Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Comparison of different probabilistic methods for analyzing stability of underground rock excavations
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Mining and Geotechnical Engineering.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Mining and Geotechnical Engineering.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Mining and Geotechnical Engineering.
Number of Authors: 3
2016 (English)In: The Electronic journal of geotechnical engineering, ISSN 1089-3032, E-ISSN 1089-3032, Vol. 21, no 21, 6555-6585 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Stability analyses of underground rock excavations are often performed using traditional deterministic methods. In deterministic methods the mean or characteristics values of the input parameters are used for the analyses. These method neglect the inherent variability of the rock mass properties in the analyses and the results could be misleading. Therefore, for a realistic stability analyses probabilistic methods, which consider the inherent variability of the rock mass properties, are considered appropriate. A number of probabilistic methods, each based on different theories and assumptions have been developed for the analysis of geotechnical problems. Geotechnical engineers must therefore choose appropriate probabilistic method to achieve a specific objective while taking into account simplicity, accuracy and time efficiency. In this study finite difference method was combined with five different probabilistic methods to analyze the stability of an underground rock excavation. The probabilistic methods considered were the Point Estimate Method (PEM), the Response Surface Method (RSM), the Artificial Neural Network (ANN), the Monte Carlos Simulation (MCS), and the Strength Classification Method (SCM). The results and the relative merits of the methods were compared. Also the general advantages of the probabilistic method over the deterministic method were discussed. Though the methods presented in this study are not exhaustive, the results of this study will assist in the choice of appropriate probabilistic methods for the analysis of underground rock excavations. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 21, no 21, 6555-6585 p.
National Category
Geotechnical Engineering Other Civil Engineering
Research subject
Mining and Rock Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-59926ScopusID: 2-s2.0-84992509213OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-59926DiVA: diva2:1039624
Note

Validerad; 2016; Nivå 2; 2016-11-14 (andbra)

Available from: 2016-10-24 Created: 2016-10-24 Last updated: 2016-11-23Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(910 kB)8 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 910 kBChecksum SHA-512
db1fffecb9612999d4e36ca2e0f05537aaf268d09b5b52b56ff3f0a168bbc1b304e3de25f028055bbb6f32e93a92f47c248491084e1ac980b5ccdd773b5aabd5
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Scopushttp://www.ejge.com/2016/JourTOC21.21.htm

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Idris, Musa AdebayoNordlund, ErlingSaiang, David
By organisation
Mining and Geotechnical Engineering
In the same journal
The Electronic journal of geotechnical engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringOther Civil Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 8 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Total: 23 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link