significant sources of geotechnical risk.” Moreover, the Synthesis noted that “project staff may actually be the largest source.” Clayton further described this “human” aspect of geotechnical risk as follows: “Because of the considerable range of risks the ground can pose, it is relatively easy for an inexperienced or non-specialist designer, perhaps using routine procedures, to fail to recognise a critical mechanism of damage or failure that may threaten either the financial viability or health and safety of a project. If a mechanism of damage (a limit state) is not foreseen then it cannot be designed for, and it is often for this reason that ground-related problems occur.” (2001) Whether due to original information quality or subsequent evaluation, this low-quality information often leads to inappropriate design decisions, insufficient final designs and future construction problems. Execution and Data Interpretations. Additional risk can be introduced during a project’s execution and the associated contractual process. Each party often separately obtains parts of a project’s geotechnical data, at different times, in different sequences and for a different focus. This can result in different conclusions being drawn from the data regarding the site character or behavior. If a shared opportunity for communication is not pursued, parties may thus enter into an agreement with one another while remaining unaware of potential differing interpretations of best methods, sequencing, equipment, labor, schedule, cost and safety. Standard log of Rice, Minnesota, bridge plan soil borings Added to these challenges is the fact that geotechnical data, which are inherently three-dimensional, are largely still presented in a very traditional format: a paper report, black and white printed logs, or 2D sections and plans. Even with 3D models generated using CAD or other software, they are often viewed as 2D images on paper or on a computer monitor, and rarely are made available to contractors bidding on the work. Perception of risk is also affected by external factors such as education, background, project role and familiarity with the risks associated with a particular project. Not all project participants will have an understanding of staged or temporary construction, extreme events, adjacent landowner and utility considerations, and the nature of different types of design solutions (shallow or deep foundations, lightweight fills, ground improvement, etc.), and how these factors alone or in combination influence risk. Building Information Models (BIMs) are becoming a more common project communication tool, particularly in the building design and construction community. However, there is usually a “driver” controlling the BIM viewing, zooming and rotation, and participants’ experience of the model is as passive “passengers.” Their experiences are different as a result, and it is likely that their project perception and understanding — and their interpretation of risk — also remain different. From the owner’s perspective, the outcome of foundation-related communication challenges can be schedule delays, claims and an escalation of contract costs. From the contractor’s perspective, there is the risk of unprofitable work, or in some cases, safety risks.
