Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Behavioural Factors and Cognitive Biases in Rock Engineering

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, the authors investigate the role that behavioural factors and cognitive biases play in rock engineering. The concept of behavioural rock engineering is herein introduced as the study of rock engineering as it pertains to design decision-making processes made by individuals. The objectives of this paper are twofold: (i) to provide a better understanding how knowledge is used (or not used) in rock engineering to achieve conclusions based on an individual’s experience; and (ii) to offer a critical discussion on the resistance to changing methods that were first developed in the 1960s and 1970s. Accordingly, the paper presents a critical review of what engineers and professional refer to as industry standards in rock engineering; the discussion is centred around the concepts of uncertainty and variability, which form our aggregate knowledge of a problem, and the distinction between knowledge, experience and engineering judgement. The objective of this paper is not to discourage the use of rock mass classification/characterisation systems; rather, to encourage a more careful, considerate and reflective use of those varied systems. Ultimately, preferential engineering attachment biases should not be allowed to become a hindrance to the proposal and adoption of improved versions and alternatives to current empirical methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Modified from Harrison (2012)

Fig. 2

Modified from Elmo and Stead (2020)

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

modified from Rahjoo 2019)

Fig. 10

modified from Jennings 1970)

Fig. 11
Fig. 12

modified from Elmo et al. 2020)

Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

modified from Elmo et al. 2014)

Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alghalandis YF, Dowd PA, Xu C (2015) Connectivity field: a measure for characterising fracture networks. Math Geosci 47(1):63–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6:189–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classification. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulleit W, Schmidt J, Alvi I, Nelson E, Rodriguez-Nikl T (2014) Philosophy of engineering: what it is and why it matters. J Profess Issues Eng Educ Pract 141

  • Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minanu M (2004) Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus and strength of jointed hard rock masses using the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deere DU, Deere DW (1989) Rock quality designation (RQD) after twenty years. Publication of the Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers

    Google Scholar 

  • Deere DU, Merritt AH, Coon RF (1969) Engineering classification of in-situ rock. Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins Dictionary (2020). https://www.collinsdictionary.com/. Accessed 9 Sept 2020

  • Elmo D (2006) Evaluation of a hybrid FEM/DEM approach for determination of rock mass strength using a combination of discontinuity mapping and fracture mechanics modelling, with emphasis on modelling of jointed pillars. Ph.D. thesis, Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter, UK

  • Elmo D, Stead D (2018) The concept of representative elementary length (REL) as an effective tool to study scale effects in rock engineering problems. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Spain, invited. In Press

  • Elmo D, Stead D (2020) Disrupting rock engineering concepts: Is there such a thing as a rock mass digital twin and are machines capable of “learning” rock mechanics. In proceeding of: Int. Symposium on Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering. Perth, Australia

  • Elmo D, Moffitt K, D’Ambra S, Stead D (2009) A quantitative characterisation of brittle rock fracture mechanisms in rock slope failures. In proceedings of: Int. Symposium on Rock Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering, Santiago, Chile

  • Elmo D, Rogers R, Dorador L, Eberhardt E (2014) An FEM-DEM numerical approach to simulate secondary fragmentation. Proc. 14th International Conference of the International Association for Computer Methods and Geotechnics. Kyoto, Japan.

  • Elmo D, Donati D, Stead D (2018) Challenges in the characterization of rock bridges. Eng Geol 245:81–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmo D, Stead D, Yang B (2020) Disrupting the concept of rock bridges. In: Proceedings of: 52nd Int. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Golden, Colorado, Paper #2063

  • Esterhuizen GS (2006) An evaluation of the strength of slender pillars. SME annual meeting and exhibit, March 27–29, St. Louis, Missouri, preprint 06–003. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Littleton

  • Harrison JP (2012) Rock Engineering, uncertainty and Eurocode 7: implications for rock mass characterisation. In proceedings of: MIR 2012-XIV, Faculty of Engineering, Turin University, Italy

  • Harrison JP (2017) Rock engineering design and the evolution of Eurocode 7. In proceedings of: EG50 Engineering Geology and Geotechnics Conference, Portsmouth, UK

  • Heuze FE (1971) Sources of errors in rock mechanics field measurements and related solutions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 8(4):297–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoek E (1994) Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News J 2(2):4–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(8):1165–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoek E, Brown ET (2018) The Hoek–Brown failure criterion and GSI – 2018 edition. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 11(3): 445–463

  • Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground excavations in hard rock. Balkema, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings JE (1970) A mathematical theory for the calculation of the stability of slopes in open cast mines. In Van Rensburg (Ed.), Planning Open Pit Mines, Proceedings, pp. 87–102

  • Jermias J (2001) Cognitive dissonance and resistance to change: the influence of commitment confirmation and feedback on judgement usefulness of accounting systems. Acc Org Soc 26(2):141–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0361-3682(00)00008-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN: 9780141033570. pp. 499

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) On the interpretation of intuitive probability: A reply to Jonathan Cohen. Cognition 7(4):409–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(79)90024-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makridakis S, Hibon M. 1979. Accuracy of Forecasting: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General). 142(2):97–145. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2345077

  • Marinos V, Carter T (2018) Maintaining geological reality in application of GSI for design of engineering structures in rock. Eng Geol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.03.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pells PJ, Bieniawski ZT, Hencher SR, Pell SE (2017) Rock quality designation (RQD): time to rest in peace. Can Geotech J 54:825–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pine RJ, Coggan JS, Flynn ZN, Elmo D (2006) The development of a new numerical modelling approach for naturally fractured rock masses. Rock Mech Rock Eng 39(5):395–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahjio M (2019) Directional and 3D confinement-dependent fracturing, strength and dilation mobilization in brittle rocks. PhD Thesis, The University of British Columbia, Canada

  • Read J, Stacey P (2009) Guidelines for open pit slope design. First Edition, CRC Press

  • Ross B (2017) Lessons from the Bingham Canyon Manefay Slide. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. pp. 244. ISBN-10 : 0873354311.

  • Russo G (2009) A new rational method for calculating the GSI. Tunn and Underground Space Tech 24:103–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shang J, Hencher SR, West LJ, Handley K (2017) Forensic excavation of rock masses: a technique to investigate discontinuity persistence. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50:2911–2928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sönmez H, Ulusay R (1999) Modifications to the geological strength index (GSI) and their applicability to stability of slopes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:743–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sönmez H, Ulusay R (2002). A discussion the Hoek-Brown failure criterion and suggested modifications to the criterion verified by slope stability case studies. Yerbilimleri Earthsci 26:77–99. http://www.yerbilimleri.hacettepe.edu.tr

  • Starfield AM, Cundall PA (1998) Towards a methodology for rock mechanics modelling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 25(3):99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stead D, Elmo D, Yan M, Coggan J (2007) Modelling brittle fracture in rock slopes: experience gained, and lessons learned. In proceeding of: International Symposium on Rock Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering, Perth, Australia

  • Stevens SS (1946) On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 103(2684):677–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taleb N (2010) The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House, pp 400

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5:297–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tye W (1944) Factor of safety – Or of Habit. J Royal Aero Soc 48:487–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzielli M (2008) Statistical data of geotechnical data. Geotechnical and geophysical site characterisation. Taylor and Francis. pp 173–194.

  • Walker WE (2019) Behavioral ethics and engineers: factors affecting decision making in cases involving risk and public safety. In proceedings of: 126th Annual ASEE conference. Paper 27666.

  • Xu C, Dowd PA, Fowell RJ (2006) A connectivity index for discrete fracture networks. Math Geol 38(5):611–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang B, Elmo D, Stead D (2020). Questioning the use of RQD in rock engineering and its implications for future rock slope design. In proceedings of: 52nd International Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Golden, Colorado, Paper #1404

  • Zhang L, Einstein HH (2000) Estimating the intensity of rock discontinuities. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:819–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge that the discussion presented on this manuscript on the topic of open- and closed-set forms of uncertainty was initially presented in Elmo and Stead (2020). Likewise, the authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Beverly Yang, MASc student at the university of British Columbia under the supervision of Drs. Elmo and Stead, which recently published a modified version of the discussion about RQD and industry standards in Yang et al. (2020).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NBK Institute of Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CO, Canada

    Davide Elmo

  2. Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, CO, Canada

    Doug Stead

Authors
  1. Davide Elmo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Doug Stead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davide Elmo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elmo, D., Stead, D. The Role of Behavioural Factors and Cognitive Biases in Rock Engineering. Rock Mech Rock Eng 54, 2109–2128 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-021-02385-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-021-02385-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation