Skip to main content

Quantification of Prior Knowledge Through Subjective Probability Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Probabilistic Approaches for Geotechnical Site Characterization and Slope Stability Analysis
  • 1283 Accesses

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ang, A.H.S., and W.H. Tang. 2007. Probability concepts in engineering: emphasis on applications to civil and environmental engineering. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baecher, G.B., and J.T. Christian. 2003. Reliability and statistics in geotechnical engineering, 605 pp. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briaud, J.L. 2000. The national geotechnical experimentation sites at Texas A&M University: clay and sand. A summary. National Geotechnical Experimentation Sites, Geotechnical Special Publication 93: 26–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, Z., Y. Wang, and D. Li. 2016. Quantification of prior knowledge in geotechnical site characterization. Engineering Geology 203: 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, C.R.I., M.C. Matthews, and N.E. Simons. 1995. Site investigation. Cambridge, MA, USA: Blackwell Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, R.T. 1996. Making hard decisions: An introduction to decision analysis. Pacific Grove: Duxbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, J.M. 2000. Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical engineering. Journal Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 126(4): 307–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Ramly, H., N.R. Morgenstern, and D.M. Cruden. 2002. Probabilistic slope stability analysis for practice. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39: 665–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein. 1977. Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3(4): 552–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, D., and A. Tversky. 1992. The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology 24(3): 411–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, G.E. 1990. Knowledge of the origin of soil deposits is of primary importance to understanding the nature of the deposit. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists 27(1): 109–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R.M. 1975. Cognitive processes and the assessment of subjective probability distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 70(350): 271–289.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kulhawy, F.H., and P.W. Mayne. 1990. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design, Report EL 6800, 360 pp. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Inst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathworks, Inc. 2010. MATLAB—the language of technical computing. http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/, 9 Mar 2009.

  • Mayne, P.W., B.R. Christopher, and J. DeJong. 2002. Subsurface investigations—geotechnical site characterization, No. FHWA NHI-01-031. Washington D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phoon, K.K., and F.H. Kulhawy. 1999a. Characterization of geotechnical variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 36(4): 612–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phoon, K.K., and F.H. Kulhawy. 1999b. Evaluation of geotechnical property variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 36(4): 625–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rollings, M.P., and R.S. Rollings. 1996. Geotechnical materials in construction. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S.M. 2007. Introduction to probability models. California, USA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R.B. 1967. Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 729 pp. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanmarcke, E.H. 1977. Probabilistic modeling of soil profiles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 103(11): 1127–1246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanmarcke, E.H. 1983. Random fields: Analysis and synthesis. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Vick, S.G. 2002. Degrees of belief: Subjective probability and engineering judgment. Reston, Virginia: ASCE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vick, S.G. 1997. Dam safety risk assessment: New directions. Water Power and Dam Construction 49(6).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zijun Cao .

Appendices

Appendix 4.1: Questionnaire for Implementing the Equivalent Lottery Method

This appendix provides a questionnaire for implementing the equivalent lottery method. The questionnaire starts with a question (i.e., Q1), that is used to determine a reference prize for the equivalent lottery method, followed by the second and third questions (i.e., Q2 and Q3) for determining 1 % and 99 % percentiles (i.e., \( \theta_{i,0.01} \) and \( \theta_{i,0.99} \)) of the variable \( \theta_{i} \) concerned, respectively. Then, the fourth question (i.e., Q4) can be used to estimate the 50 % percentile (i.e., \( \theta_{i,0.5} \)) of \( \theta_{i} \) if sufficient information on \( \theta_{i} \) is available. The questionnaire can be continued to determine percentiles of \( \theta_{i} \) progressively until engineers believe that there is no sufficient information on \( \theta_{i} \) to balance the two lotteries in the equivalent lottery method for a given range of \( \theta_{i} \).

Questionnaire

  • Q1: What is the prize that you want recently? Please write it down.

  • Answer: \( A_{1} \)

  • Q2: What is the minimum possible value of \( \theta_{i} \)?

  • Answer: \( A_{2} \)

  • Q3: What is the maximum possible value of \( \theta_{i} \) ?

  • Answer: \( A_{3} \)

  • Q4: There are two lotteries as follows.

  • Lottery 1:

    • Win \( A_{1} \) if \( A_{2} \le \theta_{i} \le a_{s} \) occurs.

    • Win nothing if \( a_{s} < \theta_{i} \le A_{3} \) occurs.

  • Lottery 2:

    • Win \( A_{1} \) or nothing equally likely.

Please adjust the value a s from \( A_{3} \) to \( A_{2} \) gradually until you feel indifferent between the two lotteries. Please write down the resulting value of a s and denote it by \( A_{4} \).

Note that the questionnaire shall be continued to determine percentiles of \( \theta_{i} \) progressively using different ranges of \( \theta_{i} \) in the equivalent lottery method if there is sufficient information on \( \theta_{i} \) to balance the two lotteries for a given range of \( \theta_{i} \).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Zhejiang University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cao, Z., Wang, Y., Li, D. (2017). Quantification of Prior Knowledge Through Subjective Probability Assessment. In: Probabilistic Approaches for Geotechnical Site Characterization and Slope Stability Analysis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52914-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52914-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-52912-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-52914-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics