Lyceum 2021 | Вместе в завтрашний день

Знание условий геологической среды имеет решающее значение для успешного геотехнического анализа и проектирования.

Все же геомеханические свойства по своей природе изменчивы, и их трудно узнать, что приводит к неопределенности. Как же тогда мы сможем правильно понять геотехнический риск? На этом занятии представлено средство для характеристики риска как функции взаимосвязи между неопределенностями — представлены разделы для набора инструментов, доступных специалистам в области геонаук и инженерной геологии для устранения неопределенности в оценке рисков, и предложена структура, которая сопоставляет инструменты с характером риска в целях улучшения результатов этой оценки.

Обзор

спикеров

Рэй Йост (Ray Yost)
Главный инженер‑геомеханик, Advisian

КРИС КЕЛЛН (CHRIS KELLN)
Директор по геотехническому анализу, GeoStudio — Seequent

Продолжительность

30 минут

Смотреть больше материалов Lyceum

Lyceum 2021

Узнайте больше о решении Seequent для горнодобывающей промышленности

Узнать больше

Расшифровка видеозаписи

[00:00:00.079] 
(upbeat music)<!— wpml:html_fragment —>
[00:00:10.170] 
<encoded_tag_open />v -<encoded_tag_closed />Hello and welcome to this presentation<encoded_tag_open />/v<encoded_tag_closed />
[00:00:11.950] 
on understanding geotechnical risk.
[00:00:14.480] 
My name is Chris Kelin,
[00:00:15.650] 
I’m the director of Geotechnical Analysis
[00:00:17.763] 
for the GeoStudio business unit here at Seequent.
[00:00:20.800] 
And I have the pleasure of introducing our speaker,
[00:00:23.380] 
Dr. Ray Yost.
[00:00:24.929] 
Ray has nearly 20 years of experience
[00:00:27.200] 
working in the fields of geology, hydrogeology,
[00:00:29.590] 
and geotechnical engineering
[00:00:31.720] 
for the civil and mining sectors.
[00:00:33.970] 
His career has included tenures
[00:00:35.920] 
at Oregon Department of Transportation,
[00:00:38.630] 
Rio Tinto minerals, Teck Resources
[00:00:41.770] 
and more recently, as a principal geotechnical engineer
[00:00:44.844] 
at Advisian.
[00:00:46.410] 
In this role,
[00:00:47.710] 
Ray serves as a subject matter expert
[00:00:49.870] 
for a wide range of engineering applications,
[00:00:52.570] 
including underground mining,
[00:00:54.430] 
surface mine design, tailing storage facilities,
[00:00:58.010] 
geo-hazard management, and much more.
[00:01:01.160] 
Today Ray will talk to us
[00:01:03.670] 
about a framework for understanding risk
[00:01:06.660] 
in geotechnical engineering.
[00:01:08.670] 
Ray, over to you.
[00:01:11.372] 
<encoded_tag_open />v -<encoded_tag_closed />Thank you, Chris.<encoded_tag_open />/v<encoded_tag_closed />
[00:01:14.070] 
So my talk is about understanding geotechnical risk
[00:01:16.607] 
and the corresponding uncertainty we often face.
[00:01:19.250] 
It’s a structure for understanding uncertainty.
[00:01:21.867] 
The next slide, please.
[00:01:24.920] 
It starts us with this idea
[00:01:26.930] 
that small data sets and the corresponding uncertainty
[00:01:30.160] 
that comes with them
[00:01:30.993] 
are a common circumstance in geological engineering.
[00:01:34.160] 
And by small data sets,
[00:01:35.540] 
I mean, either actual the small number of values
[00:01:38.210] 
that we might have,
[00:01:39.630] 
or small in a sense of a sample to volume ratio.
[00:01:42.360] 
We’re trying to characterize a very large volume of ground
[00:01:44.598] 
with a very small number of data points.
[00:01:48.390] 
And it creates two problems these small data sets
[00:01:50.960] 
in understanding risk.
[00:01:52.850] 
The first is pretty immediate.
[00:01:54.460] 
I mean, we have an analysis to do,
[00:01:55.790] 
we only have a few data points to choose from,
[00:01:58.580] 
and we have to pick an appropriate point
[00:02:00.700] 
that we think represents the ground conditions
[00:02:03.060] 
or wherever else we’re trying to characterize.
[00:02:05.770] 
The second problem is less immediate,
[00:02:08.730] 
but ultimately it’s a lot more important.
[00:02:11.840] 
And it’s the focus of this talk really.
[00:02:14.370] 
Because in selecting this value,
[00:02:18.270] 
what we’re doing is we’re making some assumptions
[00:02:20.180] 
about that range of data.
[00:02:22.430] 
And that goes into our analysis,
[00:02:23.800] 
and that goes into our risk quantification.
[00:02:26.130] 
And ultimately that goes to our resource allocation
[00:02:29.180] 
that we have for mitigating that risk.
[00:02:32.640] 
And we have this now line
[00:02:34.970] 
between the inherent uncertainty that we’re dealing with
[00:02:37.910] 
from these small datasets,
[00:02:39.800] 
all the way to the end,
[00:02:40.720] 
where we’re actually allocating resources
[00:02:42.610] 
to mitigating that problem.
[00:02:46.230] 
So it’s really important to understand
[00:02:49.100] 
how we think about uncertainty
[00:02:51.430] 
so that when we get to this resource allocation,
[00:02:53.770] 
we’re actually applying optimal levels
[00:02:55.680] 
of mitigation to a problem.
[00:02:58.870] 
Next slide.
[00:03:02.760] 
So one of the things
[00:03:04.040] 
its not that when we say uncertainty,
[00:03:05.970] 
it’s not just this big black box of unknowns, this void.
[00:03:11.390] 
One of the advantages we have in geomechanics
[00:03:13.680] 
is that a lot of our data sets,
[00:03:15.120] 
or rather, the types of data and information we use
[00:03:18.260] 
are fairly quantitative.
[00:03:20.220] 
And so, because of that,
[00:03:21.960] 
we can develop this relationship
[00:03:23.300] 
between the little things that we know
[00:03:25.660] 
that the small data set that we have,
[00:03:27.810] 
and this larger uncertainty
[00:03:29.520] 
about what the possible range could be.
[00:03:32.280] 
We have this idea that variation
[00:03:34.270] 
is the range of what we know, whatever that range is.
[00:03:38.560] 
And the uncertainty is what we don’t know.
[00:03:41.820] 
And given that it’s quantitative often
[00:03:44.030] 
we can have an open door or closed end to that uncertainty.
[00:03:48.370] 
A lot of times the minimum value is often zero.
[00:03:51.320] 
The other end, it can be open in certain circumstances,
[00:03:55.180] 
Q values, compressive strength, things like that.
[00:03:58.780] 
But at a certain point, it doesn’t matter anymore.
[00:04:00.930] 
Once you get past a certain data point
[00:04:03.303] 
or restraint value or whatever,
[00:04:05.500] 
it doesn’t matter if it’s 350 MPa or 325 MPa,
[00:04:09.980] 
it’s strong enough, basically.
[00:04:12.550] 
So when we start to overlay these two,
[00:04:15.340] 
we see that this is a useful building block now
[00:04:17.760] 
for understanding risk,
[00:04:19.960] 
because we have this chunk of certainty or knowns
[00:04:23.310] 
in the middle,
[00:04:24.143] 
and then a chunk of a uncertainty around the sides.
[00:04:28.050] 
Go to the next slide, please.
[00:04:31.400] 
It’s a simple diagram,
[00:04:32.604] 
and it’s going to be the basis for what I’m talking about
[00:04:35.160] 
with respect to risk.
[00:04:36.470] 
But I’ve started off right away
[00:04:38.040] 
with this very idealistic version of what this looks like.
[00:04:41.020] 
I’ve got this range of variation that we know in the middle
[00:04:45.905] 
bounded by this equal ranges of uncertainty on either end.
[00:04:50.660] 
Chances are going to be a lot better actually
[00:04:52.930] 
that there’s an asymmetry involved.
[00:04:55.170] 
Either there’s going to be a lot more uncertainty
[00:04:57.450] 
on one end or the other.
[00:04:59.740] 
And this is going to, again,
[00:05:01.060] 
influence how we think about risk
[00:05:02.720] 
as a function of uncertainty.
[00:05:05.330] 
Now I’ve talked about this being quantitative information.
[00:05:09.580] 
So it’s easy to think about this
[00:05:11.850] 
in terms of a number line and zero at the left side
[00:05:15.490] 
and whatever the maximum value is at the right side.
[00:05:19.600] 
And that’s okay to think about it that way.
[00:05:22.280] 
Since we’re talking about risk though,
[00:05:24.250] 
