Identification of Geotechnical-Related Problems Impacting Cost, Schedule, and Claims On Bridge Construction Projects
Identification of Geotechnical-Related Problems Impacting Cost, Schedule, and Claims On Bridge Construction Projects
Identification of Geotechnical-Related Problems Impacting Cost, Schedule, and Claims On Bridge Construction Projects
Abstract: Changes made during the construction period generally generate claims, cost overruns, and schedule delays. Although there are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Rice University on 02/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
publications relating to these concerns, because of geotechnical reasons on transportation projects there is a dearth of studies specifically
focusing on bridge projects. Therefore, this study aims to learn the causes of claims, change orders, and cost overruns associated with
geotechnical reasons for bridge projects. It also focuses on the impacts of geotechnical-related problems and identifies measures for their
mitigation. For this study, survey questionnaires were received from 53 state DOTs engineers and from 43 engineer consultants. Through the
survey, nine geotechnical-related problems from the design phase were identified. Based on analysis, the top four geotechnical-related prob-
lems with negative impacts on the costs, schedules, and claims of bridge projects were found as lack of sufficient boring locations, mis-
classified or mischaracterized soil, dewatering due to seepage problem, and design change in superstructure. The survey results also showed
that the three major preventive measures to reduce geotechnical-related change orders were reported as the designer should have detailed
knowledge about the geotechnical information of the project site, detailed site investigation with a experienced consultant, and development
and implementation of minimum standards for subsurface investigation and site characterization. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-
4170.0000375. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geotechnical; Change orders; Cost growth; Schedule growth; Claims.
Gaps in Literature
The literature review found studies regarding causes of geotechnical-
Fig. 1. Research methodology.
related change orders and their impact on construction project
DOTs, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and they had less than 6 years of experience in bridge design. More than
250 geotechnical engineers working in consulting firms were gath- 20 years of experience was a distant second with 20%, and the
ered. The contact addresses of these participants were gathered 11–15 years’ experience category was the last with almost 8%.
by using state DOTs and consulting firms’ websites, LinkedIn, and The bridge design experience of the respondents is shown in Fig. 3.
personal contacts. Then these individuals were contacted by email Bridge Construction Experience
and phone to determine whether they would be interested in filling Fig. 4 illustrates that participants having less than 6 years’ expe-
out the survey questionnaire. rience in bridge construction were in the majority in the survey.
Similarly, as with bridge design experience, participants with more
Data Collection than 20 years of experience were the second most common, and the
16–20 years’ experience category was the least common in the
At the beginning of the survey, email invitations describing the re- survey.
search objectives and the participants’ involvements in this study In the survey, a total of six questions were asked of participants.
were sent. If there was no response within 15 days, a follow-up The participants were asked to rate the geotechnical design stan-
email was sent. A survey questionnaire was distributed to the indi- dards and types of subsurface investigation methods used during
viduals who responded through the web link of Qualtrics. If the bridge design. The participants were also asked to rate the causes
respondents did not respond after two emails, then one of the au- of geotechnical-related change orders based on their impact on cost
thors called to request their participation in the study. A total of 162 and schedule overruns, as well as on the claims of bridge projects.
participants confirmed that they would participate in the survey. Additionally, the respondents were asked to rate the impact of geo-
Therefore, the authors sent the survey questionnaire to all of these technical change orders on cost, schedule, and claims of bridge
participants by email with a link to the Qualtrics online survey. projects. The participants were also asked to estimate the cost that
must be invested for a geotechnical investigation so that the
geotechnical-related change orders could be reduced in bridge
Data Analysis
The survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and stat-
istical tests. The causes of geotechnical-related change orders and
claims were ranked using the relative importance index (RII)
method. Similarly, RII was used to rank causes and preventive mea-
sures of geotechnical-related change orders, and the impact on
claim and cost and schedule overruns. Eq. (1) was used to find
the RII value
PN
i¼1 W i
RII ¼ ð1Þ
A×N
Fig. 2. Education level of respondents.
Results
A total of 96 people responded to the questionnaire, a response rate
of 59%. Some respondents immediately filled out the survey, and
some took up to 2 months to complete the survey. The engineers of
the following eight state DOTs did not respond the questionnaires:
Alabama, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina,
West Virginia, and Washington. The demographics of the respond-
Fig. 3. Bridge design experience of respondents.
ents are described in the following.
the cost, schedules, and claims of bridge projects. The findings of sufficient boring locations was the top-ranked cause for cost over-
the study are described in the following. runs in bridge projects, followed by misclassified or mischaracter-
ized soil and level of groundwater table higher than expected. The
RII values also show that there is not much difference between the
Ranking of Types of Geotechnical Design impact of causes between the third-ranked and eighth-ranked causes.
