Advertisement

Probabilistic Characterization of Rock Mass from Limited Laboratory Tests and Field Data: Associated Reliability Analysis and Its Interpretation

  • Bhardwaj PanditEmail author
  • Gaurav Tiwari
  • Gali Madhavi Latha
  • G. L. Sivakumar Babu
Original Paper
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

Probabilistic methods are the most efficient methods to account for different types of uncertainties encountered in the estimated rock properties required for the stability analysis of rock slopes and tunnels. These methods require estimation of various parameters of probability distributions like mean, standard deviation (SD) and distributions types of rock properties, which requires large amount of data from laboratory and field investigations. However, in rock mechanics, the data available on rock properties for a project are often limited since the extents of projects are usually large and the test data are minimal due to cost constraints. Due to the unavailability of adequate test data, parameters (mean and SD) of probability distributions of rock properties themselves contain uncertainties. Since traditional reliability analysis uses these uncertain parameters (mean and SD) of probability distributions of rock properties, they may give incorrect estimation of the reliability of rock slope stability. This paper presents a method to overcome this limitation of traditional reliability analysis and outlines a new approach of rock mass characterization for the cases with limited data. This approach uses Sobol’s global sensitivity analysis and bootstrap method coupled with augmented radial basis function based response surface. This method is capable of handling the uncertainties in the parameters (mean and SD) of probability distributions of rock properties and can include their effect in the stability estimates of rock slopes. The proposed method is more practical and efficient, since it considers uncertainty in the statistical parameters of most commonly and easily available rock properties, i.e. uniaxial compressive strength and Geological Strength Index. Further, computational effort involved in the reliability analysis of rock slopes of large dimensions is comparatively smaller in this method. Present study also demonstrates this method through reliability analysis of a large rock slope of an open pit gold mine in Karnataka region of India. Results are compared with the results from traditional reliability analysis to highlight the advantages of the proposed method. It is observed that uncertainties in probability distribution type and its parameters (mean and SD) of rock properties have considerable effect on the estimated reliability index of the rock slope and hence traditional reliability methods based on the parameters of probability distributions estimated using limited data can make incorrect estimation of rock slope stability. Further, stability of the rock slope determined from proposed approach based on bootstrap method is represented by confidence interval of reliability index instead of a fixed value of reliability index as in traditional methods, providing more realistic estimates of rock slope stability.

Keywords

Rock slopes Rock mass characterization Probabilistic approach Response surface Bootstrap sampling 

List of Symbols

SD

Standard deviation

UCS

Uniaxial compressive strength

GSI

Geological Strength Index

RBF

Radial basis function

FOS

Factor of safety

CCDF

Complimentary cumulative distribution function

\({X_1},~{X_2},~{X_3}, \ldots ,{X_N}\)

Original data set with N observations

\({\bar {X}_N}\)

Mean of original data set

\({S_N}\)

SD of original data set

\({{\varvec{B}}_{\varvec{j}}}\)

jth bootstrap sample set of input parameter X

\({N_{\text{s}}}\)

Total number of bootstraps

\(k\)

No. of quasi-random samples for estimation of Sobol indices

AIC

Akaike Information Criterion

AICD

Akaike Information Criterion value associated with distribution D

\({L_D}\)

Maximum likelihood estimator of the data set associated with the distribution D

\({K_D}\)

Number of parameters required to fully characterize the distribution D

\({\mu _{{\text{AI}}{{\text{C}}_D}}}\)

Mean AIC value of distribution D

\({\sigma _{{\text{AI}}{{\text{C}}_D}}}\)

SD of AIC value of distribution D

\({\bar {B}_i}\)

Mean of ith bootstrap sample

\({S_i}\)

SD of ith bootstrap sample

\({\left[ {{{\bar {X}}_{{N_{\text{s}}}}}} \right]_{{\text{mean}}}}\)

Mean of Ns bootstrap sample means

\({\sigma _{{{\bar {X}}_{{N_{\text{s}}}}}}}\)

SD of Ns bootstrap sample means

\({\left[ {{S_{{N_{\text{s}}}}}} \right]_{{\text{mean}}}}\)

Mean of Ns bootstrap sample SDs

\({\sigma _{{S_{{N_{\text{s}}}}}}}\)

SD of Ns bootstrap sample SDs

MC

Monte Carlo

PDF

Probability density function

FEM

Finite element method

FDM

Finite difference method

JCond89

Joint condition factor of RMR 89

LH

Latin hypercube

\(g({\varvec{X}})\)

Performance function with X vector as input

\(\phi (r)\)

Radial basis function

\({P_j}({\varvec{X}})\)

Monomial terms of augmented polynomial P (x)

\({\lambda _i}\)

Unknown constants associated with ith RBF

\({b_j}\)

Unknown coefficients

\(r\)

Euclidean norm (distance) of vector X from Xi

\({r_0}\)

Radius of compact support of RBF

\(t\)

r/r0

LOOCV

Leave-one-out cross-validation error

\({y_i}\)

Output obtained from \(g({{\varvec{X}}_{\varvec{i}}})\)

n

Number of LH samples drawn from input space

HDMR

High dimensional model representation

\({S_i}\)

First-order Sobol index for ith input parameter

\({S_{{T_i}}}\)

Total effects Sobol index for ith input parameter

\({{\varvec{X}}_{\sim i}}\)

Input vector having all components except the ith component

RQD

Rock quality designation

RMR

Rock mass rating

\({E_i}\)

Young’s modulus

\(\nu\)

Poisson’s ratio

\({\sigma _t}\)

Tensile strength

\(\gamma\)

Unit weight of rock mass

SSR

Shear strength reduction

\({m_i}\)

