Zetterlund, M; Norberg, T; Ericsson, L O and Rosn, L (2011) Framework for value of information analysis in rock mass characterization for grouting purposes. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(7), pp. 486-497. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The observational method involves recurrent updating, and according to European standards, it is an optional method when geotechnical conditions are difficult to predict. A method for the application of value of information analysis in rock mass characterization for tunnels is demonstrated in a generic case of a feasibility study of a tunnel in hard rock. Two alternative grouting designs are analyzed to find the most suitable design for the geological conditions on site and whether information from investigations is of value in the decision-making process. The uncertainty in the grouting result is described by means of a beta distribution for each alternative design. The probabilities of different geological states are based on 200 stochastic simulations of the rock mass. It was found that value of information analysis contributes to good structure in geological surveys when the geology is difficult to predict and when repeated updating is necessary. The prescribed method is a tool to design well-motivated investigation programs where geotechnical value is weighed up against execution costs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Bayesian analysis; geological surveys; grouting; tunneling |
| Index terms: | observation, grouting, tunnel, feasibility study, program, survey, investigation, decision-making process, Bayesian analysis |
| Subjects: | software systems, data collection methods, design stages, decision analysis, statistical analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, construction methods |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PEA |
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