DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Risk Factors Analysis and Quantitative Risk Assessment Model for Plant Construction Project

플랜트 건설 리스크 분석 및 리스크 정량화 모델 개발에 관한 연구

  • Ahn, Sung-Jin (Department of Architectural Engineering, Mokpo National University) ;
  • Kim, Tae-Hui (Department of Architectural Engineering, Mokpo National University) ;
  • Nam, Kyung-Yong (UTOP E&A) ;
  • Kim, Ji-Myong (Department of Architectural Engineering, Mokpo National University)
  • Received : 2018.10.10
  • Accepted : 2019.01.02
  • Published : 2019.02.20

Abstract

Due to the increasing demand for and complexity of plant construction projects, unpredictable risk factors are on the consequent increase. For that reason, the quantitative risk analysis is being called for, in order for the development of a risk assessment model using risk indicators for the plant construction projects. This study used the claim payout data collected at a global insurance company to reflect the actual financial losses in plant construction projects as dependent variables in the risk assessment model. In terms of independent variables, the geographic information, i. e., landform, and the construction information including test-run, schedule rate, total cost and duration are adopted. In addition, this study suggests that the regression model containing such independent variables that are statistically significant can be applied to as a foundational guideline for the plant construction project risk analysis during the phase of construction and commissioning.

플랜트 건설 프로젝트에 대한 수요가 증가하고 복잡해짐에 따라 예기치 못한 위험 요소가 증가하고 있다. 이에 플랜트 건설 프로젝트에 대한 중점 리스크 요인을 바탕으로 정량적 리스크 분석 및 평가 모델 개발이 요구되고 있다. 본 연구는 보험 회사에서 수집 한 보험금 지급 데이터를 사용하여 플랜트 건설 프로젝트의 실제 재정적 손실을 위험 평가 모델의 종속 변수로 반영하였으며 문헌 검토 및 데이터 분석을 바탕으로, 지형, 시운전, 공정률, 총 공시비 및 총 공사기간을 독립변수로 채택하였다. 제안된 손실율 모델은 플랜트 프로젝트 리스크 분석과 시공/시운전 단계의 리스크 분석가이드라인으로 활용될 수 있다.

Keywords

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1. Research procedure

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 2. Histogram and normal Q-Q plot for dependent value

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_f0003.png 이미지

Figure 3. Histogram and normal Q-Q plot for transformed dependent value

Table 1. Study method and applicable phase of previous studies

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Causes of plant construction project losses

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Total/average claim payouts by loss causes

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Claim payout and frequency by construction phase

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Claim payout and frequency by schedule rate

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0005.png 이미지

Table 6. Claim payout and frequency by landform

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0006.png 이미지

Table 7. Claim payout and frequency by total cost

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0007.png 이미지

Table 8. Claim payout and frequency by total duration

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0008.png 이미지

Table 9. Normality test of transformed dependent value

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0009.png 이미지

Table 10. Normality test of dependent value

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0010.png 이미지

Table 11. Categories of independent values

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0011.png 이미지

Table 12. Descriptive statistics

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0012.png 이미지

Table 13. ANOVA and adjusted R square

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0013.png 이미지

Table 14. Coefficients

GCSGBX_2019_v19n1_77_t0014.png 이미지

References

  1. Yun JY. A study on the international competitiveness of korean plant industries [Master's thesis]. Jeonju (Korea): Chonbuk National University; 2011. 124 p.
  2. A Guideline of Risk Analysis method, X-19-2012 [Internet]. Ulsan(Korea) : Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency.2012 [cited 2012. June 20]. Available from: http://www1.kosha.or.kr/kosha/media/guidance_X.do?mode=download&articleNo=103308&attachNo=87020
  3. Mulholland B, Christian J. Risk assessment in construction schedules. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 1999 Jan;125(1):8-15. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:1(8)
  4. Carr V, Tah JH. A fuzzy approach to construction project risk assessment and analysis: construction project risk management system. Advances in Engineering Software. 2001 Oct;32(10-11):847-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-9978(01)00036-9
  5. Hsiau HJ, Lin CW. A fuzzy pert approach to evaluate plant construction project scheduling risk under uncertain resources capacity. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management. 2009 Jul;2(1):31-47.
  6. Heravi G, Gholami A. The influence of project risk management maturity and organizational learning on the success of power plant construction projects. Project Management Journal. 2018 Aug;49(5):22-37 https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818786661
  7. An SH, Lee YN, Jo HK. A study on the risk assessment methodology and application for international plants construction. Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2008 Feb;9(1):134-42.
  8. Kang HW, Min BJ, Kim YS. A study on the costs variation range through the risk factors for overseas plant projects. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea. 2010 Jul;26(7):139-47.
  9. Lee K, Choi J. Project risk assessment through construction sequence analyses for industrial plant construction projects. Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2013 Jul;14(4):140-51. https://doi.org/10.6106/KJCEM.2013.14.4.140
  10. Won SK, Kang M, Lee J, Kim S, Han C. An analysis of procurement processes for the application of system prototype of overseas plant projects. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea Structure and Construction. 2008 Feb;24(2):113-21.
  11. Kim K, Choi B, Chun J. Safety management factor analysis of expert perceptions based on 4m method for plant construction phase. Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2016 Jan;17(1):18-27. https://doi.org/10.6106/KJCEM.2016.17.1.018
  12. Kang HW, Won YM, Kang MK, Kim YS. An analysis on the probability costs variation ranges of the cost items from the risk factor model for construction phase of overseas gas plant projects. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea Structure & Construction. 2012 Jan;28(1):191-8. https://doi.org/10.5659/JAIK_SC.2012.28.1.191
  13. Ji DK, Park MS, Kim YS. Qualitative risk factor analysis of overseas lng plant in operation and management phases. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea Structure & Construction. 2014 Aug;30(8):55-62. https://doi.org/10.5659/JAIK_SC.2014.30.8.55
  14. Wood GD, Ellis RCT. Risk management practices of leading UK cost consultants. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 2003 Aug;10(4):254-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980310489960
  15. Dikmen I, Birgonul MT, Arikan AE. A critical review of risk management support tools. 20th Annual Conference of Association of Researchers in Construction Management; 2004 Sep 1-3; Edinburgh, UK. Resding (UK): Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM); 2004. p. 1145-54.
  16. Cagno E, Caron F, Mancini M. A multi-dimensional analysis of major risks in complex projects. Risk Management. 2007 Feb;9(1):1-18. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8250014
  17. Cioffi DF, Khamooshi H. A practical method of determining project risk contingency budgets. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 2009 Apr;60(4):565-71. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602586
  18. Lawry K, Pons DJ. Integrative approach to the plant commissioning process. Journal of Industrial Engineering 2013;2013:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/572072
  19. Ryu HG, Son KY, Kim JM. Loss prediction model for building construction projects using insurance claim payout. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering. 2016 Jun;15(3):441-6. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.15.441
  20. Taroun A. Towards a better modelling and assessment of construction risk: Insights from a literature review. International Journal of Project Management. 2014 Jan;32(1):101-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.03.004