Hoek–Brown constant for intact rock

NSE

Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency

PBIAS

Percent bias

RSR

Ratio of root-mean-square error to SD of observed data

R

Reliability index

\({\mu _{{\text{FOS}}}}\)

Mean FOS for obtained from single bootstrap sample as input

\({V_{{\text{FOS}}}}\)

Coefficient of variation of FOS for obtained from single bootstrap sample as input

Notes

References

  1. Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csáki F (eds) 2nd International symposium on information theory, Tsahkadsor, Armenia, USSR, September 2–8, 1971, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  2. Basarir H, Akdağ S, Karrech A, Özyurt M (2016) The estimation of rock mass strength properties using probabilistic approaches and quantified GSI chart. In: ISRM Eurock 2016Google Scholar
  3. Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowman AW, Azzalini A (1997) Applied smoothing techniques for data analysis: the kernel approach with s-plus illustrations. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Dadashzadeh N, Duzgun HSB, Yesiloglu-Gultekin N (2017) Reliability-based stability analysis of rock slopes using numerical analysis and response surface method. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50(8):2119–2133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Rocquigny E (2012) Modelling under risk and uncertainty: an introduction to statistical, phenomenological and computational methods. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duzgun HSB, Bhasin RK (2009) Probabilistic stability evaluation of Oppstadhornet rock slope Norway. Rock Mech Rock Eng 42(5):729–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duzgun HSB, Pasamehmetoglu AG, Yucemen MS (1995) Plane failure analysis of rock slopes: a reliability approach. Int J Surf Min Reclam Environ 9(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duzgun HSB, Yuceman MS, Karpuz CA (2002) A probabilistic model for the assessment of uncertainties in the shear strength of rock discontinuities. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 39:743–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 7(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fang H, Horstemeyer MF (2006) Global response approximation with radial basis functions. Eng Optim 38(4):407–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Helton JC (1993) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for use in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 42:327–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoek E, Diederichs MS (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43(2):203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Hoek–Brown failure criterion—2002 edition. In: Proceedings of the 5th North American rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, Canada, pp 267–273Google Scholar
  15. Hoek E, Carter TG, Diederichs MS (2013) Quantification of the Geological Strength Index chart. In: Paper prepared for presentation at the 47th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium held in San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  16. ISRM (1981) Rock characterization, testing and monitoring. ISRM suggested methods. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Itasca (2011) FLAC—Fast Lagrangian analysis and continua, version 7.0. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  18. Jiang Q, Zhong S, Cui J, Feng XT, Song L (2016) Statistical characterization of the mechanical parameters of intact rock under triaxial compression: an experimental proof of the Jinping marble. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(12):4631–4646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krishnamurthy T (2003) Response surface approximation with augmented and compactly supported radial basis functions. In: Proceedings of 44th aiaa/asme/asce/ahs/asc structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  20. Li DQ, Jiang SH, Cao ZJ, Zhou CB, Li XY, Zhang LM (2015a) Efficient 3-D reliability analysis of the 530 m high abutment slope at Jinping I hydropower station during construction. Eng Geol 195:269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li DQ, Tang XS, Phoon KK (2015b) Bootstrap method for characterizing the effect of uncertainty in shear strength parameters on slope reliability. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 140:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luo Z, Atamturktur S, Juang CH (2013) Bootstrapping for characterizing the effect of uncertainty in sample statistics for braced excavations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(1):13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Madani N, Yagiz S, Adoko AC (2018) Spatial mapping of the rock quality designation using multi-Gaussian Kriging method. Minerals 8(11):530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matlab 9.0 (2016) The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  25. Mauldon M, Ureta J (1996) stability analysis of rock wedges with multiple sliding surfaces. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 33:51–66Google Scholar
  26. Montgomery DC (2001) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Morelli GL (2015) Variability of the GSI index estimated from different quantitative methods. Geotech Geol Eng 33:983–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van LMW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50(3):885–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Most T, Knabe T (2010) Reliability analysis of the bearing failure problem considering uncertain stochastic parameters. Comput Geotech 37(3):299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pain A, Kanungo DP, Sarkar S (2014) Rock slope stability assessment using finite element based modelling—examples from the Indian Himalayas. Geomech Geoeng 00:1–16Google Scholar
  31. Pandit B, Babu GLS (2017) Reliability-based robust design for reinforcement of jointed rock slope. Georisk Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 12(2):152–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pandit B, Tiwari G, Latha GM, Babu GLS (2018) Stability analysis of a large gold mine open pit slope using advanced probabilistic method. Rock Mech Rock Eng 51(7):2153–2174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramamurthy T (2013) Engineering in rocks for slopes, foundations and tunnels. Prentice Hall of India (Pubs.), New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  34. Saltelli A (2002) Making best use of model valuations to compute sensitivity indices. Comput Phys Commun 145:280–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, Saisana M, Tarantola S (2008) Global sensitivity analysis. The primer. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Tiwari G, Latha GM (2016) Design of rock slope reinforcement: an Himalayan case study. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(6):2075–2097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tiwari G, Latha GM (2017) Reliability analysis of jointed rock slope considering uncertainty in peak and residual strength parameters. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(2):913–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1999) Risk-based analysis in geotechnical engineering for support of planning studies, engineering and design. Department of Army, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang Q, Horstemeyer H, Shen L (2016) Reliability analysis of tunnels using a metamodeling technique based on augmented radial basis functions. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 56:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wu Z (1995) Compactly supported positive definite radial function. Adv Comput Math 4:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bhardwaj Pandit
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gaurav Tiwari
    • 2
  • Gali Madhavi Latha
    • 1
  • G. L. Sivakumar Babu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyKanpurIndia

Personalised recommendations