and sometimes low values can be lower risk
[00:05:26.370] 
or high values can be lower risk.
[00:05:28.968] 
It’s best not to think about it necessarily as numbers
[00:05:32.210] 
just as relative better or worse
[00:05:35.090] 
in terms of where this certainty lies.
[00:05:40.950] 
There’s also a possibility where it could be gapped.
[00:05:43.690] 
We could have some sort of chunk of what we know
[00:05:46.300] 
and the uncertainty, another chunk of what we know again,
[00:05:49.830] 
and then uncertainty on either side of that.
[00:05:52.683] 
For the purposes of this talk
[00:05:54.590] 
and just to simplify matters a little bit,
[00:05:56.640] 
I’m going treat this as basically a bi-modal variation.
[00:06:00.500] 
And we just have the same sort of circumstance.
[00:06:03.870] 
There’s a range of certainty that we know about or we know,
[00:06:07.470] 
and then a range of uncertainty on either side of it.
[00:06:10.240] 
Next slide please.
[00:06:13.910] 
So now we want to talk about upside or downside asymmetry.
[00:06:17.210] 
So I’ve talked about this idea
[00:06:18.590] 
that we can have significantly
[00:06:21.450] 
more uncertainty on one side or the other
[00:06:23.640] 
of our range of what we know.
[00:06:26.850] 
And to do that,
[00:06:27.683] 
we want to think about this critical value,
[00:06:29.820] 
this concept of a critical value.
[00:06:31.470] 
This is the value at which
[00:06:34.550] 
if you have an input value,
[00:06:36.270] 
you’re going to get an output value.
[00:06:38.150] 
And if you put in a lower input value,
[00:06:39.840] 
you will get a worse answer.
[00:06:40.950] 
Or anything to the left of that will be worse.
[00:06:44.960] 
Anything to the right is better.
[00:06:46.370] 
So this is the value.
[00:06:48.030] 
I mean, probably the easiest way to think about it
[00:06:49.690] 
is, say a stability analysis,
[00:06:52.310] 
and you need a certain compressive strength
[00:06:53.840] 
to produce a factor of safety.
[00:06:56.750] 
So if you have a less compressive strength
[00:06:58.180] 
or a lower compressive strength,
[00:06:59.730] 
you’ll get a worse factor of safety,
[00:07:01.461] 
and a higher compressive strength
[00:07:03.530] 
is a better factor of safety.
[00:07:05.810] 
So it’s this critical value.
[00:07:06.957] 
And now we can start to see where does our variation lie
[00:07:10.260] 
and versus where does our uncertainty lie
[00:07:12.160] 
relative to this critical value?
[00:07:15.111] 
So we can have asymmetric downside risk,
[00:07:18.090] 
we’re basically what we don’t know makes the problem worse,
[00:07:22.360] 
or asymmetric upside risk,
[00:07:24.070] 
what we don’t know makes the problem better
[00:07:26.030] 
relative to this critical value.
[00:07:29.290] 
Next slide, please.
[00:07:32.830] 
Now we want to talk about magnitude of uncertainty.
[00:07:35.750] 
How big is this range?
[00:07:38.170] 
We can have of course,
[00:07:39.480] 
significant downside uncertainty
[00:07:41.820] 
in the case that I’ve shown.
[00:07:43.490] 
There’s a lot of uncertainty below this critical value,
[00:07:46.676] 
or we can have minor downside uncertainty.
[00:07:49.500] 
There’s just a little bit.
[00:07:51.340] 
Again, if we think about
[00:07:52.921] 
a lot of different geomechanical data,
[00:07:55.900] 
the minimum value is zero.
[00:07:57.660] 
So if the far lowest known point is slightly more than zero,
[00:08:02.210] 
yeah, there’s some uncertainty,
[00:08:03.250] 
maybe there’s a value that would fit into that range,
[00:08:05.660] 
but it’s a pretty small range
[00:08:07.970] 
between zero and whatever our minimum value is.
[00:08:11.020] 
So again, for the purposes of this talk
[00:08:13.420] 
and to keep things simple,
[00:08:15.070] 
if we have minor downside uncertainty,
[00:08:17.020] 
I’m not even going to think about that as uncertainty,
[00:08:19.270] 
it’s just treated with extending your variation
[00:08:23.230] 
a little bit more.
[00:08:24.730] 
Really the purpose of this
[00:08:25.860] 
and talking about risk and uncertainty
[00:08:27.560] 
is talking about circumstances
[00:08:29.250] 
where we have significant
[00:08:30.930] 
either downside or upside uncertainty,
[00:08:33.470] 
where we have a lot of unknowns on one side or the other
[00:08:36.850] 
of that critical value.
[00:08:38.810] 
Next slide, please.
[00:08:42.110] 
Now, of course,
[00:08:42.943] 
there’s a sensitivity too that we have to consider.
[00:08:45.320] 
This is how sensitive is the output value
[00:08:48.650] 
to a change in the input value.
[00:08:51.260] 
We can have circumstances
[00:08:52.910] 
where our output is insensitive and reasonably linear
[00:08:57.339] 
as we make these changes and gradual changes
[00:09:00.380] 
in putting in a higher or lower values
[00:09:07.360] 
relative to this critical value,
[00:09:09.220] 
we don’t see much change or an answer,
[00:09:11.630] 
or we can have very sensitive
[00:09:13.410] 
and potentially non-linear answers relative to inputs.
[00:09:17.680] 
We can start to see
[00:09:19.980] 
that we either get a significant change
[00:09:23.222] 
in the slope of that output,
[00:09:25.830] 
or we have just a very significant sensitivity
[00:09:30.410] 
at the end of the day.
[00:09:31.730] 
So either one is a cause for concern in this case.
[00:09:36.740] 
Next slide, please.
[00:09:40.280] 
And then of course, risk.
[00:09:41.927] 
We have all of the different things around the probability
[00:09:44.750] 
and the range of inputs,
[00:09:46.200] 
and essentially what that value is going to look like.
[00:09:48.560] 
And the other half of risk is the of course, consequences.
[00:09:51.810] 
And our consequences can like sensitivity
[00:09:54.450] 
be low to moderate.
[00:09:56.460] 
As we’re changing that input value,
[00:10:00.020] 
we don’t really see a change in the consequence that much.
[00:10:04.210] 
So say again factor of safety in a stability analysis
[00:10:07.850] 
is our example.
[00:10:12.200] 
And we’re reducing that input material strength,
[00:10:15.440] 
and we’re getting a failure.
[00:10:16.780] 
But the size of the failure
[00:10:18.090] 
is not really changing,
[00:10:19.670] 
the run-out distance isn’t changing.
[00:10:21.780] 
We’re not really seeing huge differences
[00:10:24.640] 
in the consequences of that,
[00:10:26.900] 
even though the factor of safety might be dropping,
[00:10:28.780] 
it’s not really having an effect
[00:10:30.290] 
on what the impacts of that would be.
[00:10:33.213] 
So we can have this lower,
[00:10:35.330] 
and again, linear consequences
[00:10:37.500] 
as we go down this potential range of uncertainty,
[00:10:42.396] 
or we can have very high consequences,
[00:10:44.620] 
and even non-linear consequences again.
[00:10:48.060] 
Now one note on the consequences,
[00:10:50.150] 
we have both downside consequences.
[00:10:53.230] 
These are often going to take
[00:10:54.230] 
the form of unmitigated liability.
[00:10:56.560] 
And why I say liability instead of risk,
[00:10:58.740] 
is that it’s sort of the next piece.
[00:11:02.740] 
Things could be worse than we assume,
[00:11:05.410] 
higher risks, and then these risks
[00:11:07.330] 
haven’t been attenuated or mitigated
[00:11:09.040] 
because we aren’t aware of them,
[00:11:11.610] 
and that’s going to create a liability.
[00:11:13.290] 
So that’s the downside consequences,
[00:11:15.490] 
this unmitigated liability.
[00:11:17.830] 
And the upside consequences are going to be more
[00:11:19.950] 
in the form of opportunity costs.
[00:11:22.630] 
Essentially we could have had a leaner, meaner construction
[00:11:27.490] 
of whatever sort.
[00:11:28.323] 
We didn’t have to have a to have slope angle that was that shallow.
[00:11:32.660] 
We didn’t have to have an embankment that was that big.
[00:11:35.290] 
We dedicated resources to something
[00:11:37.030] 
that we didn’t need to necessarily
[00:11:38.880] 
to achieve our desired outcome in terms of safety.
[00:11:42.900] 
Next slide, please.
[00:11:47.000] 
So given this construct with sensitivity,
[00:11:50.230] 
greater or lesser than,
[00:11:52.210] 
the asymmetry in the outcome upside or downside,
[00:11:57.370] 
and then the consequences either higher or lower.
[00:12:00.310] 
We have this box of possibilities
[00:12:02.040] 
in terms of these risks scenarios now,
[00:12:04.410] 
and uncertainty scenarios
[00:12:06.790] 
that we’ve got eight different circumstances
[00:12:09.510] 
that we can look at
[00:12:11.020] 
in terms of all of these different ways
[00:12:12.760] 
we can think about risk as a function of uncertainty.
[00:12:17.530] 
Next slide, please.
[00:12:22.180] 
So we’ve talked about now
[00:12:23.655] 
the first two pieces of that flow diagram
[00:12:28.070] 
that I showed in the earlier slide
[00:12:30.220] 
with uncertainty and assumptions.
[00:12:32.630] 
That’s how we start to think about risk.
[00:12:34.740] 
Now we talk about the analysis and the risk mitigation,
[00:12:37.670] 
and this is through the tools that we use.
[00:12:40.521] 
These are all these different tools
[00:12:42.250] 
that are available to us as geotechnical engineers
[00:12:44.670] 
to address this uncertainty.
[00:12:47.050] 
How do we think about uncertainty?
[00:12:50.980] 
I won’t say that this is the definitive way
[00:12:53.280] 
to think about these tools,
[00:12:55.620] 
but I will say that there is a continuum of sorts
[00:12:58.410] 
between all these different tools that we have.
[00:13:00.390] 
And this slide isn’t meant to capture all the tools
[00:13:02.830] 
that are available to us as geotechnical engineers.
[00:13:05.670] 
But to talk about them in terms of these broad categories,
[00:13:10.310] 
where we have tools
[00:13:11.520] 
that are based in inductive reasoning and inference,
[00:13:15.600] 
these are things like the first picture
[00:13:17.980] 
where we have something about A that we don’t know.
[00:13:21.110] 
This could be again, a material strength.
[00:13:23.850] 
We know a lot about A, or something about A,
[00:13:27.880] 
we tend to know a lot more about B
[00:13:29.670] 
including that material strength
[00:13:31.070] 
this target thing we want to know.
[00:13:32.510] 
And A and B share enough characteristics
[00:13:35.630] 
that we can assume that whatever material strength B has,
[00:13:38.560] 
A has the same strength or similar strength.
[00:13:42.320] 
We have tools that fall into this
[00:13:43.730] 
sort of proportional relationship.
[00:13:46.036] 
A is somehow relative to B,
[00:13:48.180] 
think about, we have a few compressive strength samples
[00:13:51.810] 
where we’ve incurred the higher cost
[00:13:53.060] 
to do the compressive strength testing
[00:13:55.380] 
and a whole lot of point load samples.
[00:13:58.250] 
And there’s a proportionality between those two.
[00:14:00.270] 
So we can look at the range
[00:14:02.250] 
of compressive strength variation
[00:14:05.800] 
as a function of the range of point load strength variation.
[00:14:11.160] 
There’s a lot more, of course,
[00:14:12.320] 
again, these are not meant to be exhaustive lists
[00:14:15.350] 
of all these different tools,
[00:14:16.440] 
just to get the sense of what an inference
[00:14:20.220] 
or inductive reasoning type of tool looks like.
[00:14:23.720] 
We have parametric tools, or these are basically
[00:14:26.880] 
this one of the kitchen-sink approach.
[00:14:29.310] 
We’re throwing a lot of different things
[00:14:31.460] 
in sampling from them into a bin.
[00:14:34.840] 
This can be a lot of different types of variables.
[00:14:37.330] 
And we’re trying to come up
[00:14:38.470] 
with some sort of parametric analysis
[00:14:40.980] 
based on Monte Carlo, Latin Hypercube sampling, whatever
[00:14:44.560] 
that produces this range of outcomes.
[00:14:46.900] 
And we can start to look at that range of outcomes
[00:14:48.970] 
and make some conclusion from that.
[00:14:52.730] 
There’s a lot of things around say subjective probability
[00:14:55.810] 
that might fall into this as well.
[00:14:59.220] 
A lot of different tools
[00:15:00.240] 
where we’re basically just looking at
