## 4 Results and Discussion
### Risk Interdependency Model in Rock  
Table 12 displays the CMR and AVE of the primary risk groups for the time and cost pile installation in rock. DR, EQR, and OGR were the common risk groups that shared time and cost. On the other hand, MR and ECR represent significant risk groups. Moreover, SR has a considerable effect on the cost. Some risk groups, such as ECR, MR for time, and EQR for cost, have CMR values that are marginally below the permitted range (0.7). As a result, the models' dependability was somewhat violated. All time and cost risk categories have AVE values higher than the criterion (0.5). Table 13 displays the discriminant validity according to the Fronell-Larcker criterion. The findings reveal that the square root of the AVE for the risk group, shown in the diagonal element of Table 13, is greater than the correlation coefficient between two separate risk groups. The Fronell-Larcker criteria were met for the time and cost model. The cross-loading values of crucial risks for various risk groups in terms of time and cost are shown in Table 14, the cross-loading criterion. The risk groups' associated risk values must be greater than the unrelated values. As a result, the time and cost model's discriminant validity requirements were met. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Time**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Cost**} \\ \hline
**Path** & **b** & **t-Value** & \(p\) **Values** & **Path** & **b** & **t-Value** & \(p\) **Values** \\ \hline CR \(\rightarrow\) Time & 0.095 & 1.800 & 0.072 & CR \(\rightarrow\) COST & 0.122 & 2.043 & 0.042 \\ MR \(\rightarrow\) Time & 0.149 & 2.836 & 0.005 & ECR \(\rightarrow\) CR & 0.193 & 2.419 & 0.016 \\ OGR \(\rightarrow\) SR & 0.184 & 1.682 & 0.093 & EQR \(\rightarrow\) COST & 0.095 & 1.696 & 0.091 \\ OGR \(\rightarrow\) Time & 0.106 & 1.723 & 0.086 & OGR \(\rightarrow\) COST & 0.174 & 3.416 & 0.001 \\ SR \(\rightarrow\) CR & 0.213 & 1.694 & 0.091 & SR \(\rightarrow\) ECR & 0.152 & 1.864 & 0.063 \\ SR \(\rightarrow\) Time & 0.091 & 1.668 & 0.096 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Path test results for the time and cost of pile installation in sand. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Time** & & **Cost** & \\ \hline
**Risk Group** & **CMR** & **AVE** & **Risk Group** & **CMR** & **AVE** \\ \hline DR & 0.718 & 0.566 & DR & 0.724 & 0.569 \\ ECR & 0.673 & 0.510 & EAR & 0.689 & 0.474 \\ EAR & 0.714 & 0.556 & OGR & 0.710 & 0.558 \\ MR & 0.683 & 0.525 & SR & 0.710 & 0.550 \\ OGR & 0.691 & 0.528 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: CR and AVE of risk groups for the time and cost of pile installation. Figure 6 depicts the interactions between the risk groups and the significant risks associated with installing piles in rock for time (Figure 6a) and cost (Figure 6b). The risk groups most relevant to time are (DR7, DR8), (ECR1, ECR3), (EQR4, EQR7), (MR1, MR3), and (OGR1, OGR2) are the respective major risks for DR, ECR, EQR, MR, and OGR. The substantial cost risks for DR, EQR, OGR, and SR are, respectively, (DR7, DR8), (EQR1, EQR2), (OGR1, OGR4), and (SR2, SR3). The linkages between the risk groups for the installation of a pile in terms of time and cost are also shown in Figure 6. Table 15 displays the results of these interrelationships' statistical tests regarding b coefficients, t values, and the accompanying \(p\) values. The \(p\)-values were less than 0.1. The results of the time model indicate that risks regarding a lack of quality management (MR7), such as planning, assurance, and control, play a role in the distance between the pile and the adjacent pile (DR7) and the length and diameter of the concrete pile (DR8). Moreover, an owner's ultra-standards (OGR4) may lead to a lack of funds or a lack of cash flow (ECR2) and improper maintenance (ECR2). There is a relationship between the risk of the size of the withdrawn unit (EQR7) and the risk of the length and diameter of the pile concrete (DR8).