MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimizing Earthmoving Job Planning Based on Evaluation of Temporary Haul Road Networks Design for Mass Earthworks Projects

2014· article· en· W1989218124 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chang Liu, Ming Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Construction Engineering and Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarthworksNetwork planning and designTransport engineeringGrading (engineering)TruckShortest path problemEngineeringPlan (archaeology)Operations researchCrewGridComputer scienceCivil engineeringGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a critical component of planning mass earthworks projects, designing effective haul road networks is conducive to delivering the project on time and under budget. The research reported in this paper proposes a grid-based temporary road network design method applicable to a site for which grading design has been completed. Further adding to the existing body of knowledge, a quantitative methodology is proposed for optimizing the detailed planning of earthmoving jobs based on a particular temporary haul road network design. Each job is defined in terms of the source cell, the destination cell, the earth volume, and the shortest-hauling-time path between source and destination. Through seamless integration of the Floyd-Warshall algorithm and linear programming model, the shortest average haul time for a truckload can be obtained while automatically fulfilling site grading design specifications. Based on the resulting average haul time, cost equations are defined to account for (1) the direct truck-hauling crew cost; and (2) building, maintenance, and removal costs of temporary haul roads. As such, the cost associated with executing the optimized earthmoving job plan over a particular haul road network design can be readily assessed, making it straightforward for project managers to compare alternatives. The proposed methodology is demonstrated in steps using a numerical example and further applied in a case study based on a real-world project in northern Alberta.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Construction Engineering and ManagementSame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207