[00:15:02.640] 
what the distributions are
[00:15:04.170] 
across a lot of different ranges of our variables.
[00:15:08.050] 
And then we have these direct
[00:15:09.130] 
or deductive reasoning types of tools
[00:15:11.977] 
where we’re just either looking at
[00:15:14.340] 
what information we have, this is the variation,
[00:15:17.180] 
or maybe we’re extrapolating from something.
[00:15:19.460] 
A lot of times frequency or recurrence interval
[00:15:23.320] 
might fall into these types of deductive reasoning tools.
[00:15:27.220] 
We have a bunch of data from a time history,
[00:15:29.455] 
and we’re going to extrapolate that out a little bit
[00:15:31.867] 
and pretty much this is what we can assume
[00:15:33.930] 
about the circumstance from the information we have.
[00:15:37.780] 
We could also assume some cases, just the minimum value.
[00:15:40.790] 
If we know that the range is bound in a certain way,
[00:15:45.940] 
it starts at zero, it goes to a hundred,
[00:15:48.120] 
maybe we pick one or the other
[00:15:49.340] 
as far as an upper or lower bound to what that would be.
[00:15:53.590] 
So these things as well,
[00:15:54.730] 
I’m going to argue, fall on a continuum.
[00:15:56.850] 
There’s not any necessarily hard lines between them but—
[00:16:01.940] 
Next slide, please.
[00:16:02.990] 
We will talk about the relative strengths
[00:16:06.140] 
and weaknesses of them.
[00:16:07.510] 
And again, not meant to be an exhaustive list
[00:16:09.780] 
just to illustrate that each of these has a place and a use
[00:16:14.480] 
in terms of addressing uncertainty.
[00:16:17.250] 
With inference and inductive reasoning,
[00:16:20.370] 
a lot of times we’re using a lot of our knowledge
[00:16:23.610] 
and understanding as geotechnical engineers
[00:16:25.590] 
to relate one thing to another,
[00:16:27.940] 
or use some other bit of data to modify
[00:16:33.330] 
or increase the precision of our estimate.
[00:16:35.342] 
We could say, if we don’t know a material strength,
[00:16:39.250] 
we can assume it’s zero, that’s pretty conservative.
[00:16:42.140] 
We don’t want to do that necessarily,
[00:16:43.990] 
so we’re using inference
[00:16:46.140] 
to increase the precision of that estimate.
[00:16:49.370] 
Of course, the weakness of this,
[00:16:50.620] 
it it’s really based on knowledge
[00:16:52.380] 
from practitioner to practitioner, that can vary.
[00:16:55.340] 
I might be really good at estimating material strength
[00:16:57.970] 
from all these other materials strengths that I’m aware of,
[00:17:00.640] 
the next person has maybe more of a limited expertise
[00:17:05.340] 
in that area.
[00:17:06.670] 
And you’re going to get very different answers
[00:17:08.190] 
from inference and inductive reasoning
[00:17:10.280] 
from practitioner to practitioner,
[00:17:12.110] 
probably the basis of a lot of arguments
[00:17:13.780] 
that we have as geological engineers.
[00:17:18.450] 
The direct or deductive reasoning,
[00:17:20.760] 
the strength there is that
[00:17:22.230] 
since you’re assuming either from what you know,
[00:17:26.250] 
or from more importantly from some end value of this,
[00:17:33.420] 
you sort of covered all the bases.
[00:17:35.330] 
You’re not going to be surprised
[00:17:37.140] 
by something that wasn’t captured in your assumption.
[00:17:40.130] 
The weakness of course,
[00:17:41.040] 
is that these can be fairly conservative estimates.
[00:17:44.730] 
With the parametric tools,
[00:17:48.030] 
the strength is that it’s actually
[00:17:50.260] 
kind of drawing on the strengths
[00:17:51.640] 
of both inference and inductive reasoning
[00:17:54.640] 
as well as direct and deductive reasoning.
[00:17:57.440] 
And so it’s pulling the best of each of those.
[00:18:00.770] 
The weakness is that
[00:18:02.230] 
this can require considerable time expertise.
[00:18:04.942] 
You would have to pull from a lot of different people.
[00:18:07.880] 
You’re going to have to deal
[00:18:08.860] 
with some of those issues around,
[00:18:10.450] 