Standard Used
From the literature, it was found that three major geotechnical de- Ranking of Impact of Geotechnical-Related Change
sign standards were used in bridge design. Therefore, the partici- Order Causes on Schedule Overrun
pants were asked to rate these standards based on the frequency of
The respondents were asked again to rate the impact of
use in their job sites. The results of the RII analysis showed that
geotechnical-related change order causes on schedule overruns of
the first preferred design standard was the AASHTO Manual on
bridge projects. The rating was done one a 1 to 10 scale, with 1
Subsurface Investigation, followed by the FHWA Geotechnical
representing high negative impact and 10 low negative impact. The
Engineering Circular No. 5 and the NHI Manual on Subsurface
RII analysis showed that the top two ranked causes were similar to
Investigation (Table 1). Not all of the respondents rated each of
those for cost overruns (Table 4). However, in this question, design
these responses, so the sample size in the table shows the number
change in superstructure was also ranked second with misclassified
of respondents who rated each standard.
or mischaracterized soil. Similarly, dewatering due to seepage
problems, level of groundwater table higher than expected, and
Ranking of Subsurface Investigation Methods variation of piling quantities due to the selection of the wrong pile
type for a particular soil type were ranked third. The RII results
The respondents were asked to rank the major subsurface investi- showed that the majority of causes had similar impacts on schedule
gation methods used by their agencies for geotechnical investiga- overruns in bridge projects because their RII values are very close.
tions in bridge projects. A total of nine methods were mentioned
and are given in Table 2. Based on RII analysis, it was found that
the top three ranked subsurface investigation methods used by Ranking of Impact of Geotechnical-Related Change
the respondents were the standard penetration test (SPT), cone pen- Order Causes on Claims
etration test (CPT), and geophysical method. Of these three meth- The survey again asked the respondents to rate the impact of
ods, the SPT method was overwhelmingly ranked first by the geotechnical-related change order causes on claims in bridge proj-
respondents. ects. Table 5 gives the results of the analysis. The RII analysis
Rating of Impact of Geotechnical-Related Change The participants were asked to recommend the percentage of the
Orders on Cost Overrun total cost required for geotechnical investigation during the design
phases of bridge projects. The result of this survey showed that a
The respondents were asked to rate the impact of geotechnical little less than two-thirds of the respondents estimated that the geo-
change orders on cost overruns of bridge projects. In this question, technical investigation cost should be 3% or more than 3% of the
the respondents provided ratings from 1 to 9 based on the impact total cost of the bridge projects (Table 9). The rest of the respond-
of change orders on cost overruns. Any rating in between 1 and 4 ents stated that the cost of geotechnical investigations in a bridge
showed that the impact of these types of change orders would in- project should be less than 3% of the total project cost.
crease the cost overruns. Similarly, if a 5 rating was provided, it
showed that there was no impact on cost overrun. Any rating above
Recommendations on Reducing Cost and Schedule
5 showed that it would have positive impact on cost overrun (that
Overruns and Claims on a Bridge Project
means there would be cost decrease in the bridge projects). Table 6
gives the overall ratings of the respondents. The results show that The final question was related to recommendations for minimizing
about 61% of the respondents said that such change orders would the costs and schedule overruns, as well as claims, on bridge
construction.
Other recommendations for reducing cost and schedule overruns
projects due to geotechnical-related change orders. Some of these
and claims in bridge construction due to geotechnical problems rec-
recommendations were put in the questionnaire based on the liter-
ommended by participants were budget control by technical staff;
ature review and some were added by the respondents. The re-
spondents were asked to identify the recommendations and also geotechnical training for nongeotechnical personnel; minimum tip
rank them in order. Table 10 gives the results of this analysis. It elevations for piling, not just bearing capacity; involvement of geo-
shows that there were eight major recommendations to reduce technical designers in the earlier stage in the project; detailed site
the cost and schedule overruns as well as claims due to geotechnical investigation; performing a load test prior to design, or confirmation
reasons. According to the RII analysis, the top three recommenda- piles prior to construction to confirm design; local experience of
tions provided by the respondents were the designer should have the geotechnical consultant; in-house experience and knowledge
detail knowledge about the geotechnical information of the project of project site; and more extensive laboratory testing to determine
site, detailed site investigation with a experienced consultant, and soil setup, soil relaxation, and soil consolidation.
development and implementation of minimum standards subsur-
face investigation and site characterization.
