insurance, mining, and geo-environmental (remediation, etc.) industries was recalled as a possible source of funds and new business, but some members voiced their worries over possible conflicts of interest.
An informal meeting of the committee is expected to take place at the 14th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, in Hong Kong, in December 2001. As the Chair will not be able to attend, the meeting will be called and conducted by the Vice-Chair, Prof. Wilson Tang.
The next formal meeting will take place at the 4ICEG, Rio de Janeiro, August 2002.
Bill Roberds' suggestions
One activity I believe the Committee should be involved with is the development of a short, authoritative document on the critical aspects of risk assessment and risk management, both requirements and guidance. I've reviewed many risk assessments that violated some of these critical aspects and could have benefited by following such a document. I find that as the tools (e.g., @Risk, CrystalBall, etc.) become more available, many unqualified people are using them, with poor and misleading results. Such misuse gives the entire discipline a bad name, which we have to work even harder to overcome. Once developed, the document could be made widely available on the web site. I would be interested in helping to develop such a document.
Another activity I believe would be useful would be to collect case studies in a short and specific format, and, once reviewed and approved, present these on the web site. I've found that one of the biggest impediments in promoting risk assessment and risk management is to establish its "value" to the client. By having case studies that focus on the value of risk assessment and risk management (assuming it is done correctly, per the document discussed above), we can increase the demand for risk assessment and risk management. Such case studies would also be useful in developing reasonable expectations for the results of such studies and for dispelling the notion that "ignorance is bliss" with respect to liability for risks, which I've found are other impediments in promoting risk assessment and risk management. I would gladly submit case studies to such a compendiu!
m.
Again, my apologies for not being able to attend. Good luck in advancing our discipline.
Lars Olsson's suggestions
A suggestion, which more or less runs along the same lines as Bill Roberds: Why not gather all relevant national standards and recommendations for risk analyses that possibly exist? (In Sweden there is no standard, but we do have a checklist for the quality control of risk analysis work). They can then be used as a basis for recommendations from the committee.
Bo Berggren's + Lars Olsson's (detailed) suggestions
Risk terms and definitions
One of the problems with (geotechnical) risk analysis work is that there is no common word list with definitions. Therefore one of the working groups tasks should be to develop such a list. This is also more or less necessary if TC32 makes a compilation of risk analysis standards etc.
This work can be done in the following steps:
0. Define the scope
A general list or one for geotechnical risks including relevant environmental risks? Should be done at the TC 32 meeting
1. Gather existing lists
There are some national standards (e.g. a Norwegian one) but there are several other compilations of terms and definitions
2. Chose those terms that should be in the list
Probably better to make the list rather comprehensive from the start
3. Compile (all different) definitions used for the terms chosen
4. Pick the definition to be used or if necessary create a new definition
Motives for the choice to be given
5. Send the list for consideration by the members of TC 32
6. After adjustments, publish the list
What status of the list should we try to attain?
As we have already started some work along these lines here in Sweden we are willing to participate in the work on terminology.
Bo Berggren
Lars Olsson
