Eurocode 7 and rock engineering

Harrison, John P.

doi:10.1201/b16955-266

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, they enable engineers to optimise designs, assess different scenarios and predict potential failure modes. Note that we have purposely used italic for the term 'quantitative' since many of the input parameters used in open pit design are qualitative Harrison 2017). The quantification problem will be raised in several parts of this paper since it is intrinsic to calibration and validation.…”

Section: Towards a Holistic Approach To Slope Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

The risk of confusing model calibration and model validation with model acceptance

Elmo

2023

SSIM 2023: Third International Slope Stability in Mining Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the meaning of calibration and validation in rock engineering design, highlighting several challenges and limitations associated with these processes. There exist two fundamental limitations: i) the inability to rely on engineering judgement as a substitute for proper calibration and validation, and ii) the use of qualitative characterisation methods introduces subjectivity in the data subsequently used for calibration and validation. Furthermore, varying modelling conceptualisations result in a paradoxical situation whereby the same problem analysed using different numerical models requires a different set of parameters, which can all be claimed to be calibrated. The author acknowledges that some of the points raised in this paper may encounter objections. However, by ignoring the epistemic limits of calibration and validation, there is the risk of letting engineering faith become the excuse behind the tendency to replace model validation with model acceptance.

show abstract

Section: Towards a Holistic Approach To Slope Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

The risk of confusing model calibration and model validation with model acceptance

Elmo

2023

SSIM 2023: Third International Slope Stability in Mining Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each scale is strictly limited to specific statistical operations. For instance, only interval and ratio scales allow for the calculation of means and standard deviations, whereas nominal and ordinal measurements are limited to medians and percentiles [15]. This aspect is ignored by many, and examples of probabilistic analysis are often proposed in the rock engineering literature despite the ordinal nature of many of the parameters-like GSI-used in design practice.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Engineers Should Not Attempt to Quantify GSI

Yang

Elmo

2022

Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past decade, there has been an increasing trend of digitalizing rock engineering processes. However, this process has not been accompanied by a critical analysis of the very same empirical methods that many complex numerical and digital methods are founded upon. As engineers, we are taught to use and trust numbers. Indeed, we would not be able to define the factor of the safety of a structure without numbers. However, what happens when those numbers are nothing but numerical descriptions of qualitative assessments? In this paper we present a critical review of the many attempts presented in the literature to quantify GSI (geological strength index). To the authors’ knowledge, this paper represents the first time that all the different GSI tables and quantification methods that have been proposed over the past two decades are collated and compared critically. In our critique, we argue against the paradigm whereby the quantification process adds the experience factor for inexperienced engineers. Furthermore, we discuss the limitations of the notion that GSI quantification methods could transform subjectivity into objectivity since the parameters under considerations are not quantitative measurements. Relying on empirically defined quantitative equivalences raises important questions, particularly when these quantitative equivalences are being used to define so-called accurate rock mass classification input for design purposes.

show abstract