Conclusions
Discussion This study was conducted to determine the use of design standard,
subsurface investigation methods, and the ranking of geotechnical-
In response to the question related to geotechnical standards related causes based on their impact on cost, schedule, and claims
used for bridge design, some of the participants mentioned other on bridge projects. The study also collected data about the impact
of geotechnical-related change orders on cost and schedule over-
runs as well as claims on bridge projects. At the end, the partici-
Table 10. Ranking recommendations to minimize cost and schedule pants were asked to provide and rank the recommendations to
overruns and claims due to geotechnical reasons reduce the cost and schedule overruns and claims on bridge projects
because of geotechnical reasons. The survey was sent to state DOT
Recommendation Sample size RII value Ranking
geotechnical engineers as well those working in private consult-
Designer should have detailed 83 0.89 1 ing firms.
knowledge about the geotechnical The study results show that the preferred standard for geotech-
information of the project site nical design was the AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investiga-
Detailed site investigation with 82 0.86 2
tion, followed by the FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular
experienced consultant
Development and implementation 83 0.84 3
No. 5. Regarding subsurface investigation methods, the highest-
of minimum standards for ranked method was SPT. Other methods, e.g., CPT and geophysical
subsurface investigation and site method, were ranked a distant second and third. This showed that
characterization the majority of geotechnical engineers working in state DOTs or in
Choose the appropriate pile type for 83 0.80 4 private consulting firms agreed on their first preferred method of
a particular soil type, with more design standard and method of subsurface investigation.
accurately predicted pile lengths The survey also found that the major cause of having
Accuracy of boring locations 83 0.78 5 geotechnical-related change orders in bridge projects was lack of
Causes of geotechnical change 83 0.78 6
sufficient boring locations. During the design phase, sufficient bor-
order should be routed through the
geotechnical office, which helps to
ings were not conducted, which increased geotechnical-related
design for reducing that type of change orders during the construction phase. Other causes of hav-
change order in the design period ing geotechnical-related change orders in bridge projects were
Intraagency training and 83 0.78 7 misclassified or mischaracterized soil, level of groundwater table
communication to improve the higher than expected, dewatering due to seepage problems, and
implementation of surface design change in superstructure. The first two causes could be due
information to insufficient borings conducted during the design phases of the
Specification needs to be more 82 0.76 8 projects. Because the borings were not enough during design,
solid in the problematic areas such geotechnical engineers mischaracterized the soil and could not de-
as subgrade treatment and piling
termine the exact levels of groundwater.
Tunneling Technology, National Academy Press. J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 9 (3): 04517010. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000227.
New York State DOT. 2019. “Geotechnical design manual.” Accessed Au-
Shrestha, P. P., K. P. Shrestha, and H. Zeleke. 2019. “Probability of change
gust 8, 2019. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical
orders and the effect on cost and schedule for new public school build-
-services/geotechnical-engineering-bureau/gdm.
ings.” J. Eng. Constr. Arch. 26 (6): 1087–1104. https://doi.org/10.1108
North Carolina State DOT. 2019. “North Carolina State DOT internal
/ECAM-01-2018-0017.
manual”. Accessed August 8, 2019. https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources
Shrestha, P. P., and H. Zeleke. 2018. “Effect of change orders on cost and
/Geological/Pages/Geotechnical-Manuals.aspx.
schedule overruns of school building renovation projects.” J. Leg. Aff.
Ohio State DOT . 2019. “Specifications for geotechnical explorations.” Ac- Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 10 (4): 04518018. https://doi.org/10
cessed August 8, 2019. https://azdot.gov/business/engineering-and .1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000271.
-construction/bridge/guidelines/geotech-services. South Carolina State DOT. 2019. “South Carolina State DOT geotechnical
Pennsylvania State DOT. 2019. “Geotechnical engineering manual.” Ac- design manual”. Accessed August 8, 2019. https://www.scdot.org
cessed August 8, 2019. http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms /business/geotech.aspx.
/Publications/Pub%20293.pdf. Taylor, T. R. B., M. Uddin, P. M. Goodrum, A. McCoy, and Y. Shan. 2012.
Prezzi, M., B. McCullouch, and V. K. D. Mohan. 2011. Analysis of change “Change orders and lessons learned: Knowledge from statistical analy-
orders in geotechnical engineering work at INDOT. FHWA/IN/JTRP- ses of engineering change orders on Kentucky highway projects.”
2011/10. West Lafayette, IN: Joint Transportation Research Program, J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 138 (12): 1360–1369. https://doi.org/10.1061
Indiana Dept. of Transportation and Purdue Univ. /(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000550.
Semple, C., F. T. Hartman, and G. Jergeas. 1994. “Construction claims US Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. “Engineering and design: Geotech-
and disputes: Causes and cost/time overruns.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. nical investigations.” Accessed June 12, 2019. https://www
120 (4): 785–795. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994) .publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals
120:4(785). /EM_1110-1-1804.pdf.
Serag, E., A. Oloufa, L. Malone, and E. Radwna. 2010. “Model for quan- Virginia State DOT. 2019. “Geotechnical engineering.” Accessed August 8,
tifying the impact of change orders on project cost for U.S. roadwork 2019. http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/Materials/bu-mat
construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (9): 1015–1027. https://doi -MOI-III.pdf.
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000206. Zaneldin, E. K. 2006. “Construction claims in United Arab Emirates:
Shrestha, K. K., and P. P. Shrestha. 2019. “Change orders on road main- Types, causes, and frequency.” Int. J. Project Manage. 24 (5): 453–459.
tenance contracts: Causes and preventive measures.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.02.006.