Taillandier, F; Baudrit, C; Carvajal, C; Delhomme, B and Beullac, B (2022) Imprecise abstract argumentation as a support for forensic engineering. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(1), pp. 523-550. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Civil engineering structures are regularly confronted with failures that can lead to catastrophic consequences. It is important, after a failure, to be able to identify the origin and the sequence of factors that led to it. This failure analysis by experts, called forensic engineering investigation, generally leads to the drafting of an expert report. These reports do not inform on the processes that guided the experts to a conclusion and the uncertainties involved. This paper aims to propose a new methodological approach to formalize the opinions of experts in forensic engineering. Design/methodology/approach: The research consists in combining abstract argumentation with the theory of imprecise probabilities to take into account epistemic and stochastic uncertainties to support forensic engineering investigation. Findings: A model and a tool to support forensic analysis are presented. An application on the collapse of the Brumadinho dam highlights the interest of the chosen approach. Originality/value: This work is the first use of the abstract argument framework in civil engineering, and so in forensic engineering. Furthermore, it provides an innovative model based on imprecise probability for AAF.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | abstract argumentation; dam; expertise; forensic engineering; imprecise probability |
| Index terms: | investigation, drafting, failure analysis, methodology |
| Subjects: | diagnostic methods, research methods, technical documentation, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Digital Applications, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here