again, both of the weaknesses of each method.
[00:18:13.760] 
The other one that it can cause
[00:18:16.490] 
is that you end up with this range of possible outcomes
[00:18:20.180] 
that’s going to vary
[00:18:21.900] 
from some extreme adverse outcome to extreme good outcome,
[00:18:27.224] 
and you’re going to have to make some decisions
[00:18:29.780] 
around which one’s going to be the appropriate outcome.
[00:18:32.610] 
How do you decide?
[00:18:33.500] 
Do you have a cluster of outcomes around a central value?
[00:18:37.490] 
And that’s a good thing.
[00:18:38.720] 
Or do you have these long tails
[00:18:40.790] 
that you have to make some decisions about?
[00:18:43.590] 
It can sort of solve some of the problems
[00:18:46.127] 
of inference or deductive reasoning on the front end,
[00:18:50.300] 
but cause more problems on the backend.
[00:18:53.230] 
So no one tool is perfect,
[00:18:55.990] 
but they all have their advantages and disadvantages.
[00:18:59.460] 
So next slide.
[00:19:02.580] 
So now we’ve compartmentalized
[00:19:05.200] 
all these different circumstances of uncertainty and risk,
[00:19:10.340] 
and now we have the different tools that we apply.
[00:19:12.930] 
And we’re going to start talking about
[00:19:15.100] 
how each of those tools fits
[00:19:17.030] 
each of these different circumstances.
[00:19:19.030] 
So we have that box of possibilities
[00:19:21.270] 
from the previous slide,
[00:19:22.190] 
and we split it,
[00:19:23.340] 
and we’re looking at the downside on the left side,
[00:19:26.140] 
and the upside on the right side.
[00:19:28.130] 
We can start to look at how these tools
[00:19:30.330] 
apply to these different circumstances
[00:19:33.140] 
as a function of sensitivity and consequence,
[00:19:36.490] 
and then upside or downside risk.
[00:19:39.310] 
So I’d like to talk about these for a little bit,
[00:19:41.950] 
and I’ll start with the downside risk
[00:19:44.160] 
in the lower left-hand corner.
[00:19:47.070] 
We have a situation where we have pretty low consequences,
[00:19:50.350] 
pretty low sensitivity, or in sensitivity,
[00:19:53.720] 
it’s downside risk, but essentially you’re not going to,
[00:19:57.380] 
because of this insensitivity and lower consequences,
[00:20:02.360] 
you can assume fairly extreme values
[00:20:05.530] 
without really any cost in terms of allocation of resources.
[00:20:09.220] 
So that’s a pretty good place for that tool to sit.
[00:20:12.650] 
In this middle band,
[00:20:14.087] 
we have either the higher consequences
[00:20:17.043] 
with the higher sensitivity,
[00:20:19.105] 
(coughing) excuse me.
[00:20:20.765] 
Some of these inductive tools are going to be more important
[00:20:24.680] 
because now either we have to think about consequences
[00:20:29.690] 
or we have to think about that sensitivity.
[00:20:31.330] 
We do want a little bit more precision
[00:20:33.394] 
in how we approach this.
[00:20:34.890] 
We want to be aware of implausible or extreme values
[00:20:40.320] 
and how those might affect our answer,
[00:20:42.065] 
but we don’t want to let them influence our answer too much
[00:20:46.490] 
because they could lead to such an extreme outcome
[00:20:49.250] 
in our risk assessment
[00:20:50.410] 
that we’re, again, misallocating resources.
[00:20:52.610] 
So we want to start using some of these inference tools
[00:20:55.140] 
to increase the precision of our input assumptions.
[00:20:59.400] 
And then finally, when we get to the upper right side
[00:21:02.180] 
on the upper right quadrant on the downside risk,
[00:21:06.698] 
it really speaks to,
[00:21:08.150] 
we have a lot of sensitivity, high consequences.
[00:21:10.870] 
We need to look at this parametric approach
[00:21:12.700] 
because we want to capture potentially some relationships
[00:21:15.970] 
between different, either within a variable
[00:21:19.410] 
or due to non-linear responses,
[00:21:22.330] 
or maybe some combination of variables
[00:21:24.315] 
that may not be intuitive.
[00:21:26.720] 
We really want to see what that full range of outcomes
[00:21:29.180] 
looks like.
[00:21:30.770] 
So for the upside,
[00:21:33.780] 
we have a similar set of different tools
[00:21:36.433] 
that are going to be applied to these different compartments,
[00:21:40.340] 
but a slight difference.
[00:21:41.602] 
If we start in the lower right-hand corner of this time,
[00:21:46.490] 
we have low sensitivity, low consequences,
[00:21:49.060] 
but because it’s more of a matter of opportunity costs,
[00:21:52.790] 
we want to use this parametric approach
[00:21:54.830] 
to understand those a little bit better.
[00:21:58.450] 
There’s some value in looking at those
[00:22:00.850] 
so that we’re understanding
[00:22:01.870] 
that we’re again, allocating resources appropriately.
[00:22:05.380] 
For these middle two boxes
[00:22:07.263] 
where we have the higher consequences, but less sensitivity,
[00:22:11.730] 
these again, these indirect and inductive reasoning methods
[00:22:14.950] 
are important to increase that precision around our answer.
[00:22:20.800] 
But once we get into the lower consequences
[00:22:23.620] 
with greater sensitivity,
[00:22:25.360] 
the direct and deductive approaches
[00:22:27.320] 
are more important to use.
[00:22:30.040] 
And of course, when we get up
[00:22:31.130] 
into the upper left quadrant there
[00:22:34.370] 
with greater sensitivity and higher consequences,
[00:22:37.760] 
we want to use those parametric approaches
[00:22:39.616] 
again, to understand
[00:22:41.520] 
if there’s some sort of non-intuitive outcome
[00:22:44.810] 
that we can experience,
[00:22:46.795] 
or to look at whether those outcomes are clustered
[00:22:50.400] 
around some sort of central value
[00:22:52.100] 
or have these longer tails
[00:22:53.610] 
that might be important to consider.
[00:22:55.650] 
Again, it speaks to
[00:22:57.600] 
how do we start to look at the tools
[00:23:00.410] 
versus the circumstance
[00:23:01.561] 
to properly mitigate risk
[00:23:05.930] 
or allocate resources to mitigate risk.
[00:23:08.730] 
Next slide, please.
[00:23:12.510] 
So where do we come to with all this?
[00:23:15.450] 
We can use this relationship between what we do know
[00:23:19.590] 
and the range of what we may not know or don’t know
[00:23:23.156] 
to think about how to characterize uncertainty
[00:23:26.930] 
relative to risk.
[00:23:29.520] 
And you can agree or disagree
[00:23:31.330] 
with any parts of this discussion
[00:23:34.810] 
or any parts of my presentation.
[00:23:38.160] 
What it does come down to
[00:23:39.410] 
again, is this fundamental idea
[00:23:42.290] 
that we can discuss this and go on and on
[00:23:45.540] 
and talk about our different approaches and whatnot.
[00:23:50.460] 
But we do have to think at the end of the day
[00:23:52.340] 
about that allocation of resources.
[00:23:54.800] 
And so the purpose of all this
[00:23:56.540] 
is just to highlight
[00:23:57.730] 
that there is this structure to uncertainty.
[00:24:01.081] 
There are impacts that the tools
[00:24:03.940] 
that we use as geological engineers have
[00:24:06.160] 
to how we think about that.
[00:24:07.750] 
And when we start to marry those two
[00:24:10.230] 
and look at the circumstances of uncertainty
[00:24:13.140] 
and the tools that we have for addressing it,
[00:24:16.790] 
we really want to make sure that that’s a good marriage
[00:24:19.900] 
in terms of producing this optimal allocation of resources
[00:24:24.970] 
at the end of the day.
[00:24:26.520] 
And that’s really the message of this entire talk.
[00:24:31.260] 
Next slide, please.
[00:24:33.870] 
Thank you for your time and attention.
<wpml_invalid_tag original=»PHA+» />[00:24:35.258] 
(upbeat music)

Понимание геотехнических рисков: Структура для неопределенности

Знание условий геологической среды имеет решающее значение для успешного геотехнического анализа и проектирования.

Обзор

Смотреть больше материалов Lyceum

Узнайте больше о решении Seequent для горнодобывающей промышленности

Расшифровка видеозаписи