The Experts below are selected from a list of 249 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Doug Stead - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Role of Behavioural Factors and Cognitive Biases in Rock Engineering
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2021Co-Authors: Davide Elmo, Doug SteadAbstract: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.
J. Christian Gerdes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Virtues of Automated Vehicle Safety - Mapping Vehicle Safety Approaches to Their Underlying Ethical Frameworks
2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2020Co-Authors: J. Christian GerdesAbstract:The safety of automated vehicles is principally a question of ethics. As a result, an understanding of the ethical frameworks that underlie different regulatory, legal and Engineering approaches to vehicle safety can help to pinpoint potential challenges. Approaches that stem from deontological thinking can create a trap by requiring an exhaustive set of rules. In contrast, approaches that take a consequentialist perspective can create a perceived need to find an optimal solution. A framework based on virtue ethics, as developed further in this paper, avoids both of these traps, relying on Engineering Judgement and moral wisdom to extrapolate from core virtues towards practical solutions.
Davide Elmo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Role of Behavioural Factors and Cognitive Biases in Rock Engineering
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2021Co-Authors: Davide Elmo, Doug SteadAbstract: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.
-
Can new technologies shake the empirical foundations of rock Engineering
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Underground Mining Technology, 2020Co-Authors: Davide Elmo, Douglas Stead, Beverly Yang, Rita Tsai, Yaniv FogelAbstract:The past decade has witnessed an increasing interest in applications of machine learning (ML) to solve mining and geotechnical problems. This is largely due to an increased use of high-level programming languages, development of user-friendly and open source ML libraries, improved computational power, and increased cloud storage capacity to handle large and complex data sets. The benefit of incorporating ML in rock Engineering design are apparent, including the reduction in the time required to sort and characterise field data and the capability to find mathematical correlations between overly complex sets of input data. However, when applied to geotechnical Engineering, the question arises as to whether ML can truly provide objective results. In geotechnical Engineering, where the medium considered is typically heterogenous and only limited information is spatially available, experience and Engineering Judgement dominate the early stage of the design process. However, experience and Engineering Judgement alone cannot reduce data uncertainty. It is also true that the inherent variability of natural materials cannot be truly captured unless sufficient field data is collected in an objective manner. This paper investigates the readiness of the technical community to integrate ML in rock Engineering design at this time. To fully realise the potential and benefits of ML tools, the technical community must be willing to accept a paradigm shift in the data collection process and, if required, abandon empirical systems that are considered ‘industry standards’ by virtue of being commonly accepted despite acknowledging their limitations.
M.r.a. Van Vliet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Experimentation, numerical simulation and the role of Engineering Judgement in the fracture mechanics of concrete and concrete structures
Construction and Building Materials, 1999Co-Authors: J.g.m. Van Mier, M.r.a. Van VlietAbstract:Fracture mechanics plays a role in both structural Engineering and materials Engineering. The aim here is to improve understanding of the behaviour of structures and materials in the limit state. The use of numerical models can help improve the accuracy of our designs, but only if the certainty about material models improves. The models tend to become more detailed as the performance of computers increases. However, the question is, will this increased amount of detail help to improve our understanding, and improve the reliability of the numerical models. These questions are addressed in this paper. It is shown that through increasing the amount of detail, certain phenomena may be observed that seem to correspond to limits that are reached in practice as well. The example given is the limit reached when trying to fill a plane with circular aggregates. Next it is shown that certain fracture behaviours of concrete can be simulated, be it that a virtual world is created. The role of the experiment is evident. Another role for the experiment is in the development of bench-mark problems in structural Engineering. These benchmarks also serve to improve the quality of numerical models.
Martyn Thomas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Engineering Judgement
2004Co-Authors: Martyn ThomasAbstract:Engineers who develop safety-related systems are required to work to remarkably high standards: SIL 1, the lowest classification recognised by the international standard IEC 61508, requires a probability of failure/hour (pfh) of 10-5 or lower; and many systems are required to achieve several orders of magnitude lower failure rates than this. Yet SIL 1 is already so demanding that it is impractical to test a system for long enough to provide convincing evidence that the required failure probability has been achieved, and few systems have ever been mathematically proved to implement their specifications.Instead, safety engineers develop safety cases that argue, and seek to show, that the required pfh has been achieved.The safety authority then exercises their Engineering Judgement that the system will have the required safety properties. In the absence of convincing evidence, Engineering Judgement seems our only recourse, yet the great physicist, Richard Feynman, remarked in his book about the investigation of the accident that destroyed the Challenger space shuttle: "When I hear the words 'Engineering Judgement', I know they are just going to make up numbers" (Feynman, 1993).In the light of what we know, how should a professional engineer build and assure the safety of systems? Do we need different international standards and regulatory frameworks? Should there be international co-operation to develop the components and tools that could replace the proprietary, unsound and over-complex products currently available?
-
Safety Cases for Software-Based Systems
Safety and Reliability of Software Based Systems, 1997Co-Authors: Martyn ThomasAbstract:This is an edited transcript of the key note talk given by Martyn Thomas. The speaker reviews his role as safety authority within Praxis and discusses a number of issues arising from performing in that role. In particular the talk focuses on the legal framework that has shaped the UK’s current approach to safety, safety assurance, professional competence and the role of Engineering Judgement. The speaker then reviews the structure of safety cases and identifies a number of lessons learnt about their development. The talk ends with a discussion on the importance of safety management systems.